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

61–70 of 492 posts

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

#61

Post by reaperducer »

_qulr wrote: post #53
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…

> People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed. >That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers. No, that was caused by a billion people buying shiny new mobile computers. They would have bought a lot of software in any case, even without an App Store. Ne…

People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed.

He's talking about when you used to have to pay $50 to $500 for software in a store, but the author was lucky to see $5-$10 of that.

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

#62

Post by dmitriid »

dragonwriter wrote: post #38
dmitriid wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And retail doesn't charge "0%" on boxed products Yes, they do, unless it's consignment model, which wasn't usually the case for boxed software. The retail sale happens after retail has made the purchase. It’s obviously usually at a higher price than the retailer paid, but they don't take a cut of what the vendor is asking for the software. They pay whatever the vendor (or, often in real retail, a distributor that s…

What a simplistic view of the world.

You, the seller of the product, have to decide what the final price is suitable for your product, among other things. Oh, you want to earn $60 per box? Well, good luck with that. After logistics, distribution, retailer (and/or possibly multiple resellers in between) margins your product will sell for, let's say $90. Good luck selling that to customers.

So, when you distribute your goods through the retailers, you will factor all those costs. You want to sell your product for $60 to customers? Subtract all the costs I listed, and you end up selling it to the retailer for a significantly lower price. Hell, if you're new to the market, you may end up paying the retailer an upfront sum to cover potential losses.

But yeah, retailers get a "0% cut" on your money.

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

#63

Post by dindresto »

nvrspyx wrote: post #34
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 disagree. This is an annoying compromise for something that doesn't need compromising. My phone's home screen is cluttered enough as it is and now I'll need separate apps for all the games in my Xbox library and those on Game Pass? I'll also need to download a redundant amount of code for each game and may not be able to play certain games due to Apple's arbitrary rulings? I'll have to dig through hundreds of games…

On a further note, what is preventing Stadia from running on Safari on iPadOS right now? I suppose it's making use of some non-standard Chrome only features?

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

#64

Post by floatingatoll »

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…

It’s worth its own front page post, since that’s popular for these today.

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

#65

Post by syspec »

toast0 wrote: post #51
1f60c wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... )

Using the Microsoft Store is totally optional. Selling software for Windows has rarely required any coordination with Microsoft other than maybe code signing with a cert from an approved CA. Exceptions include drivers, and Windows Phone/Windows Mobile 10

Using Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.

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

#66

Post by thewebcount »

They say:

> Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc distribution available to Apple Developer Program members.

Can anyone explain this to me? I have some AppleTV apps I’ve written for myself. I can run them on my AppleTV but I have to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days to continue using them. It’s a pain in the butt. How can I install these apps without a dev account and without having to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days?

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

#67

Post by reaperducer »

antibuddy wrote: post #35
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…

Apple does just the distribution. The promotion is still on the developer and you may not even promote your own services in your own app. It is also save to say that a lot of developers would like to do the selling themselves. Apple is not supposed to do the distribution for free, but 30% is really a lot, especially when they do unwanted stuff for you (the payment). Also the App Store really is the only way to get ap…

The promotion is still on the developer

Apple does plenty of app promotion, from promotions inside its own store to multi-million dollar television campaigns showcasing all the cool apps that are available inside the App Store.

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

#68

Post by easton »

dindresto wrote: post #63
nvrspyx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This is an annoying compromise for something that doesn't need compromising. My phone's home screen is cluttered enough as it is and now I'll need separate apps for all the games in my Xbox library and those on Game Pass? I'll also need to download a redundant amount of code for each game and may not be able to play certain games due to Apple's arbitrary rulings? I'll have to dig through hundreds of games…

On a further note, what is preventing Stadia from running on Safari on iPadOS right now? I suppose it's making use of some non-standard Chrome only features?

It is, the client won't launch in Firefox on Windows or Linux (for me).

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

#69

Post by syspec »

compscistd wrote: post #7
eadan wrote: post #2

Relevant 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…

Do dating apps fall into this at all?

Only if they're paying for dates

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

#70

Post by jfk13 »

est31 wrote: post #32
1f60c wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... )

They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading. This leads to Apple capturing a much larger percentage of transactions pertaining software for their devices.

> Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading

Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.

Post reply on HN