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

361–370 of 492 posts

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

#361

Post by burtonator »

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…

So they block Safari right, because I can definitely see sexual content in Safari.

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

#362

Post by burtonator »

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…

This is literally racketeering. Apple uses their market influence to create a completely unnecessary 'store' for their apps to demand a % of your business.

This needs to end...

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

#363

Post by rmrfrmrf »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #268
Hokusai wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is not about fairness or rules. It is about extracting as much values as possible from app developers. That made sense when the Apple store was a small kind of start up enterprise. Nowadays, it should be regulated so all developers can use the platform in a level field where competition is real and it is not just a game for big corporations.

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…

The reason why developers want to make apps for iOS is because there's a large market. That market exists because Apple has done a great job prioritizing the protection of their customers' privacy and payment information.

If third party App Stores are ever forced onto iOS devices, that market vanishes completely. Crashes, slowdowns, battery drain, malware, and information theft will become the norm. Go no further than your gaming PC to witness the nightmare that is multiple app stores all competing for CPU and control/surveillance of your system, all needing to bring their own flavors of information-harvesting/exposing DRM.

This new round of digital YIMBYism is profoundly anti-consumer and stands to destroy the trust that Apple has built with its customers. I sincerely hope that those of us who have trusted Apple with our data will start to speak out before Google-backed lobbyists tranform iOS into a malware-ridden hellscape.

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

#364

Post by floydnoel »

dhsysusbsjsi wrote: post #325
Hokusai wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is not about fairness or rules. It is about extracting as much values as possible from app developers. That made sense when the Apple store was a small kind of start up enterprise. Nowadays, it should be regulated so all developers can use the platform in a level field where competition is real and it is not just a game for big corporations.

The fact they need rules to enforce use of their inferior payment system shows how inherently anti-competitive IAP is. If it were optional and you could freely roll your own purchase mechanism, most (not all) developers would remove Apple IAP with the current 30% fees.

...and I would go from spending one or two hundred a month on IAPs, and spend zero instead. There is no way I’m giving an app my payment info.

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

#365

Post by ec109685 »

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…

"3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps: Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or calls to action for purchase outside of the app."

This seems to imply the original Hey app would have been legal now?

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

#366

Post by reaperducer »

tomc1985 wrote: post #349
sneak wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Define "corporate America." The majority of American companies, even Disney, do whatever it takes to make money, including catering to sexual interests.

Apple is one of the few that has different standards. And some of its consumers appreciate that. There's room in the market for both views.

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

#367

Post by reaperducer »

bigtones wrote: post #283
reaperducer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so arbitrary and petty It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

No, it's so that if Ticketmaster wants to do in-app purchases for concert tickets, Apple gets 30%

So Apple is going to pull a Ticketmaster on Ticketmaster. Delicious!

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

#368

Post by vkou »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #363
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…

The reason why developers want to make apps for iOS is because there's a large market. That market exists because Apple has done a great job prioritizing the protection of their customers' privacy and payment information. If third party App Stores are ever forced onto iOS devices, that market vanishes completely. Crashes, slowdowns, battery drain, malware, and information theft will become the norm. Go no further tha…

> The reason why developers want to make apps for iOS is because there's a large market. That market exists because Apple has done a great job prioritizing the protection of their customers' privacy and payment information.

You vastly overestimate the number of figs the average user gives about most of the privacy problems that HN grapples with. The average user, after all, uses Facebook. What the average user wants is for shit to just work.

The reason that iOS is a huge market has less to do with that, and more to do with all the other aspects of what makes a good phone.

You argument is also somewhat undermined by the existence of... A rather large amount of crap on the App Store. Somehow, the iPhone has managed to survive.

... Also, cutting side-deals with apps created by billion-dollar players, and telling all other app developers to pound sand (Regardless of the quality of the apps in question) is the main problem we're talking about. Whether or not Apple does this has no bearing on the current quality of the iPhone (But has a lot of bearing on their bottom line), but has a large bearing on the future quality of the iPhone (A vibrant app ecosystem is healthier then one where a few hand-picked winners are rewarded, and their competitors can never compete on an even playing field. At least, that's what advocates of open markets tell me.)

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

#369

Post by sneak »

tomc1985 wrote: post #349
sneak wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Steve Jobs quotes:

“Folks who want porn can buy an android.”

“You might care more about porn when you have kids. It’s not about freedom, it’s about Apple trying to do the right thing for its users.”

TBH as much good as he did, he sounds like a pretty boring square, one of those people who liked drugs in their 20s then got married and lived the entire remainder of his life alternating between home and his suburban office.

I don’t know the guy, I’m just going based on what was reported of his work.

In general I don’t think people who consider cities like Santa Clara or Cupertino to have very good taste, despite the popularity of square American suburban living.

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

#370

Post by design-material »

SahAssar wrote: post #304
dmonitor wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that's OK; if it wasn't for Apple then Google would essentially own the current and future direction of the web by now
Post reply on HN