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

351–360 of 492 posts

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

#351

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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.…

> Jailbreaking your iPhone is a terrible idea. Horrifying even.

And the fact that I can Jailbreak my phone has not caused your iPhone to to become safer or less private. All I want is for Apple to offer an escape hatch, completely optional. It would not affect your experience in the slightest.

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

#352

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#353

Post by dd36 »

chillfox wrote: post #328
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulating the app store isn't beneficial. They should be able to reject bad apps for being bad without having to go to court over it. The problem is that they restrict the user from using any other app store. So then when they get it wrong there is nothing anybody can do. And then they have less incentive not to get it wrong, because it's much harder for them to lose users to a competitor, so then they prohibit thin…

I don’t know if you have seen the trash heap of bad apps that is on the App Store. It gives the distinction impression that Apple does not reject bad apps, only apps they don’t like for arbitrary reasons. I do agree that the best solution would be allowing third party stores.

Or just charge a flat review fee.

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

#354

Post by remram »

heavyset_go wrote: post #260
remram wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to own a Mac and either an Apple Watch or iPhone to enable two-step verification.

Their two-step verification only works with Apple products?

Yep. I looked into paying the $99/year last year to get my open-source app to open on double-click (rather than right click > open > yes I understand it's not verified). Couldn't proceed without an iPhone.

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

#355

Post by Wowfunhappy »

tonyarkles wrote: post #345
Aeolun wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. http…

It didn't get kicked out of the store for violating people's privacy or some such, it got kicked out because they didn't want to pay Google money in exchange for absolutely nothing.

Sideloading Fortnite is not opening up an attack vector unless Fortnite itself is malicious, which it's not, because it's a huge game from a huge company. As long as the official download source is known to everybody, I think it's fine.

I know there are fake (malicious) copies of Fortnite out there, but those promise free V-Bucks or some such. You could just as easily run that scam without sideloading and target the user's credit card number of similar.

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

#356

Post by elwell »

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…

> inaccurate or misleading quotations of religious texts

I find it fascinating that they included ^this^ one.

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

#357

Post by rpdillon »

withinboredom wrote: post #292
rpdillon wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, I see. I was intersecting "real-time experience" with Apple's previous "digital goods" and thinking "real-time experience that happens digitally" (which tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training all can support), and I quickly wrote off babysitting as something that can't happen digitally. I'm much less confident now based on how you're reading it.

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

#358

Post by threeseed »

jedberg wrote: post #350
threeseed wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My PS4 and Sony Android TV are general computing platforms in every sense e.g. Salesforce is open right now on my TV.

It's simply that Sony won't approve non-gaming or non-entertainment apps. And if Apple were to follow the same path and block productivity apps then it would somehow stop being a general computing device ?

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

#360

Post by santoshalper »

"Offline experiences not involving as phone do not have to use in-app purchases."

"Family interactions do not have to use in-app purchases."

"Your hopes and dreams do not have to use in-app purchases."

Thank you Apple. I for one, appreciate your generosity.

Post reply on HN