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

281–290 of 492 posts

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

#281

Post by ksk »

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…

>They trust the App Store because they trust Apple's curation/privacy/security. That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers. Trust doesn't come cheap.

People buy way more on Amazon, and Amazon doesn't rob 30% of your sales.

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

#282

Post by cgriswald »

nodamage wrote: post #255
cgriswald wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an incredibly weak claim. The statement is certainly true for some value of 'many', but then so is its opposite. Unless many means, "the vast majority", which certainly is not clear and definitely would need some support, it is a meaningless claim. It is also difficult to see how it is a feature. In a world where additional app stores or side-loading was enabled for those that want it, it wouldn't somehow remo…

I mean, presumably the people who really cared about side-loading decided to buy alternative phones instead. So, of iPhone buyers, you're left with two remaining groups: 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device. 2. People who don't care about side-loading at all.

The assertion was that there is a group that values the lack of side-loading, which your post doesn't really address, so I'm not sure why you've responded to me.

In any case:

> the people who really cared about side-loading

> 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device.

This is not a useful model. If I choose feature X over feature Y, all you can really tell from that is that value(X) > value(Y). It doesn't tell you whether value(Y) To illustrate, if a product offers side-loading but kills your mother on first use, if you choose a different product it doesn't mean you don't "really" care about side-loading. You might genuinely care a tremendous amount, but sacrificing your mother isn't an option for you.

I differentiate between products that I buy because they are a good option for me and products I buy because they are the least bad product for me. Phones are currently in the second group. It's not that I don't care about side-loading. It's that all issues combined, IOS is less bad for my purposes and preferences than Android.

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

#283

Post by bigtones »

reaperducer wrote: post #59
jarjoura wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors but not build something that is scalable?

This is so arbitrary and petty It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

No, it's so that if Ticketmaster wants to do in-app purchases for concert tickets, Apple gets 30%

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

#284

Post by dclowd9901 »

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.

Eh, it _can_ be a lie. This is some form of the quandary “if you owe the bank a million dollars, you’re in trouble; if you owe the bank a billion dollars, the bank is in trouble.”

99% of app devs will not benefit from “running to the press.” Those that will will know it for certain.

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

#285

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Bud wrote: post #117
Shivetya wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well at least he upheld the First Amendment when uttering that statement but the rest of his text basically shows he knew that First Amendment rights were more important than his moral code and asked if he could define what would cross the line he could not do so satisfactory. Now as to Apple, I don't have to buy their products and if I do I know what to expect. If it really mattered or should I say bothered me enoug…

Abuses in China? So what are you planning to purchase instead? Because Apple is doing better with worker rights in China than any competitor is.

> So what are you planning to purchase instead?

E.g.: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/

But the issue wasn't about manufacturing to begin with. The trouble is that Apple have significant operations in China, which makes them subject to influence by China, while at the same time maintaining control over what their users see and what they see about their users.

A less vertically integrated company wouldn't have that problem.

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

#286

Post by scarface74 »

paxys wrote: post #274
scarface74 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So now that you were factually proven to be incorrect you want to move the goal posts?

The initial post that we both responded to clearly stated Safari.

> 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.

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

#287

Post by spondyl »

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…

> In 1981 Justice Stewart commented about his second thoughts about coining the phrase. "In a way I regret having said what I said about obscenity—that's going to be on my tombstone. When I remember all of the other solid words I've written," he said, "I regret a little bit that if I'll be remembered at all I'll be remembered for that particular phrase."

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

#288

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

heavyset_go wrote: post #260
remram wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to own a Mac and either an Apple Watch or iPhone to enable two-step verification.

Their two-step verification only works with Apple products?

Step 2 of the two-step verification is declaring your loyalty to Apple.

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

#289

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

scarface74 wrote: post #174
grumple wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about the iPhone, it’s about iOS, which is one os out of two. And they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones, while creating a market which can and will be regulated and being a publicly traded company and therefore subject to even more scrutiny and laws. And people care a lot less about the consoles because they are a lot less important to the economy. This is like McDonalds complaining abou…

Most people don’t care about side loading apps on their phone either...

Good, then Apple shouldn't be worried that the nicely manicured lawns they offer their users would be trampled upon.

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

#290

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #183
scarface74 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

It’s not like side loading on Android has ever caused a security vulnerability when downloading an app from a reputable company like Epic.

https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...

Or reputable companies have ever been convicted of falsely getting money from minors.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-fortnite-sued-trick...

Post reply on HN