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

151–160 of 492 posts

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

#151

Post by d0100 »

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…

My product needs to be in a user's device. It has to be there to work.

I don't care what device, it's features, security, app review, privacy, it just has to be a device.

My users also want my product in their device. They will download it from the App Store or from my website (sideloading).

Apple has no business getting 30% from a business that happens despite itself. Apple is just rent seeking and monopolizing access to people.

If Apple didn't gut their browser, it'd be fine.

My users want push notifications. My users want to persist data from my product in their device. They want to use their device's features with my product.

And they want native performance.

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

#152

Post by veilrap »

pier25 wrote: post #121
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? Because iOS represents about +60% of the revenue in the global mobile market, probably even more in some countries where it has a bigger market share. It's naive to think a business with a product/service can just decide to not have a presence on iOS. It's not even completely about the iOS revenue either, but the simple expectation from users that a service has to be on as m…

I'm more willing to spend money on iOS than other platforms, because of how Apple manages the platform. Forcing Apple to change their platform away from the reasons why people like it is absurd.

Apple does not have the largest market share by OS, Android does. Other app stores and sideloading are already very widely available.

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

#153

Post by madeofpalk »

ciarannolan wrote: post #76
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.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that line's been in there since the review guidelines were public, years ago.

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

#154

Post by scarface74 »

mrpippy wrote: post #22
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.

Uber (and any other "real-world" service) does not (and I believe are not even allowed to) use in-app purchases. This rule only applies to "virtually-provided" services.

The Uber app actually lets you use Apple Pay (as opposed to in app purchasing). Apple Pay charges standard credit card rates that you would pay anywhere.

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

#155

Post by zaroth »

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…

You have a get a paid Developer account. It costs $99/year for the Developer account which gets provisioning profiles that are valid for a year at a time.

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

#156

Post by isatty »

jarjoura wrote: post #5
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…

> 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?

> build something that is scalable?

That's probably the point - 1:1 experiences that are not scalable is a drop in the bucket even if they charge a 30% commission.

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

#157

Post by bagacrap »

Bud wrote: post #130
P_I_Staker wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not a monopoly. By definition. It's not even close. That's all I am saying. So we should stop with this absurdity of talking about Apple having a monopoly. Apple does not even have majority market share in any of the markets that it participates in.

If it's not a monopoly, there needs to be some other word for it. It's not equivalent to retail stores, where if you don't like Walmart's price you can shop at Target, because the cost of switching from one phone to another is prohibitively high. Until everyone walks around with an iphone in one pocket and a Samsung in the other, it's something akin to monopoly.

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

#158

Post by smnrchrds »

_jal wrote: post #122
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.

I'm really surprised. Did Apple shake up their PR or legal flacks? The language they've used recently (I'm thinking of the Epic stuff, too) feels different than their famously cool, considered tone; looser, more assertive, and much easier to argue with.

I disagree. They have always been this arrogant. You are just noticing it right now. Do you remember when they essentially said don't run to the press if we don't allow your app, it won't help you, which I personally interpreted as or else? Or how almost every time someone criticizes Apple they sandwich a one-sentence criticism between 50 sentences of praise because they know the cost of not doing that could be their entire business? Since the launch of iPhone, Apple has been the 800lb gorilla in the room and has acted like it.

EDIT: From App Store Review Guidelines on September 2014:

> "If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://developer...

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

#159

Post by colejohnson66 »

Bud wrote: post #130
P_I_Staker wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not a monopoly. By definition. It's not even close. That's all I am saying. So we should stop with this absurdity of talking about Apple having a monopoly. Apple does not even have majority market share in any of the markets that it participates in.

Depending on who you ask, Apple may or may not have a monopoly on their App Store. I’m of the opinion that you can’t just redefine a “market” to be what you want that would make someone a monopoly. Is Target a monopoly on what it sells in its stores?

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

#160

Post by colejohnson66 »

bagacrap wrote: post #157
Bud wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a monopoly. By definition. It's not even close. That's all I am saying. So we should stop with this absurdity of talking about Apple having a monopoly. Apple does not even have majority market share in any of the markets that it participates in.

If it's not a monopoly, there needs to be some other word for it. It's not equivalent to retail stores, where if you don't like Walmart's price you can shop at Target, because the cost of switching from one phone to another is prohibitively high. Until everyone walks around with an iphone in one pocket and a Samsung in the other, it's something akin to monopoly.

Oligopoly?
Post reply on HN