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

341–350 of 492 posts

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

#341

Post by JamesSwift »

paxys wrote: post #47
eplanit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This kindly-worded "Our way or the highway" is a hallmark: "If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too."

"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.

And the only alternatives to it are also using Safari under the covers because we require them to

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

#342

Post by notriddle »

Aeolun wrote: post #317
systemvoltage wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I have.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/07/24/warni...

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

#343

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #335
scarface74 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So first you said that “people like me” didn’t complain, but now you are saying that people did complain? All of the well known Apple pundits complained - John Gruber, Marco Arment, John Siracusa, etc.

The difference was that people who owned the devices complained. How many Apple pundits spent time complaining about Android devices instead of just not buying them?

Well Gruber always buys the top of the line Android device that Google sells and had a lot of good things to say about the assistant and the camera but that’s besides the point.

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?

No one ever said that Apple was perfect. I’ve bought a few Apple duds. What I am saying is that people want the government involved instead of just not buying the device when their are alternatives.

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

#345

Post by tonyarkles »

Aeolun wrote: post #317
systemvoltage wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I admit that I know very little about Fortnite and am not a regular Android user, but my understanding is that, right now, anyone who wants to play Fortnite on Android is sideloading it. That's a lot of people who are opening up a pretty brutal attack vector to be able to play a game that got kicked out of the official Play Store.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-an...

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

#346

Post by arvinsim »

dindresto wrote: post #26
emdowling wrote: post #18

The bigger story here is for game streaming apps (section 4.9). Previously Xbox game streaming and Stadia had been rejected as they were a single app that provided access to multiple apps. tl;dr the new rules allow For games to be streamed, but each title must be a separate app and run all in-game purchases through in-app purchase. They’ve also explicitly allowed for game streaming services to have catalogue apps tha…

I still wonder why games are often treated so much differently than movies or shows today. They should've reached the same cultural acceptance by now and are often as much art as their non-interactive counterparts.

The stereotype of it being juvenile and for "nerds" is alive and well.

It will take one generation who grew up playing video games to normalise it.

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

#347

Post by pier25 »

dang wrote: post #340
hn_check wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thank you

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

#348

Post by xsmasher »

mthoms wrote: post #309
megablast wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Citation? I have heard about rejection for in-app mentions but not for out-of-band messages.

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

#349

Post by tomc1985 »

sneak wrote: post #251
mynegation wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if I want one-to-few or even one-to-many experience?

If you’re throwing a seminar or training, there are witnesses that will likely reduce the chance of illegal behavior. Unless, of course, you throw a gangbang, and Apple ends up eating 30% of the price of admission. Imagine the headline!

It would be really nice if corporate america would pull the sticks out of their asses when it comes to sexual activity

Imagine how much more fun life would be if vices were more accessible

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

#350

Post by jedberg »

threeseed wrote: post #310
jedberg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I assume you're making this argument to be absurd and reductionist, but just in case you aren't, no, those aren't general computing platforms.

Sure, they could be, with a lot of effort. But they are neither marketed nor capable of general compute today. They don't have the toolset or ecosystem to make general purpose apps. Nor do they actively encourage people to make general apps.

Post reply on HN