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

371–380 of 492 posts

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

#371

Post by design-material »

WilTimSon wrote: post #275
megablast wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it. Which means different app reviewers will have different interpretations of it. A problem that exists now.

They know this and they don't care. It's not like Apple users can just go "well screw this" and download apps from a different source easily. They'd have to switch to Android to do it or have to be technologically inclined.

And that's fine - Apple users knew that was the deal when they decided to get an iPhone over Android (for many that was why they made that decision)

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

#372

Post by bromuro »

burtonator wrote: post #361
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.

“Yes the web is the bad place, with porn and such: you should use apps instead”. After all, in the apps “look better”.

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

#373

Post by design-material »

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.

I use my PS4 a more as a 'general computing device' (YouTube, Netflix, Prime, voice calls, etc) than my phone by far.

Why should someone else get to dictate which of my devices is a 'general computing device' and what that means for me and my use-case?

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

#374

Post by evrydayhustling »

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…

If consumer trust were the foundation of Apple's growth, they wouldn't have to worry about folks defecting to another app store if it was available.

The reality is that, having created a great market, they are now extracting rents by using their ability to exclude apps to enforce things that don't benefit users but expand their margins (like forcing use of their identity and payment systems).

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

#375

Post by heavyset_go »

remram wrote: post #354
heavyset_go wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's almost comical how much of an overstep that is.

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

#376

Post by frosted-flakes »

floydnoel wrote: post #364
dhsysusbsjsi wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you make online purchases? Do you just... not? Is the use of independent payment systems on the Web somehow different from in iOS apps?

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

#377

Post by thothamon »

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…

I don't see that at all. The value Apple supposedly provides is safety. If consumers want the safety that Apple offers, they can continue to limit themselves to Apple's App Store offerings, while those who don't value safety as highly can use a different app store. Just because you value something in a certain way does not mean everyone else should be forced to adhere to those same values.

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

#378

Post by tsycho »

I am genuinely sad to write this:

Apple has become the most arrogant asshole company of all the tech giants. They have forgotten the role that we developers played in making them the largest company in the world. But in their moment of financial victory, they have lost their soul.

:(

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

#379

Post by dannyw »

nodamage wrote: post #279
hu3 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely arbitrary rule btw. A segment gets free pass for lower fees because it is too big to get kicked from iOS while others get shafted. Just because they can.

I don't disagree that it's arbitrary, but the person I replied to implied Apple changed the rules specifically to block Hey's app, which is not correct.

It is actually correct: google invented a new “consumer” vs “business” differentiation just for Hey.com that wasn’t part of the rules.

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

#380

Post by summerlight »

I'm personally not okay with Apple to take a full control on the App Store, but let's admit the reality and think about feasible options; then what would be remedies that Apple doesn't have a good justification against? I think one of the issue is information asymmetricity between Apple and customers.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST explicitly highlights how much commission they're taking.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST allow app developers to show alternative payment options available.

* Apple may review the alternative payment options and reject the app if it is implemented in an obviously unfair way against Apple IAP, but no other reasons. If it is violated, Apple MUST give a clear reason and actionable items to app developers within a reasonable time frame.

This doesn't require any technically complex changes but just gives strictly more information to their customers. If the customers think it's justifiable, then they will continue to use Apple's IAP. If not, they will go to the developer's site. If the alternative is designed to be unfair against Apple, at least they can have a chance to raise an objection. For the rest, let the market decide.

Post reply on HN