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

221–230 of 492 posts

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

#221

Post by nodamage »

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…

It's not. People attempt to justify it by claiming "you will make more money if you sell on iOS", but there are plenty of Android-only apps that are doing just fine.

At any rate, just because a platform is popular and will make you more money doesn't mean you have a legal right to force that platform owner to do business with you.

(Unless it is ruled as an "essential facility", which is what Epic claims, but I think is a huge stretch and not likely to be accepted by the court.)

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

#222

Post by makecheck »

nvrspyx wrote: post #34
emdowling wrote: post #18

The bigger story here is for game streaming apps (section 4.9). Previously Xbox game streaming and Stadia had been rejected as they were a single app that provided access to multiple apps. tl;dr the new rules allow For games to be streamed, but each title must be a separate app and run all in-game purchases through in-app purchase. They’ve also explicitly allowed for game streaming services to have catalogue apps tha…

I disagree. This is an annoying compromise for something that doesn't need compromising. My phone's home screen is cluttered enough as it is and now I'll need separate apps for all the games in my Xbox library and those on Game Pass? I'll also need to download a redundant amount of code for each game and may not be able to play certain games due to Apple's arbitrary rulings? I'll have to dig through hundreds of games…

While iOS 14 will help somewhat (App Library to gather things), I agree that one app per game is a big ask for streaming. Furthermore, I can just imagine a lazy Electron-type implementation making each “wrapper” steal much more phone space than it has any right to.

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

#223

Post by pier25 »

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…

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

Almost 80% of Fortnite players are on console, so I very much doubt that's even remotely true.

https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...

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

#224

Post by nodamage »

isignal wrote: post #97
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…

The anti-trust claims that succeeded against Microsoft involved Microsoft forcing other companies to ship IE instead of Netscape. The coercion of third-parties is really where the anti-trust violations came from. Microsoft also held 95% of the operating system market at the time which was a big factor in the outcome.

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

#225

Post by ethbr0 »

_qulr wrote: post #200
hn_check wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're claiming the nonexistence of something that clearly exists." You have become incredibly insincere in your arguments, or you are seriously misunderstanding this discussion. There are ARMIES of corporate developers making internal apps for corporations around the globe. I, like probably 80% of HN, spent much of our career doing this. That isn't commercial software. It has zero relevance to any App Store, Window…

> You have become incredibly insincere in your arguments, or you are seriously misunderstanding this discussion. Please refrain from personal attacks. As you noted in another comment, I'm primarily a Mac developer, and in my experience, the extent of the third-party Mac software market has often been vastly underestimated. Maybe it's just because people aren't familiar with it. There are of course large numbers of us…

There's still a thriving market for Windows software.

There's even a quote from Bill Gates in which he dismisses someone (Facebook?) as a platform, because the amount of revenue they skim is usurious.

He specifically cites Windows as a platform model because they could have absorbed far more rent from their developers, but chose not to.

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

#226

Post by simion314 »

Bud wrote: post #215
simion314 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Who claims this? Nobody with any credibility claims this.

I mean people here in HN, probably most of us here have the same credibility , this person said

"The problem with this logic is that every company is going to set up their own App Store. Microsoft, Epic, etc. Then for every app that I use right now on my iPhone I would have to source from several App Stores. It will make my experience very cumbersome. reply"

And this is proven false since the Google Store is still very popular and I don't see people having to source 5 apps from Google store, 5 from Microsoft, 2 from Apple, 3 from Adobe. With the Epic the situation is clear, this giants are asking too much just for hosting your application and the small guys had no chance to fight this , lucky for the developers Epic started this and as we can see from this article Apple is backing down one step here, other step a month ago ...

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

#227

Post by ryanbrunner »

damnyou wrote: post #142
syspec wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.

I'm really bothered by the whole notion of games as less important and "[more] optional". Playing games is a fundamental part of being human, and it is certainly more important than capitalism.

I don't think that's the point that was being made - Steam is optional not because the content on it is games, but because the content is PC games - i.e. content where there's no obstacles to distributing it yourself, or through other stores.

Any game developer could at any point opt out of using Steam and accept payments on their own site, or go through another store. Most developers don't bother because Steam provides enough value to make it worthwhile.

It's impossible to determine if this is the case with the App Store since competitors don't (and can't) exist.

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

#228

Post by ryanbrunner »

ancorevard wrote: post #16
chinathrow wrote: post #9

Earlier 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…

Do you think the marginal cost of distributing software for Apple even begins to approach the cost of housing it in a retail store?

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

#229

Post by ardy42 »

rriepe wrote: post #161
_jal wrote: post #122

Earlier 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 think it's the power dynamic. The marketing material doesn't need to be as good because they're (culturally) in charge now at the company. It used to be that engineering/design led the company. Now it's marketing and legal.

> It used to be that engineering/design led the company. Now it's marketing and legal.

Isn't that what people make fun or Oracle for?

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

#230

Post by cma »

megablast wrote: post #211
mthoms wrote: post #173

Here's a diff of the document. I'm not sure if it works on mobile: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/202009011909... What catches my eye, other than the "person to person experiences" and game streaming changes is the complete removal of the following clause in section 3.1.3(b) "Multiplatform Services": >You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app pu…

It says you can not treat apple customers any different to other customers.

Does that mean no discount for buying off-App Store?
Post reply on HN