This sort of arbitrary judgments-from-heaven is a sign of monopolistic power. You only have a Hobson's choice when it comes to the app store.
Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
21–30 of 492 posts
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors but not build something that is scalable?
.
Uber (and any other "real-world" service) does not (and I believe are not even allowed to) use in-app purchases. This rule only applies to "virtually-provided" services.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's arbitrary - the whole fee structure of the app store (stores, to be fair) is arbitrary. 5% could be more than enough for everyone, but no, it has to be 30%...
Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software. People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. It's also not about the developers, the success of the App Store comes from Apple's users. They trust the App Store because they trust Apple's curation/privacy/security. That's what has caused this flood of softwar…
> Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software.
Zero %.
Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk. Were Apple buying units of software/service up front and the taking a risk reselling it, it would be valid to compare the split of end-user cost with classic retail, but Apple's not doing that, so it isn't.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#24Relevant section: 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. This is huge…
Once again Netflix is crowned as the biggest of the Les Incorruptibles on the App Store by Apple since they can get away from not only the 30% charge as it is a reader app but is able to roll their own payments on the web and still scale to many users without in app purchases.
There are probably more apps / companies who belong to this group due to secret deals by Apple, but now Apple says: No 30% charge for apps who's customers are 1-1. That's it.
Charging at scale without the app store tax is disqualified. But not for the Les Incorruptibles.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors but not build something that is scalable?
Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is. Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right? That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.
> Pretty ridiculous thought, right?
Yeah, because Apple isn't doing that at all.
What's more, it seems like the fee Microsoft charges for every sale in their Microsoft Store is also either 15% or 30%. (Source: the App Developer Agreement, https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE...)
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#26The bigger story here is for game streaming apps (section 4.9). Previously Xbox game streaming and Stadia had been rejected as they were a single app that provided access to multiple apps. tl;dr the new rules allow For games to be streamed, but each title must be a separate app and run all in-game purchases through in-app purchase. They’ve also explicitly allowed for game streaming services to have catalogue apps tha…
I still wonder why games are often treated so much differently than movies or shows today. They should've reached the same cultural acceptance by now and are often as much art as their non-interactive counterparts.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#27This sort of arbitrary judgments-from-heaven is a sign of monopolistic power. You only have a Hobson's choice when it comes to the app store.
Yes. This kindly-worded "Our way or the highway" is a hallmark: "If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too."
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#28Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed.
We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way.
We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressure. Because you get things like this - rules on Apple's platform that won't be applied to significant platforms, just the developers who are too small to have any influence.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#29Apple should just be forced to allow alternative app stores.
Yes, they will loose out on money and yes, this will dilute the iPhone experience.
But come on - That company is worth 2 trillion and it’s holding a whole economy hostage.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software. People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. It's also not about the developers, the success of the App Store comes from Apple's users. They trust the App Store because they trust Apple's curation/privacy/security. That's what has caused this flood of softwar…
> Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software. Zero %. Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk. Were Apple buying units of software/service up front and the taking a risk reselling it, it would be valid to compare the split of end-user cost with classic retail, but Apple's not doing that, so it isn't.
They may have meant mobile marketplaces before AppStore. Those charged anywhere up to 90%.
And retail doesn't charge "0%" on boxed products, or they would go out of business. Logistics, distribution, and store markup all add up to the final price of the product on the shelf.