Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please explain? It doesn't want to handle the money when you rent a hooker.
But what if I want one-to-few or even one-to-many experience?
That's just like Apple fucking its developers. One to many.
Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
181–190 of 492 posts
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#182> 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…
Interesting that the film at issue in the Supreme Court case, in which 6/9 justices disagreed about the reasons why it should or shouldn't be censored, is today available on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/fr/movie/les-amants/id1112874509?l=...
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.
Sure you can avoid their fee. See how many customers you will get if you force them to side load - ask Epic.
Funny, some Apple fanboys claim that if side-loading is allowed the the Apple Store will get empty and you get 10 new App Stores and others like you claim the reverse (I agree with you, allowing side loading and other stores will not empty the main store)
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's arbitrary - the whole fee structure of the app store (stores, to be fair) is arbitrary. 5% could be more than enough for everyone, but no, it has to be 30%...
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…
> Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software.
Well, that was before the Internet era, wasn't it. Personally I'm buying macOS software outside of the AppStore and I'm very happy with it. I also feel good that I support the developers directly.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#185Earlier 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.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that line's been in there since the review guidelines were public, years ago.
I found an article from 6 years ago that quotes that line, so at least since then: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2014/09/04/apple_new_app_s...
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#186This 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.
This has nothing to do with monopolistic power. Apple has had strongly opinionated/ arbitrary rules on the App Store way before they had anything which resembled a monopoly. The only difference is now that Apple has grown.
> The only difference is now that Apple has grown.
I mean, that's the whole point.
Now that Apple has the power to shut you out of nearly 50% of the US market if you don't follow their rules, those rules carry a lot more weight than it if was 5% of the market.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#187> 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…
> Human judgment needs to be a part of the process if a good experience is desired
Yeah just to second this I think that a lot of us coming from software backgrounds like to think of laws as being code, fully definable, automatable and capable of covering all edge cases. This isn’t the case. Judgement is required.
Not to ruin my own metaphor but I actually think there is a lesson about software as well. Software is not something capable of perfection. There is no perfect code, everything is a bodge, some bodges are more useful than others. You can’t cover every edge case. Software evolves and has flaws much like the product of natural evolution.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Everybody can't. The Hey.com email guys did the same thing. They allowed only signing into the up. No sign up.
Yes. And that's the gray area that needs to be challenged. Are email apps for private services reader apps? Yes, they probably are.
But the current guidelines specifically tell you what reader apps are [1]. So, no, there's no "secret agreement" between Netflix and Apple. They are a reader app by Apple's definition. Same as Spotify, Kindle, etc. etc.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 the…
Which is such a lie, because going to the press is exactly what gets a lot of apps re-evaluated and accepted.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
I remember that if I wanted to play anything other than Snake on my Nokia, I had to pay like $5 a game. And those games were even worse than the majority of 99¢ games on the store. You can argue lower prices lead to more crap, but it also encourages people to spend more. Most people would debate a $4.99 purchase, but think nothing of 5 99¢ purchases if done separately.
I think I agree with Lap Cat here. There's a place for cheap apps, but the problem comes for people developing productivity (or worse, vertical market) software that's going to sell "mere" thousands of copies, or tens of thousands at best, rather than hundreds of thousands or more. If you sell 10,000 copies at $50 a copy, you've grossed well over a quarter-million even subtracting Apple's 30% -- but if you're selling on a platform where it's hard to price anything over $5, you may have a problem, because one-tenth the price is probably not going to translate to ten times the sales.