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

231–240 of 492 posts

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

#231

Post by cma »

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…

Apple controls the browser and cripples it for app use, like no multitouch in fullscreen pages.

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

#232

Post by summitsummit »

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…

(tangent)

the diff feature looks awesome, and is definitely a massive under-leveraged tool for us. respect for wmbs just went up.

https://archive.org/donate/ if anyone else also feels the same :)

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

#233

Post by cma »

ogre_codes wrote: post #178
smnscu wrote: post #13

Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to appear innocent in their ongoing legal feud with Epic.

From what I can tell, nothing here affects their legal dispute with Epic. They aren't opening up third party app stores which escape the 30% cut.

Facebook joined in after Epic and talked about how it made their one on one feature for tutoring/guitar lessons/etc. infeasible. This seems targeted at allowing that, with the one to many restriction still asking for 30% of school tuitions if they have a remote classroom app and offer payments through the app, or refuse to offer in app purchases of tuition for a free app.

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

#235

Post by Qahlel »

ranman wrote: post #196

Apple should make a profit for providing the platform. That profit shouldn’t be 30%... as a business operator I wouldn’t mind paying ~3%

iPhones are not free. There are paid apps.

Apple does not allow others to have a store in their platform, so why doesn't Apple pay extra tax to keep others out rather than taxing devs to be in Apple's store?

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

#236

Post by paxys »

scarface74 wrote: post #170
paxys wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We provide Safari for a great web experience too, but don't implement any standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, add to homescreen prompt, icons, launch screen, themes that would actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they should have said.

There has been the ability add to the home screen since day 1. There were plenty of website that calculated where the “share” button was in the browser app and had a pop up to add to the home screen.

There is no option to do so from any other browser other than Safari. And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok flow.

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

#238

Post by Qahlel »

itake wrote: post #129
zaphar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I have a react native app and it runs in both stores. The iOS users drive most of my revenue. My app could not survive without the organic search traffic from Apple. I guess I was a bit misleading in my original comment. 98% of my users come from iOS and Android organic search results. I haven't been able to find any profitable non-store marketing channels.

iPhone users tend to buy "more" from store. Android users don't really care about apps.

It's not Apple or Google. It's users who are paying.

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

#239

Post by Qahlel »

veilrap wrote: post #152
pier25 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Apple is doing nothing. They are just limiting the experience. Devs are developing those apps and features not Apple.

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

#240

Post by hu3 »

nodamage wrote: post #204
ffpip wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey is not a reader app, so the rule for reader apps does not apply.

Completely arbitrary rule btw.

A segment gets free pass for lower fees because it is too big to get kicked from iOS while others get shafted.

Just because they can.

Post reply on HN