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

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

Qahlel wrote: post #238

itake wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by danShumway » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

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.

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #190

colejohnson66 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by ksk » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #136

matsemann wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's whataboutism. In this post it's about Apple. That others do it doesn't excuse it. And a big difference with Google is that you can sideload or use other stores on Android. And same on Windows, you don't have to use the store.

That's not a big difference, with Android, because nobody is making any money doing that. It doesn't work. I didn't mention Windows. I was discussing platforms where everyone takes a 30% cut. You may say this is mere whataboutism, but anyone who reads Hacker News knows that 99% of the anger and attacks on this practice are directed at Apple. Nobody bitches at Google and Sony and Microsoft for doing the exact same thi…

Post by heavyset_go » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

adamsmark wrote: post #28

Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed. We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way. We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressur…