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

71–80 of 492 posts

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

#71

Post by nvrspyx »

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?

I'm pretty sure it's using some Chromium-specific functionality, but I can't say what exactly since it's not publicly stated as far as I can tell.

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

#72

Post by drenvuk »

reaperducer wrote: post #59
jarjoura wrote: post #5

Earlier 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?

This is so arbitrary and petty It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

Can you please explain?

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

#73

Post by reaperducer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #46
pkaye wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 AF…

The discount bins you mention illustrate the previous poster's point: That developers used to get far less before the App Store existed.

If Electronics Boutique can dump a $50.00 game in a discount bin for $3.00, how much do you think it paid for that game in the first place? And how much of that amount went to the author?

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

#74

Post by thewebcount »

Steko wrote: post #37
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…

Games offered in a streaming game service subscription must be downloaded directly from the App Store, must be designed to avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers Imagine having to download every netflix movie separately from itunes. Well some progress is better than none.

That would be great! I wouldn’t need a Netflix account it sounds like. All the movies would be in a single place instead of spread around different apps. Honestly, I would love that! I’m not signing up for anything from Microsoft or Google, but I’d consider steaming a single game from Apple’s AppStore.

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

#75

Post by grumple »

reaperducer wrote: post #61
_qulr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What do you mean? Microsoft was certainly seeing more than 5-10$ per product sold.

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

#76

Post by ciarannolan »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #44

> 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 "explici…

I can't believe they were dumb enough to put that SCOTUS line in this.

It just plays into their current "meh, here's some rules but we'll do whatever we want anyway" image.

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

#77

Post by reaperducer »

paxys wrote: post #47
eplanit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All those little bits you stuffed onto the end of your pretend quote negate the "great web experience" portion.

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

#78

Post by reaperducer »

konschubert wrote: post #54
Razengan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a whole economy hostage. iOS is not even near to the "whole economy" of mobile software. Companies should just stop being based in the US. With what’s happening to TikTok and this ridiculous push for a Communist-style reappropriation of Apple’s platform, it seems that the US may no longer be a safe place for businesses to become too big in (except of course, the ancient titans of oil, guns, pharmaceuticals etc. tha…

If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection AFTER selling those roads to the public, then yea, call me a communist but I don’t think that’s good for the economy. And I don’t care if that company single-handedly invented roads - there should a limit to how far you can milk the society you operate in.

If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection AFTER selling those roads to the public, then yea, call me a communist but I don’t think that’s good for the economy.

Interestingly, in recent years such things have happened. In Chicago, the tolled Skyway has been leased to an Australian company. And all the city's parking meters have been sold to a Spanish company.

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

#79

Post by zaphar »

itake wrote: post #52
zaphar wrote: post #49

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…

I own a small app and iOS's free organic app search results drive 98% of my user base right now. I could see it being much more challenging to build an app if you have to develop alternative marketing channels. Personally, alternative marketing channels have yet to work for me.

Do you also have an android app? What I'm asking I guess is not why do you need the AppStore when you are on iOS. But more why do you have to be on iOS in the first place?

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

#80

Post by zaphar »

Razengan wrote: post #58
zaphar wrote: post #49

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…

> Why is having an App on iOS a must have? This may be one possible reason: https://i.imgur.com/kPXs9NO.png

That is the most compelling answer I've seen so far.
Post reply on HN