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

101–110 of 492 posts

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

#101

Post by Shivetya »

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…

well at least he upheld the First Amendment when uttering that statement but the rest of his text basically shows he knew that First Amendment rights were more important than his moral code and asked if he could define what would cross the line he could not do so satisfactory.

Now as to Apple, I don't have to buy their products and if I do I know what to expect. If it really mattered or should I say bothered me enough I certainly would buy a different product.

Right now my Apple purchases are on hold for their virtue signaling and effective turning their backs on abuses in China and Hong Kong.

Apple Human Rights Warranty, Void where prohibited by law.

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

#102

Post by 52-6F-62 »

zaphar wrote: post #79
itake wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do they have to be or want to be?

If they want access to the market then it's a "Want to be" not a "have to be" because of the opportunities apparent.

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

#103

Post by monadic2 »

hn_check wrote: post #93
_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." 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 shoul…

Not sure why you're downvoted.

It seems like the unavoidable conclusion is that there are no longer any good places to make or find decent consumer software without having a corporate entity get their undeserving cut.

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

#104

Post by srtjstjsj »

onion2k wrote: post #40
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.

Stores buy products wholesale and sell them on, and accept the risk of the products not selling. Apple act as a middleman and and add on their fees, with absolutely no risk to themselves. They're very different business models.

That's not how IP publishing works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaindered_book

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-out_(recording_industry)

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

#105

Post by Bud »

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.

I've heard of this thing called "Android". From what I've heard, and I know that this sounds crazy, but it reportedly has a larger market share than Apple does in the mobile space.

So any arguments or comments here mentioning "monopolistic power" are, well, I want to be nice about this, but they are a complete fucking joke.

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

#106

Post by andreasley »

thewebcount wrote: post #66

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 havin…

Here you go: https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c

Ad Hoc provisioning profiles are usually only used for testing, since all of the target devices have to be registered in your developer account before signing the app. Also, Ad Hoc profiles expire after 12 months and the app needs to be re-signed and installed again.

You can install the signed app by using Xcode or Apple Configurator or "over the air" (see https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-ios-1524 for an example).

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

#107

Post by naringas »

macspoofing wrote: post #41
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.

what about forcing them to be developed in the open? (everybody get's to read and audit all their code and processess)

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

#108

Post by ffpip »

dmitriid wrote: post #36
rvz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's nothing "secret". Everybody can roll their own payment in the web. They cannot advertise alternative payment methods in the app . See Spotify as an example.

Everybody can't. The Hey.com email guys did the same thing. They allowed only signing into the up. No sign up.

Then Apple made up another rule saying ''You download the app and it does not work. Therefore it has to be removed'' .

Lets keep adding more rules and exclusions as time passes. That's the Apple way of doing things.

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

#109

Post by Bud »

zaphar wrote: post #80
Razengan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes. And it also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Apple deserves its 30% cut and is offering substantial value.

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

#110

Post by ben_w »

_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.

I did that. Kagi.com was my payment… handler?

https://web.archive.org/web/20100303221537/http://www.kagi.c...

$0.75 + (5…8)%

So any transaction less than or equal to the $2.99 tier would be just as bad (as in, it costs you at least 30% of the list price), even if hosting was free.

I’m also old enough to remember Apple getting involved in the fight over the In App Purchases patent: https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/08/lodsys-offers-update-on...

Post reply on HN