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

311–320 of 492 posts

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

#311

Post by usefulcat »

palijer wrote: post #291
shaftway wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn’t sound like a platform I’d want to bet my business on.

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

#312

Post by hn_check »

monadic2 wrote: post #103
hn_check wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed." Independent software development was an absolute wasteland. It was extremely hard to get a user to give you money outside of a few extremely fortified ghettos (Steam, for instance, which takes a 30% cut as well). Begware was the most common tactic. Even now with multiple options, while everyone piles on Apple, we shoul…

Not sure why you're downvoted. It seems like the unavoidable conclusion is that there are no longer any good places to make or find decent consumer software without having a corporate entity get their undeserving cut.

A bunch of my comments were flagged as well. HN is an absolute joke. There is zero rational discussion on here. It's just zealots contriving their bullshit.

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

#313

Post by Aeolun »

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…

Given how much amateur hour there is on the app store, I think they might as well remove that rule...

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

#314

Post by [deleted] »

paxys wrote: post #305
scarface74 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

[deleted]

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

#315

Post by scarface74 »

paxys wrote: post #305
scarface74 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Whether that was your “initial argument” or not, your statement

> 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.

Was wrong.

Also, it’s coming to iOS 14

https://caniuse.com/web-app-manifest

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

#316

Post by hn_check »

pier25 wrote: post #223
hn_check wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed." Independent software development was an absolute wasteland. It was extremely hard to get a user to give you money outside of a few extremely fortified ghettos (Steam, for instance, which takes a 30% cut as well). Begware was the most common tactic. Even now with multiple options, while everyone piles on Apple, we shoul…

> we should note that iOS was the single most profitable platform for Epic, across all platforms Almost 80% of Fortnite players are on console, so I very much doubt that's even remotely true. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...

I would respond sincerely and absolutely eviscerate your ignorant nonsense, but this is HN so it is wholly undeserving of that.

Instead - lol, ok

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

#317

Post by Aeolun »

systemvoltage wrote: post #308
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Android allows sideloading and I’ve literally never heard of anyone even doing that, much less getting hacked by it.

I think you massively overestimate how many people would use that functionality.

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

#318

Post by t-writescode »

konschubert wrote: post #29

Apple should just be forced to allow alternative app stores. Yes, they will loose out on money and yes, this will dilute the iPhone experience. But come on - That company is worth 2 trillion and it’s holding a whole economy hostage.

This is the correct answer. If the bits aren't coming from Apple's servers (so no 'it costs bandwidth and storage to store these apps) and if the payment isn't being processed through Apple, they deserve no money from it - or a bare minimum for being allowed on the platform in the first place.

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

#319

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #303
simion314 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I run Linux only for 3 years, I was dual booting before that. This is not about what shit smells better, see people (not your tribe) complained and now Apple did something , is this article surprising you because you thought Apple policies are perfect and now because of this complains the good Apple had to give up some money to improve it's PR.

Remember the keyboard issues with broken keys, people like you were accusing uses that they are using it wrong and stop complaining, Apple is perfect and those genius engineers don't make mistake, Apple is always right and the complainers are trolls or guys that eat at their laptop? If you don't remember Apple was forced by lawsuits to aknowledge that their genius engineers are not perfect and were forced by those lawsuits to replace the broken parts (again Apple was not protecting the users but was trying to avoid losing money )... so if you can reflect 1 moment you could maybe(low chance though) that Apple sometime is not perfect and sometimes users that complain are in the right (it happened so it is not impossible)

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

#320

Post by sheeshkebab »

withinboredom wrote: post #244
isatty wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> build something that is scalable? That's probably the point - 1:1 experiences that are not scalable is a drop in the bucket even if they charge a 30% commission.

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

I think baby sitter type services are already allowed without iap - similar to Uber, etc
Post reply on HN