Read on Twitter
I spoke about this today on the radio (and will be again tomorrow) and have some serious issues with the article itself and the driving force behind it from Hey. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56071437
So first off, the term âspy pixelâ makes it sound super sketchy and new. Almost like itâs some backdoor to spy on you in real time - every move you make etc. vibes. Itâs headline scaremongering tbh, tracking pixels have been around for years. And widely used.
Iâm not a fan of them either btw (you can easily stop them by turning off âload remote imagesâ) but what Iâm REALLY not a fan of is galvanising support using disingenuous arguments to drive your business, and weâve seen this by Hey before- last summer reference âomg Appleâ
For those of you not in the loop, hereâs the article. Hey implied that Apple didnât like their app so rejected it. Then campaigned hard cause they implied Apple took 30% of their profits. They donât. They take 30% of sales via the App Store only https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21296180/apple-hey-email-app-basecamp-rejection-response-controversy-antitrust-regulation
Now, do I think 30% for small developers is fair? No I donât. But with Heys numbers (and nothing stopped you subscribing via their site- Apple wouldnât have taken a cut) that starts to get to be a fairly big amount. I can see their point, but theyâre def bending the truth a bit
So, back to the article in question - it mentions BBC asked Hey to look into this. Iâve never seen tracking pixels referred to as âspy pixelsâ before - that I can only assume came from Hey. An email app, coincidentally, that promotes privacy.
Hereâs the thing though- I like the concept of Hey. *and* I agree (broadly) with both arguments. The issue I have is using a mistruth to get a result, even if itâs a just one, is a bit of a dick move and makes me really dislike your product.
