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

391–400 of 492 posts

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

#391

Post by scarface74 »

likeclockwork wrote: post #383
design-material wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple updates the browser between major OS updates.

Apple added YubiKey support (https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/12/12/apple-ios-13-3-i...) for 2FA in Safari in 13.3 and they added better mouse support to Safari as well as other built in apps between major releases.

Firefox is losing market share and almost completely dependent on Google for its survival. If Firefox tries not to support something that the rest of the industry is supporting (like the web based DRM) the rest of the industry just yawns.

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

#392

Post by Krollifi »

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 only loophole I can see is to have web app stores because you can’t ban browsers. Web apps may improve greatly as lower level browser APIs like Houdini become available but I don’t think that will be enough. I think that html should be replaced by cross-platform native apps distributed over http.

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

#393

Post by rmrfrmrf »

vkou wrote: post #368
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Breach a user's trust and/or misuse their data and you'll know about it pretty quickly. I'd wager that the average user cares much more about protecting, say, their browsing history, than they care about petty B2B contract drama.

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

#394

Post by Dylan16807 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #301
crehn wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a good guideline to be honest. Perhaps not the best-worded one, but gets the point across and avoids becoming another Google Play Store.

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?

If you're an amateur, you have to put in extra time to get your app into shape.

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

#395

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #343
simion314 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OK, this is the first time you mention government, so then you acknowledge there is a problem but you are scared that the government can get involved? I don't see how free market can solve this since there is a duopoly that is happy how things are at the moment(they don't want to compete on the 30% tax)

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

#396

Post by Dylan16807 »

reaperducer wrote: post #366
tomc1985 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most companies sprint away from actual sexual activity, or photos/videos/drawings of such. (Not books though, for some reason.)

Especially payment processors, which cause serious bottlenecks in the ability of people to pay for services online.

Apple seems to be in the majority from where I look.

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

#397

Post by Dylan16807 »

withinboredom wrote: post #244
isatty wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> build something that is scalable? That's probably the point - 1:1 experiences that are not scalable is a drop in the bucket even if they charge a 30% commission.

I beg to differ. I use a website to schedule our baby sitter, but with this rule, it's possible to be an app.

As long as you don't have two kids...

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

#398

Post by Cyphase »

systemvoltage wrote: post #386
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Peo…

Sorry if this is nitpicky, but since you made a point of saying you were going to write it out..

The world population is ~7.8 billion. 0.00000001% of that is 0.78. If you drop the percentage, it's still only 78 people. And that's assuming every person in the world is an iPhone user.

I think the slice is obviously bigger than that.

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

#399

Post by biktor_gj »

thewebcount wrote: post #60
lostlogin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. We do, but at the same time, physical stores selling software are now rare or non-existent. Apple is not competing with them.

Right and that’s partly because online store like Apple's out-competed then on price by taking less than traditional distributors.

More because the Inetrnet came and allowed every vendor to sell directly from their webpage instead of going through the distribution channel, making retail software stores obsolete

There are two platforms that drive 100% of the mobile phone industry. One (Android) allows other distributors in the platform (even if they have to go through loops like sideloading an app and then allowing that app to install other apps). The other will kick and try to destroy you if you try to do something like that. Is that legal or anti-competitive in the US & Europe? We'll find out...

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

#400

Post by Dylan16807 »

scarface74 wrote: post #315
paxys wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My initial argument was that Apple does not provide standard APIs - and they don't - so I don't see how there is any moving of goal posts. There is no way for a website to prompt a dialog to add itself to the home screen, despite it existing in the HTML spec and all other major browsers. In addition to that Apple forces other browsers to use its own web view, and doesn't expose the add to home screen functionality th…

Whether that was your “initial argument” or not, your statement > And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok flow. Was wrong. Also, it’s coming to iOS 14 https://caniuse.com/web-app-manifest

You're talking past each other.

Look back at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24447692

There are two complaints in that comment.

You addressed one of those complaints, showing it to be wrong. You did not address the other complaint, and it was not "moving the goalpoats" to repeat it.

> Also, it’s coming to iOS 14

Good.

Post reply on HN