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

381–390 of 492 posts

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

#381

Post by olliej »

summerlight wrote: post #380

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 pu…

For the last one you mean offering an alternative to IAP but it must be <= iap price-commission?

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

#382

Post by olliej »

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 would court opinions matter here? Seriously, private stores have always had the choice of what products they sell, the alternative is being able to force people to sell your product against their will.

No, anything here has to be purely a question of whether Apple or Google are acting unfairly, and everything I’ve seen says that the commissions involved match other hardware manufacturers.

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

#383

Post by likeclockwork »

design-material wrote: post #370
SahAssar wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

with their sandbagged browser that they only bother to update once a year? Firefox is the competition for Chrome, Safari is just a sandbag to hold open the gap between web apps and native apps.

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

#384

Post by thekyle »

design-material wrote: post #371
WilTimSon wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I see this a lot, but do they really? I'm sure the technical Apple users knew what they were getting themselves into but most average Joe users I've run into that have iPhones for other reasons like: needing iMessage to talk with family, liking the UI, wanting to sync with their Mac, etc.

None of which require Apple to have a monopoly on app distribution.

Saying Apple users knew what they were getting into is kinda like saying Apple users agreed to the ToS, so they shouldn't complain.

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

#385

Post by unishark »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #176
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…

> 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. I personally think this is the worst line that ever came out of a Supreme Court decision because of how simple it is. It is such a blatant low effort cop out that legitimizes arbitrary rulings. At least usually they obfuscate it with legal jargon and historical rulings.

I think of it as the legal version of the observation from psychology that some tasks (e.g. recognition of images) are performed by the brain without conscious understanding of the process.

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

#386

Post by systemvoltage »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #351
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.…

> 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.

I agree with you if that escape hatch requires explicit permission, warnings and a bunch of precautions.

Hot links, such as reddit.com launching App Store to download their app should not be allowed because some uninformed user might just download bogus apps from 3rd party stores.

Again, I support the idea of an escape hatch, but I feel like that applies to an imposssibly small slice of the total iPhone userbase. People like you and me. I feel like I should write it out: 0.00000001% people.

Do you think executives at Apple look at this feature request and spin the entire ship around so that you and I can hack a phone?

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

#387

Post by TylerE »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #376
floydnoel wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?

Use an intermediary like google wallet or a one time virtual cc?

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

#388

Post by briandear »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #351
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.…

> 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.

Sure it would. Some major developer only offers their app as a side load and suddenly your Aunt Edna is giving system level permissions to some developer without any realization that they just gave away keys to their house.

Perhaps Apple could sell a developer edition of the phone that allows side loading.. come to think of it, they do. If you are an Apple developer you can side load apps. Any developer that wants to can post their code on github and let other developers install it on their phone.

Really, if you don’t like the rules, you have an alternative.

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

#389

Post by numpad0 »

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…

> defined ... as “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to ...

wait, is this going to be a basis for pixelated/black bar’d porn on App Store

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

#390

Post by frosted-flakes »

TylerE wrote: post #387
frosted-flakes wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Use an intermediary like google wallet or a one time virtual cc?

In which case OP should have no problem using the same solution for in-app purchases.
Post reply on HN