Live data from Hacker News

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

developer.apple.com

111–120 of 492 posts

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

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People are confused because promotion is a separate service that Apple charges separately from publishing.

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

#112
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…

> Independent software development was an absolute wasteland.

I had a 10 year career in that "wasteland".

> we should note that iOS was the single most profitable platform for Epic, across all platforms

Citation? From what I've seen, that's not actually true.

> Okay, go and make money from Windows users and see how great it is.

For a time, the Windows version of our product was my company's biggest money-maker. It seems that in recent years though Microsoft as a company has pivoted away from Windows as their primary product. Away from desktop, toward "the cloud". I personally find that unfortunate, but I'm not a stockholder.

> The whole torch mob anti-Apple angle seems entirely detached from actual reality.

I'm not anti-Apple, I'm pro-Macintosh.

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

#113
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…

Is there a (business, legal, etc.) reason for the distinction between one-to-few and one-to-many? Both are one to "more than one".

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

#114

> 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…

Not sure if what you're arguing against is judgment calls, or against the fallout of that supreme court ruling, but to address the use of judgment, the nature of curation is that it's not always something that can be put in a set of explicit rules.

There's always people that walk right up to and over the line and generally push boundaries and find loopholes, no matter how well written rules are. Human judgment needs to be a part of the process if a good experience is desired.

Now it can be argued that Apple doesn't execute on this approach particularly well, but the idea that they want to be able to make some judgment calls is perfectly valid and if done right leads to the best experience.

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

#115
post #105
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.

So there are two choices. That's not really that much better.

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

#116
post #110
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. 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…

> 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.

It's true that App Store has the best deal for payment processing for very low-priced apps.

But that's not truly a win for developers when the App Store itself caused the "race to the bottom". Who was selling 99 cent apps before the crap store?

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

#117

> 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 enoug…

Abuses in China? So what are you planning to purchase instead? Because Apple is doing better with worker rights in China than any competitor is.

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

#118
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…

> 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

Utter nonsense. Shrink-wrapped and downloadable software in the Windows world was all over the place using activation/serial codes either thru email or on a CD.

Two examples:

VueScan https://www.hamrick.com/

SnagIt screen capture (which is now cloud based, I think. I still use an old version)

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

#119
post #5
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…

> 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?

I think you're confused. Of course you can build something that is scalable. But if you do that, you will be relying on all of the massive strengths of Apple's platform to make that much, much easier for you to do. And so you will have to pay for that. Of course.

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

#120
post #70
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.

Hah, are you claiming people are that dumb and think "please protect me from my own stupidity"?

The enabling of sideloading on Android phones already comes with warnings written in plain language, and even if you want to install an app from e.g. the browser it asks you to give the browser permission to install apps, so it's pretty idiot-proof...

Post reply on HN