[dustinmoris]

I'm probably in the minority with this view, but I do think that Apple's response makes 100% sense and is fair and reasonable.

- I don't like how everyone claims they want a 30% cut. That is factually not quite true. It is 30% for non subs, which I think is fair. If I want to sell a product on a specific distribution channel then the cut should represent the possible reach and sales opportunity. In the case of subs it's only 15%. This is quite different than 30%. 30% is only for the first 12 months and for a sub which is paid annually this is nothing. Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%.

- I have huge respect for DHH, but he criticises that Apple has published their response to journalists, which is a bit rich given that he started this "dog fight" in the public

- The apps to which DHH compares Hey with are very different in nature and all the mail apps he constantly mentions are also different in nature. They all implement the suggestions which Apple has suggested in their response, so it's really Hey who wants to be treated with different rules because DHH thinks his online status can bully Apple into giving in? Not sure if that is right

- Also I think it is possible to do both. You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public. This approach of not wanting to play by the rules, put them on fire and still publish an app whilst everything is burning seems like a weird strategy to me. Slightly unnecessarily aggressive in tone.

[take_a_breath]

==Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%.==

It’s a lot harder to gain critical mass when you are paying 30% directly to Apple, no?

== You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public.==

Make less money today while you fight the largest company in the history of earth in court. Meanwhile, Apple will just built a competing product and embed it in iOS (see: AppleTV). The rules seem to change while the game has already started.

[imtringued]

I absolutely despise Apple and will never own an iPhone but what they did here is perfectly reasonable. Apple doesn't force users to use in-app purchases. It only forces developers (not users) to provide the option of purchasing access to services directly within the app. This isn't eliminating any choices for users and Apple isn't inserting itself between completely unrelated businesses to extend their reach beyond the Apple ecosystem.

[_iwgf]

> The apps to which DHH compares Hey with are very different in nature and all the mail apps he constantly mentions are also different in nature. They all implement the suggestions which Apple has suggested in their response.

I can only speak to the app I'm most familiar with that DHH has compared it to multiple times. Fastmail. Fastmail's app lets you access Fastmail's email accounts, but not POP/IMAP accounts more generally. It doesn't provide a way of subscribing, and just loads to a login page when the app starts. It doesn't follow the suggestions they included in the letter, and I've seen DHH reference it multiple times.

For what it's worth, I've enjoyed Fastmail a great deal, and having an email client directly tied to the service provider has been great for me. I'm mainly concerned about this whole issue because of it's implications for new updates to Fastmail's app.

[garganzol]

>The apps to which DHH compares Hey with are very different in nature

Take a Gmail app. It is the same thing as Hey but Apple reviews it preferably on every submission.

Mind you, this is just a random coincidence and not a targeted discrimination.