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

411–420 of 492 posts

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

#411

Post by yungstevejobs »

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.

Just because bad apps may make it onto the app store doesn’t mean Apple’s implementation is failing. Security holes are not discovered in a vacuum. It’s like playing wack a mole. For obvious points just like at how Epic got banned from the App Store. They snuck in a direct payment option and got approved for release, only later did Apple find out. It’s possible that those bad apps snuck in malicious codes and the app reviewer missed it. It happens. However without Apples review and ability to act as goal keeper there would be much more of those kind of apps,.

I’m not sure how third party stores are the best solution to this. That means users would have to trust another gate keeper for security and validation. 3rd party app stores will just increase the possible of malicious apps

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

#412

Post by jasonlfunk »

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…

I think it’s okay for Apple to remain vague here. The internet can be a weird and terrible place. By phrasing it like this, Apple can prevent all kinds of creative forms of harassment and discrimination. Instead of allowing bad actors to try to play the game of finding terrible loopholes to jump through.

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

#413

Post by doteka »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #390
TylerE wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about “roll your own” equates to google wallet? That’s very much not roll your own, and not what the grandparent was arguing.

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

#414

Post by wruza »

pier25 wrote: post #168
veilrap wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more willing to spend money on iOS than other platforms, because of how Apple manages the platform. Forcing Apple to change their platform away from the reasons why people like it is absurd. Apple does not have the largest market share by OS, Android does. Other app stores and sideloading are already very widely available.

> I'm more willing to spend money on iOS than other platforms, because of how Apple manages the platform. I've heard this argument from iOS users who have never really used Android for a significant amount of time. I have been using both Android and iOS devices for almost a decade now and there's not much of a difference. In fact I'd say the experience is better on Android. For instance, if you uninstall a paid app y…

And good luck finding an app on android that is not a permission tricking trash which doesn't even work how you wanted. That offsets an idea of refunds a little, "we get your AB and geo, and send your money back on demand, hehe". I'm using android for a while¹, and I already hate that platform for its freedom, the freedom to bend me as a user however third-parties want. Not planning to spend a decade here, but even if you're okay with it, why should apple users feel the same? Why must anyone have an android phone for apple to retain the status quo?

I can't tell for sure, but all top commenters itt just feel like being those guys I wholeheartedly hate on the playstore. Some of them even admit that apple does a best thing for a user, but must be regulated down to not being able to do that. To hell with them, I don't want their crapware anyway.

¹ not even a year tbh, but not in just three-day test mode as well. I'm definitely beyond the "setup and try playing with it" stage right now.

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

#415

Post by perlgeek »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #132

> 3.1.3(b): Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. This is worded so broadly, that it can perfectly be applied to browsers and email…

So could a game developer offer the items for 30% more with in-app purchases, and provide a link to the browser where they can be purchased for regular price?

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

#416

Post by Thorrez »

matt_kantor wrote: post #165
blueicecubes wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a (business, legal, etc.) reason for the distinction between one-to-few and one-to-many? Both are one to "more than one".

I assume the business case is mostly about PR. "Apple takes 30% of my math tutor's income" sounds worse than "Apple charges Epic Games 30%".

I don't understand. I think Apple is taking 30% from both of those.

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

#417

Post by ksec »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #180
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, the SCOTUS reference dates back to when Steve Jobs was CEO. I am, um, not at all surprised he put that in the guidelines. The guidelines also used to say: > If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want t…

I've heard anecdotally that Steve Jobs helped write those guidelines, and the "amateur hour" line in particular sure sounds like him. I don't mean that in a disparaging way; Jobs could certainly be a jerk, but there are times I wish more CEOs were willing to be that blunt in official communication.

And to be honest it make sense in the early days. Jobs wanted the absolute best Apps in the Apps Store.

Situation now is different though. Jobs would likely have some human touch in the current situation. Where as Tim Cook feels less so.

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

#418

Post by noisem4ker »

Krollifi wrote: post #392
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 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.

Unfortunately, Apple controls the browser channel by mandating the use of their engine, WebKit, which is suspiciously limited on the features that make web apps close to native, Store-distributed apps.

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

#419

Post by sterlind »

serf wrote: post #257
theferalrobot wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human judgment needs to be a part of the process if a good experience is desired Yeah just to second this I think that a lot of us coming from software backgrounds like to think of laws as being code, fully definable, automatable and capable of covering all edge cases. This isn’t the case. Judgement is required. Not to ruin my own metaphor but I actually think there is a lesson about software as well. Software is n…

>Yeah just to second this I think that a lot of us coming from software backgrounds like to think of laws as being code, fully definable, automatable and capable of covering all edge cases. This isn’t the case. Judgement is required. problem arises when the method for achieving Judgement isn't codified. Meaning, while laws and punishment are open to interpretation by the judges, the system by which we appoint judges,…

In theory, the law should be written such that reasonable, disinterested people can reach consensus on the outcome of cases.

It can't be as unambiguous as code and usefully describe the world, but it shouldn't require judgment based on individual opinion - that's why the pornography ruling is such a dodge.

Judges should be disinterested and appealable; they are not in Apple's case.

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

#420

Post by diebeforei485 »

Karliss wrote: post #407
bigtones wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Aren't concert tickets "Goods and Services Outside of the App:"? Thinking about it more, aren't most person-to-person experiences outside the app?

Not if they are virtual concerts, which have exploded in popularity in 2020.
Post reply on HN