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

301–310 of 492 posts

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

#301

Post by Wowfunhappy »

crehn wrote: post #272
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it would be in excellent guideline if iOS allowed side-loading (without ridiculous restrictions). But it doesn't.

Everyone was an amateur once. How should they distribute their apps?

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

#302

Post by codeulike »

ciarannolan wrote: post #76
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 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.

Its been there for years

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

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

#303

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #297
scarface74 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you run Windows PCs and complain that it isn’t open source or do you use Linux? If not, why buy an iOS device instead of an Android if it meets your needs better?

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

#304

Post by SahAssar »

dmonitor wrote: post #179
scarface74 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just maybe they like making money on the mobile platform where people will actually spend money?

The crazy part is the people who fly into fits of rage when you suggest Apple could do something differently. Changing the web browser on iOS was one that would get tons of hate and responses like “you don’t need that! it would confuse people!” Then Apple lets people do it and now they’re okay with it

You still can't change the browser on iOS. All the other "browsers" are heavily restricted skins over a webview, not a proper other browser.

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

#305

Post by paxys »

scarface74 wrote: post #286
paxys wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ap…

My initial argument was that Apple does not provide standard APIs - and they don't - so I don't see how there is any moving of goal posts. There is no way for a website to prompt a dialog to add itself to the home screen, despite it existing in the HTML spec and all other major browsers. In addition to that Apple forces other browsers to use its own web view, and doesn't expose the add to home screen functionality there either.

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

#306

Post by cma »

ogre_codes wrote: post #277
cma wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was connected in that they were together in time:

> Facebook’s complaints come a day after Epic Games Inc., the creator of Fortnite, sued Apple and Google after both companies removed Fortnite from their respective app stores over a payment dispute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/fa...

Both were obviously also timed to go near the antitrust scrutiny.

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

#307

Post by johnbellone »

ardy42 wrote: post #229
rriepe wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the power dynamic. The marketing material doesn't need to be as good because they're (culturally) in charge now at the company. It used to be that engineering/design led the company. Now it's marketing and legal.

> It used to be that engineering/design led the company. Now it's marketing and legal. Isn't that what people make fun or Oracle for?

Oracle: Sales and legal.

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

#308

Post by systemvoltage »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #301
crehn wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it would be in excellent guideline if iOS allowed side-loading (without ridiculous restrictions). But it doesn't. Everyone was an amateur once. How should they distribute their apps?

I do not want these apps and average Joe doesn't want them either.

Why is it so difficult for people to imagine how insanely powerful and datapacked your phone is?

Allowing sideloading to average people means they will get hacked and ransomwared left and right. Your entire life is on the iPhone.

While I agree with you about sideloading apps for enthusiasts and hackers, but the world is far different than you and me. I really don't understand why these arguments are presented on HN time and again. Jailbreaking your iPhone is a terrible idea. Horrifying even.

I am glad Apple is gate keeping. Privacy > Hackability. You can't have both. The world is full of vultures that will shred your privacy in no time. Just look at what the ad-tech is doing within these sandboxes (browsers). Microsoft got into ad-tech game because they realized "Holyshit, we are actually in a unique position...develop operating system and sell data for millions of users?".

Apple is probably the only company looking after users and yet we've got completely deluded developers on HN complaining about sideloading apps. Sigh.

For amateurs, let them develop stuff on browsers. I don't want these amateurs widely distributing apps to billions of users with system level access with a quick approval popups for billions of idiots that don't care about their privacy and would give access to anything that asks for it.

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

#309

Post by mthoms »

megablast wrote: post #211
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…

It says you can not treat apple customers any different to other customers.

Apple has used that clause to muzzle any mention of the 30% fee... even outside of Apple's ecosystem (eg. on your own mailing list).

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

#310

Post by threeseed »

jedberg wrote: post #139
Bud wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is absurd, then Google taking 30% and Sony taking 30% for Playstation and Microsoft taking 30% for Xbox is also absurd, right? So why aren't you complaining about that?

Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.

Playstation/Xbox are general computing devices. So is my Sony TV, Tesla car and Samsung fridge.

All have an App Store and are fully capable of facilitating payments, running Microsoft Office, using SaaS apps, doing "work".

Users are prevented from doing so by artificial restrictions on their App Stores which could be lifted at any time by a simple business decision. Apple allows more freedom to developers than these platforms yet somehow should be treated differently. Seems arbitrary and capricious.

Post reply on HN