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

271–280 of 492 posts

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

#271

Post by dmitriid »

hu3 wrote: post #266
dmitriid wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That segment doesn't get a free pass lower fees. They get the same fees. The only difference: they can provide a log in without ability to sign up. Everything else is the same: the fees are the same, the prohibition to use and/or advertise payment methods outside AppStore is the same etc.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim... > Apple on Wednesday confirmed the existence of a program for streaming video providers that allows those platforms to bypass its standard 30 percent App Store fee when selling individual purchases, like movie downloads and TV show rentals. The program first became public earlier today when Amazon updated its Prime Video iOS and Apple TV apps to allow in…

These examples are actually a good example of Apple violating its own principles. Three out of a multitude of reader apps that don't get this preferential treatment.

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

#272

Post by crehn »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #163
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.

If I remember correctly, the SCOTUS reference dates back to when Steve Jobs was CEO. I am, um, not at all surprised he put that in the guidelines. The guidelines also used to say: > If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want t…

That sounds like a good guideline to be honest. Perhaps not the best-worded one, but gets the point across and avoids becoming another Google Play Store.

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

#273

Post by dmitriid »

canofbars wrote: post #267
dmitriid wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other apps like Spotify, Kindle, all the music streaming and audiobook etc.? Oh wait, they are not booted. > Other apps would get booted because they don't work without navigating elsewhere. No. "Reader apps" get an exception to this.

Those are all mega apps. If you try that as a small indie dev it won't work that way.

The vast majority of those apps aka "all the music streaming and audiobook etc" in my comment are not mega apps and work that way.

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

#274

Post by paxys »

scarface74 wrote: post #242
paxys wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no “go to settings”. Click the share button, Scroll up, click “Add to home screen”, click OK. The title is the title of the page.

And how do I do it from Chrome?

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

#275

Post by WilTimSon »

megablast wrote: post #206
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’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it. Which means different app reviewers will have different interpretations of it. A problem that exists now.

They know this and they don't care. It's not like Apple users can just go "well screw this" and download apps from a different source easily. They'd have to switch to Android to do it or have to be technologically inclined.

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

#276

Post by [deleted] »

jjeaff wrote: post #189
smnrchrds wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by ogre_codes »

cma wrote: post #233
ogre_codes wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook's action wouldn't effect Epic and vice-versa. The two are unconnected outside the fact that they relate to the App Store.

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

#278

Post by elteto »

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…

That quote even has its own wiki page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

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

#279

Post by nodamage »

hu3 wrote: post #240
nodamage wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't disagree that it's arbitrary, but the person I replied to implied Apple changed the rules specifically to block Hey's app, which is not correct.

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

#280

Post by _qulr »

_qulr wrote: post #252
hn_check wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't a personal attack whatsoever. Saying that the market is a wasteland doesn't eliminate the occasional tiny oasis. But compared to the size of the userbase, the market was and remains tiny. People are postulating about some magical greener pastures when the evidence right in front of our eyes, and through the history of the platform, is that it is a fantasy. Jobs is a good proxy. Through the entirety of my…

> That wasn't a personal attack whatsoever. "You have become incredibly insincere in your arguments" > Tiny, micro-boutiques that are a little sliver of marginal prosperity in a desolate wasteland of failure. I would rephrase this to say you're talking about small businesses, which are not sexy or well known, but are both widespread and crucial to the entire economic foundation of the United States. Unfortunately, Ap…

I would also say, since you mentioned developers making internal corporate apps, that the App Store doesn't really help them at all, and in fact makes their life more difficult, especially on a locked down software platform such as iOS, where you have to jump through all of Apple's hoops just to get your software from one computer to another.

Remember how Apple temporarily shut down a lot of Facebook by revoking their enterprise certificate? We can quibble about whether Facebook "deserved" it, but why is internal software even subject to those restrictions in the first place. I certainly wouldn't call that "liberation".

Post reply on HN