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

91–100 of 492 posts

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

#91

Post by ajhurliman »

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…

I've had this same thought for a while now, anti-trust is completely tangential to the current situation; we need new laws. I'm just worried that the new laws are generalizable enough to serve their purpose without creating loopholes or stifling innovation.

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

#92

Post by d0100 »

jfk13 wrote: post #70
est31 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, then put a premium price on that feature and see how many actually pay for it

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

#93

Post by hn_check »

_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."

Independent software development was an absolute wasteland. It was extremely hard to get a user to give you money outside of a few extremely fortified ghettos (Steam, for instance, which takes a 30% cut as well). Begware was the most common tactic.

Even now with multiple options, while everyone piles on Apple, we should note that iOS was the single most profitable platform for Epic, across all platforms. Apple did more to liberate payments from a user than any other platform. Through trust, through standardization and normalization, and even through things like the wide availability of App Store gift cards (which are often heavily discounted - $85 for $100 of App Store gift cards at Costco many times through the year).

Elsewhere people are arguing that Windows is a wonderful platform because look, it's so open. Okay, go and make money from Windows users and see how great it is. Unless your name is Microsoft or Adobe, you are in for a really, really rough time of it. You'll get 100% of nothing.

As always, of course this is downvoted. Anyone looking to HN for rational, reality-based discussion might find it a bit disappointing. Here apparently the Windows ISV market is a vibrant, lucrative market. Everyone here is profiting from it, right? (LOL -- close to none of you are). This is farce.

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

#94

Post by cgriswald »

reaperducer wrote: post #67
antibuddy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it really promotion if you pay the same 30% cut as your competitor, but their app ends up on national TV and yours doesn't?

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

#95

Post by pantalaimon »

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?

Are you paying the person you date or are you paying the dating app?

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

#97

Post by isignal »

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…

You can’t keep looking at everything through the narrow definition of local choice. By that count, no anti trust action was necessary against Microsoft - users were always free to install Netscape. Comcast does not stop users from laying fiber to their home, so what’s wrong with Comcast?

The issue is whether making your own hardware also allows you to set policies on the software that can be run on it. One viewpoint is that these are separate industries and a dominance in one (smartphones) should not allow you to dominate the other (software distribution). There can be a legitimate discussion about what the boundaries are (operating system vs browser apps in case of Microsoft)

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

#98

Post by xnyan »

ForHackernews wrote: post #81
ciarannolan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's their treehouse; they can do what they want. None of these platforms are your friend. Half the Apple devs I know have some kind of stockholm syndrome, though.

Apple owns the platform. I'm still going to try and change how they do business because that would be better for me. Everyone is allowed to do that and there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to give up your power as a person to try to affect change, that's cool but I'm not giving up any non-immoral tool I have.

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

#100

Post by jkinudsjknds »

Razengan wrote: post #89
est31 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Not on the Xbox, which Epic doesn't seem to mind in regards to Fortnite etc.

https://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?...

I can buy fortnite for Xbox right here.

Post reply on HN