The press loves app developer David vs Goliath Apple stories.
Our now-shuttered startup Gliph brought in-app Bitcoin transfers to the App Store for the first time in 2013. Apple allowed the behavior for seven months before I got a call telling me it had to be removed.
Bitcoin was hot enough that our blog post generated a fair amount of press for our little startup. [1] and I also published the company's appeal publicly.
However, I did so with great trepidation about angering someone at Apple. [2]
Our approach did not seem to help things at all, though Apple did end up allowing the Bitcoin transfers to be brought back about 7 months later.[3]
--
One thing I find notable about this site and Hey!'s behavior on this is the scorched earth approach to the response. Basecamp seems ready, to go to "thermonuclear war" (as Jobs would say) on this one. People are hearing about Hey alright.
Hey's little mini site is convincing enough and it broadly escalates things. Particularly by using John Gruber's words against Apple, ouch!
This situation opens an unnecessary and distracting attack surface for Apple, in advance the most important developer event possibly in a decade.
Apple should have just let this app do its thing.
This whole situation reminds me of how Apple tried to make Apple Store employees pay for the time they were getting their bags searched. Bad PR that should never have happened. [4]
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel...
[2] https://19de10c0037730b31d67-c6cb9846d861a1213b31648a6cce64e...
[3] https://blog.gli.ph/2014/07/21/bitcoin-transfers-back-into-t...
[4] https://9to5mac.com/2015/06/11/apple-store-security-checks/
I honestly think they could turn it around and allow underdogs.
everybody roots for david vs goliath, but the story would change if goliath was actually defending the little guy.
maybe make in-app purchases cheaper for smaller apps.
or do something to take small reasonable developers under their wing. like first year 10%.
Another thing they could do, sort of the opposite, is to take 30% for smaller apps, but have a published scale as volume increases. presumably with scale apples costs would amortize, and developers would be in for the long haul.
They could also maintain 30% if a particular app has lots of chargebacks, like you would have with abusive apps.
> Hey's little mini site
There's a github link at the bottom. Doesn't look to me like there is any affiliation with Basecamp.
Edit: Your point still stands, however. DHH made it pretty clear when we said they'd burn it all down. (Don't remember the exact quote)
[site OP]
No affiliation with Basecamp.
You may want to clarify that!