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

291–300 of 492 posts

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

#291

Post by palijer »

shaftway wrote: post #140
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 completely agree. When rules aren't codified it invites biased interpretation of them. However.... I've worked on an internal communications platform. For some reason people would forget that they were on a corporate site with their corporate email linked to it and spew garbage that any decent person would be embarrassed to say out loud. So we deliberately didn't codify our rules. We chose not to because we were aw…

I think there is a difference in kind over rules that govern paid employees, and rules that govern developers who are paying to be on the platform, and told to design and innovate, but if you step over a line we're not going to write down, we'll kick you off the platform and damage your business.

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

#292

Post by withinboredom »

rpdillon wrote: post #259
withinboredom wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ. I use a website to schedule our baby sitter, but with this rule, it's possible to be an app.

Not to my reading. This rule only applies to real-time experiences. > If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training)...

How would it not? It’s no different than tutoring. I pay the website a monthly fee (which probably needs to be an IAP) but the payment to the babysitter could continue as-is via bank transfer/ideal.

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

#293

Post by scarface74 »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #289
scarface74 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just the opposite, if you care so much about sideloading, then why buy an iOS device? Do you often buy products that don’t meet your needs or desires?

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

#294

Post by thewebcount »

andreasley wrote: post #106
thewebcount wrote: post #66

They say: > Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc distribution available to Apple Developer Program members. Can anyone explain this to me? I have some AppleTV apps I’ve written for myself. I can run them on my AppleTV but I have to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days to continue using them. It’s a pain in the butt. How can I install these apps without a dev account and without havin…

Here you go: https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c Ad Hoc provisioning profiles are usually only used for testing, since all of the target devices have to be registered in your developer account before signing the app. Also, Ad Hoc profiles expire after 12 months and the app needs to be re-signed and installed again. You can install the signed app by using Xcode or Apple Configurator or "over the ai…

Oh, I see. The wording made it sound like there was a way to do it for free. They mention installing onto a friend's device, but apparently that won't work for free. Bummer. I can't justify the cost right now just for these few home projects. What a pain.

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

#295

Post by sjwright »

simion314 wrote: post #226
Bud wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ve…

The difference is that Google’s sideloading experience is intentionally full of warnings and hurdles. Do you really think that if Apple had a court ruling against them they could get away with that? No, Epic (et al) will be very clear about third party stores being utterly seamless to install and use.

That’s why we’d see a proliferation of stores on iOS.

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

#296

Post by nickjj »

eadan wrote: post #2

Relevant section: 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. This is huge…

I'm not a part of Apple's eco-system (I don't have a smartphone) but isn't this a matter of Apple knowing it's impossible to enforce what happens during a person to person experience -- so they might as well come off as being "nice"?

What would stop someone from meeting up with another person and then agree to pay in cash or Zelle or any other way to transfer funds? There's no way for Apple to track that.

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

#297

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #290
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)

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...

And is not like curated App Stores did not had mallware, tracking stuff inside apps, minors spending all the parents credit card on gems etc. You basically want to force a "kid mode" without an opt-out for everyone.

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

#298

Post by scarface74 »

sjwright wrote: post #295
simion314 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ve…

The difference is that Google’s sideloading experience is intentionally full of warnings and hurdles. Do you really think that if Apple had a court ruling against them they could get away with that? No, Epic (et al) will be very clear about third party stores being utterly seamless to install and use. That’s why we’d see a proliferation of stores on iOS.

So now you want third party app stores and no warnings? Even though Epic - one of the first major apps to try side loading, actually had a security vulnerability.

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

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

#299

Post by dawg- »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #176
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…

> 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. I personally think this is the worst line that ever came out of a Supreme Court decision because of how simple it is. It is such a blatant low effort cop out that legitimizes arbitrary rulings. At least usually they obfuscate it with legal jargon and historical rulings.

The quote is infamous for being a terribly useless statement. Not sure why they would want to use something like that to defend themselves

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

#300

Post by codeulike »

_jal wrote: post #122
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.

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 that bit has been in there for years.

edit: Here it is, from 2016, probably goes back a lot longer than that

https://web.archive.org/web/20160706210122/https://developer...

Post reply on HN