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

331–340 of 492 posts

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

#331

Post by Razengan »

matsemann wrote: post #86
Razengan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection Again, Apple is not the only company in this space and iOS is not the only intersection/road/whatever analogy you want. There are alternatives and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform. Honestly, all of this becomes much less complicated if you think of the iPhone as an Xbox, PlayStation or Switch. iPhone is not the e…

> and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform. But in practice, are anyone capable of that? It's a winner-takes-it-all, and the winners are so huge it's virtually impossible for anyone to upset them. You cannot compete on price, features or anything without a hundred billion investment.

> But in practice, are anyone capable of that?

See Samsung and all their proprietary crap on Android, including their own alternative to the Play Store, for one.

Epic already have their own store and want to weasel it into iOS, whether the majority of users want it or not.

Instead of losing money [0] on this whole mess they could have just made their own phone or handheld by now.

[0] https://www.macrumors.com/2020/09/05/epic-injuction-fortnite...

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

#332

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

scarface74 wrote: post #293
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I personally couldn't care less because I don't have an iPhone but users can't realistically choose a device based on the cross product of all the features they want. There are always compromises. Some of these problems have outsized impacts, such as the way Apple extorts money from its App Store, which isn't a place most App developers can simply choose not to be on, any more than they can simply choose not to live in a country.

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

#333

Post by Razengan »

grumple wrote: post #145
Razengan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection Again, Apple is not the only company in this space and iOS is not the only intersection/road/whatever analogy you want. There are alternatives and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform. Honestly, all of this becomes much less complicated if you think of the iPhone as an Xbox, PlayStation or Switch. iPhone is not the e…

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…

> And they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones

Apple have a monopoly....on Apple products..?

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

#334

Post by Razengan »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #332
scarface74 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I personally couldn't care less because I don't have an iPhone but users can't realistically choose a device based on the cross product of all the features they want. There are always compromises. Some of these problems have outsized impacts, such as the way Apple extorts money from its App Store, which isn't a place most App developers can simply choose not to be on, any more than they can simply choose not to live…

> App Store ... isn't a place most App developers can simply choose not to be on

Why?

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

#335

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #322
simion314 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accus…

I said no such thing. No one said that there weren’t keyboard issues. Apple was getting eviscerated for years by the Apple pundits for their horrible keyboards. But you know what I didn’t do? I didn’t buy a Mac laptop with a keyboard after everyone knew the keyboards were bad and then complain about the keyboards. It’s not about Apple being perfect - it’s about people buying a product that doesn’t meet their needs an…

People complained and Apple had to fix the issue, the problem is people like you wanted those guys not to complain, then you would still have shitty keyboards, crippled batteries, today. There is only 1 alternative that is the exact same shit (30% tax on apps and subscriptions).

So my question that you avoided to answer, the change Apple just made, what is your opinion? Was Apple correct yesterday or today after the change? Is not Apple perfect and developers and users should stop complaining starting today because this was the exact last issue missing from Apple perfection?

Also if you can expand why people should not complain or express their negative opinions when they are on topic on this article thread? If you are tired of reading why X is not perfect and how it should be fixed then skip this topics and maybe watch a movie.

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

#336

Post by mthoms »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #104
onion2k wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stores buy products wholesale and sell them on, and accept the risk of the products not selling. Apple act as a middleman and and add on their fees, with absolutely no risk to themselves. They're very different business models.

That's not how IP publishing works. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaindered_book https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-out_(recording_industry)

The idea that you can return unsold product to the supplier is a relatively new idea for most industries. When retail boxed software was at its peak (in the 90's), it wasn't very common at all.

I can't find anything current for boxed software (for obvious reasons), but boxed video and board games cannot be returned unless the retailer has a special deal with the publisher (rare).

https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/17/15974096/what-it-costs-to-...

https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/05/inside-the-secret-wo...

https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/6asinu/can_reta...

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

#337

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

Razengan wrote: post #334
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally couldn't care less because I don't have an iPhone but users can't realistically choose a device based on the cross product of all the features they want. There are always compromises. Some of these problems have outsized impacts, such as the way Apple extorts money from its App Store, which isn't a place most App developers can simply choose not to be on, any more than they can simply choose not to live…

> App Store ... isn't a place most App developers can simply choose not to be on Why?

Because it's an existential need for many people trying to run an online business?

And because most Apple users don't actually know what the ramifications of ramifications of Apple's policies are and instead blame the app developers instead?

And because Apple makes it a policy violation for apps to even inform the users about these policies?

And because Apple makes it practically impossible to run apps on an iPhone any other way, with even personal use requiring a reinstall every 7 days or paying Apple 100 dollars a year?

And because Apple's 30% extortion fee causes prices to rise across the board (including non-Apple users) because Apple makes it a policy violation to offer the same service cheaper on non-Apple devices, and ultimately somebody's got to foot the bill?

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

#338

Post by scarface74 »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #332
scarface74 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I personally couldn't care less because I don't have an iPhone but users can't realistically choose a device based on the cross product of all the features they want. There are always compromises. Some of these problems have outsized impacts, such as the way Apple extorts money from its App Store, which isn't a place most App developers can simply choose not to be on, any more than they can simply choose not to live…

What features does iOS have that Android doesn’t have that are deal breakers for most people?

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

#339

Post by m3kw9 »

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…

Why? Because they didn’t tell you the “algorithm”?

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

#340

Post by dang »

hn_check wrote: post #316
pier25 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Since you've been ignoring our repeated requests to start following the site guidelines, I've banned this account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24087933

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23646850

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23433981

Post reply on HN