Apple rejects Hey Calendar app from App Store

Stop us if you've heard this before — Hey Calendar has been rejected from the App Store, despite it clearly being allowed under provisions about apps used to access paid services like Netflix and similar.

It's a familiar saga for the developers of Hey Calendar — one of their apps has been denied a spot on Apple's App Store. If this seems familiar, that's because the same thing had happened to the company's email app, Hey Email.

Hey apps are free, standalone apps that access a paid service. This is similar to how apps like Netflix and Spotify function — the app is essentially a reader app that accesses off-device content.

In fact, that "reader app" concept was the argument that Hey used to get its email app added back to the App Store. And, it had a specific carve-out for that general class of app inserted into the App Store terms and conditions.

But on Friday, Hey and Basecamp co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson took to X to inform his followers that Hey Calendar was being rejected for the same reasons that Hey Email was.

Apple just called to let us know they're rejecting the HEY Calendar app from the App Store (in current form). Same bullying tactics as last time: Push delicate rejections to a call with a first-name-only person who'll softly inform you it's your wallet or your kneecaps.
— DHH (@dhh) January 5, 2024

He says an Apple representative told him that the app doesn't "do anything," and should feature an in-app purchase to enable full functionality. Without it, it would be ineligible for download.

The rejection seems contrary to stated App Store rules. There are explicit rules in the App Store Review Guidelines that state that "free apps acting as a standalone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VIP Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provide there is no purchasing inside the app or calls to action for purchase outside of the app."

By these metrics, Hey Calendar should be allowed on the App Store.

According to Hey co-founder Jason Fried, Apple said it would prefer it if the company bundled Hey Calendar into Hey Email as a single app. But, as Heinemeier Hansson notes in his X thread, companies like Google and even Apple are allowed to own separate standalone apps without jumping through any hoops.

Yes they do. Jason asked them on the phone: "If we just put all these features in the existing app, is that ok?". Answer: Yes. So Apple thinks separate apps for iCloud is better for users, but doesn't want competing services like HEY to be able to do the same? What? Why?!
— DHH (@dhh) January 5, 2024

The founders of Hey still firmly believe that Apple is overstepping its boundaries by enforcing rules on smaller developers that it does not implement on larger companies. In 2020, Fried made a statement expressing concerns that Apple inserts itself into critical developer dealings with their users, suppressing user choice and creating a rift that can be detrimental to customer service.

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

30 Comments

hmurchison 11824 comments · 23 Years

About 11 months ago

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones.

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere?

xyzzy-xxx 201 comments · 6 Years

Apple depends on third party software, they should allow this app. This is exactly the behavior that fuels the antitrust investigations!

elijahg 2842 comments · 18 Years

hmurchison said:

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones.

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere?

If they were inferior offerings how was it they were able to cannibalise Apple's sales?

A lot of the clones were excellent. That was the problem, they were faster, more feature-rich and cheaper than Apple's Macs.

This is different. Apple's incentive to allow vendors to sell on the App Store is increased sales of iPhones. Besides, Apple distributes Facebook, X and a multitude of apps completely free, so why try and force this small developer to pay especially when they've already got another app through with the "reader" clause? And considering the amount of trash on the App Store - and as the dev points out, Google has heaps of apps that could all be mangled into one. Why did Apple allow Messenger to be separated from Facebook?

ktappe 824 comments · 16 Years

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.
The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

mark fearing 441 comments · 16 Years

ktappe said:

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.
The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

I’m sure it was different for different people but the design firm I was at back then bought two and they were an ongoing nightmare of compatibility issues.