Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

developer.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 492 posts

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#41

Post by macspoofing »

adamsmark wrote: post #28

Platforms 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 pressur…

>Platforms need to be regulated

No. God no.

Regulation has its place. But regulation is also a slooow bureaucratic process. Regulators have no incentive to change with market conditions and in a fast moving industry will be a hindrance in no time. They also increase the cost of development benefiting the big guys that can afford an army of HR, Regulatory and Legal people to handle compliance.

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#42

Post by bww »

It seems to me like Apple has created the appearance of a new exemption without actually changing anything.

All of the example transactions in the guidelines (“tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training”), are for real-world services performed by people. In-App Purchases have always been specifically and exclusively intended for digital content. The introduction for the IAP section explains: “If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app […] you must use in-app purchase.”

Apple Pay is the Apple-provided payment mechanism that has always been used for real world goods and services on the App Store, for which all of the above examples would qualify.

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#43

Post by michaelmarion »

adamsmark wrote: post #28

Platforms 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 pressur…

Ben Thompson has argued for this, but more in the abstract: government is focusing too much on using preexisting legal frameworks to handle these issues. In reality, the right framework doesn't exist yet!

In the States, this is on Congress: we need new laws and a new process to sort out this flavor of antitrust issue. The current stuff on the books doesn't cut it.

Also of note: I'm also not saying we need more laws. It's not a question of to what degree we do regulate this sort of thing: my point is that we don't even have a process to think about the issues! It's totally archaic.

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#44

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

> We will reject apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.

This line makes my blood boil. Futhermore, later they define disallowed sexual content as:

> 1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."

Do they not know from which ruling that quote comes from?

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#45

Post by caleb-allen »

dindresto wrote: post #26
emdowling wrote: post #18

The 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.

Yes! Will Netflix's Bandersnatch require a separate application?

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

pkaye wrote: post #33
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk. I though they just returned unsold boxes back to the vendor?

> I thought they just returned unsold boxes back to the vendor?

Even in the cases where the vendor/distributor allowed that (and discount bins were a thing because they often did not, at least at no restocking fee), the retailer still accepted the risk that the vendor or distributor would be defunct. If they had a consignment model where they only paid contingent on a retail sale, that was different, but (at least AFAIK) that was never the norm for boxed software.

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#47

Post by paxys »

eplanit wrote: post #27
nimish wrote: post #21

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.

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."

"We provide Safari for a great web experience too, but don't implement any standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, add to homescreen prompt, icons, launch screen, themes that would actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they should have said.

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#48

Post by [deleted] »

1f60c wrote: post #25
mtgx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... )

[deleted]

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#49

Post by zaphar »

Here is a question I have not seen a satisfactory answer for. Why is having an App on iOS a must have? It seems like any discussion about the market fairness of Apples policies requires a shared understanding of how necessary the ecosystem actually is. If you can freely choose not to deploy to that ecosystem then you can vote with your "wallet" so to speak. If you can't freely choose however then there is an argument to be made regarding if they distort the market unfairly.

Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

#50

Post by setpatchaddress »

dragonwriter wrote: post #23
ancorevard wrote: post #16

Earlier 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.

That is a historically inaccurate take. s/retail/distributor/ if it helps. The point is that a software developer would have been very lucky to earn a significant fraction of the retail price. 70%? Not even close. The App Store completely reversed this model.

That said, it's valid to acknowledge this history and still think 30% is too much for distribution overhead in 2020. I do not have an opinion on the latter.

Post reply on HN