Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by fouric » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #402

thothamon wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you allow additional app stores, you encourage companies--like, say, Epic Games--to convince people who do not understand the ramifications or the threats involved with opening up past a rigorous review process to do so. And Epic isn't going to be following behind for the newly-credulous when they pick up another one and it's full of dangerous shitware. Somebody who wants to not use the App Store can buy an Andr…

This is a really easy problem to solve - add a scary sign and/or void the warranty when a user decides they want to use an alternative app store. Then they at least have the option - and if they take it and suffer, they're the only one to blame. There's absolutely no collateral damage among users, and this feature would not meaningfully weaken security (if implemented properly) - "the user could do something dumb that only affects them" is not reduced security.

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

#442

Post by frosted-flakes » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

doteka wrote: post #413

frosted-flakes wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You misunderstand. The customer can use Google Wallet if he wishes.

On the Web, payments almost always go through the credit card system, using one of many payment providers (PayPal, Stripe, etc.) set up by the seller. The customer also has the option of using a "safer" virtual credit card to avoid the possibility of credit card theft.

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

#443

Post by reaperducer » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #369

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

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 off…

Some day you will have to learn to understand that not everyone thinks the way you do. In America, it's OK for people to have different views on things. In many ways it's encouraged.

I don't think Jobs would have cared if you thought he had good taste or not, or whether you think he's a "square." As for boring, it's already been widely documented in newspapers, magazines, books, and online that his short life was 1000 times more interesting than your life ever will be.

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

#444

Post by Terretta » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 2:42 PM UTC

ranman wrote: post #196

Apple should make a profit for providing the platform. That profit shouldn’t be 30%... as a business operator I wouldn’t mind paying ~3%

3%?

What percentage do you think it costs simply to process the credit card for a $10 app? What about for a $1 app?

Why do you think so many bricks and mortar shops have a “minimum purchase” requirement to pay with a card?

If the swipe costs 3%, what should all the rest of the app store’s value cost?

You could compare to competitors, such as Xbox store, for an answer.

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

#445

Post by grumple » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #333

grumple wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about the iPhone, it’s about iOS, which is one os out of two. And they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones, while creating a market which can and will be regulated and being a publicly traded company and therefore subject to even more scrutiny and laws. And people care a lot less about the consoles because they are a lot less important to the economy. This is like McDonalds complaining abou…

> And they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones Apple have a monopoly....on Apple products..?

The interactions between companies, no matter what the contract or tos states, are governed by law. Apple can’t build anything or run any aspect of their business without the government saying ok.

And government has often ruled that anticompetitive behavior violates antitrust law.

From the Sherman Act: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”

If Apple is restraining trade (which they obviously are according to any reasonable interpretation, whether or not a court has yet ruled on it), they are breaking the law. Obviously the courts have failed us before and they take ages to rule on anything regardless, but I suspect Apple will lose in the long run.

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

#446

Post by rmrfrmrf » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #430

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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, No, you won't, for a lot of reasons. 1. If people gave a fig about their browsing history, they wouldn't have Facebook accounts. (Which, combined with tracking cookies, do a great job of leaking their browsing history.) 2. If people…

This is a good example of the contradictions in free market dogma. The reality is that the Facebook as it exists in the "rigged market" of the App Store violates users' privacy less than the "free market" versions on other platforms. Apple's restrictive policies have made them the only company to (have the power to) put checks on Facebook's information harvesting.

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

#447

Post by eropple » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

fouric wrote: post #441

eropple wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you allow additional app stores, you encourage companies--like, say, Epic Games--to convince people who do not understand the ramifications or the threats involved with opening up past a rigorous review process to do so. And Epic isn't going to be following behind for the newly-credulous when they pick up another one and it's full of dangerous shitware. Somebody who wants to not use the App Store can buy an Andr…

This is a really easy problem to solve - add a scary sign and/or void the warranty when a user decides they want to use an alternative app store. Then they at least have the option - and if they take it and suffer, they're the only one to blame. There's absolutely no collateral damage among users, and this feature would not meaningfully weaken security (if implemented properly) - "the user could do something dumb tha…

"This user just gave a third party their entire contact list" certainly does harm other people.

"This user just had their entire camera roll exfiltrated" certainly does harm other people.

These are social devices. Their users are, by and large, non-technical and incurious. Expecting them to not just click past the "scary sign", and so condition to do it again and again, so they can play Fortnite is a level of lack of understanding that borders on incredible.

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

#448

Post by simion314 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #435

simion314 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What’s more likely to happen, you will save money or the developers will keep more of a cut? Could be both, Why are developers evil and they should not get the money but the overlord that does (almost)nothing. It is like if a farmer goes to a market and the mafia forces them to pay 39% for protection, then if mafia is destroyed you feel bad if the farmer gets more money now. Not all developers are EA level of evil,…

I never said developers are evil. What I did say is that the dream of the Indy developer making money on the App Store died a decade ago. Most money on the App Store is coming from in app purchases for loot boxes and virtual currency. I posit that every company making money that way is evil. Besides, not only now are you arguing about a phone that you don’t own, you are also complaining about an in app system where j…

I think we are focusing at 2 different parts of the same beast called "Developers". You are concerned about lootboxes and I agree there should be better laws about lootbox === gambling.

I seen case of good developers that have free games (they are passionate and use Patreon to get some money) and I see this developers creating Win,Linux, Mac and Android versions but no iOS version. So then you have the iOS users looking at all this plartforms that are supported but he is excluded, what do you think? Could there be a way that would make everyone happy(but maybe less money from some rich gy yacht?).

If a judge deciders that is OK iOS is locked down this means OSX,Windows and Android can be legally completely locked-down , in the future, do we want this?

A bit offtopic, I am trying to keep away from Apple related topics, but sometimes there is one comment that I need to respond to correct something and then a threads starts, I will try not to get as involved next time, I feel we are 2 groups that are in a way "paranoid" that 2 different bad things will happen , some think that everything will get more and more locked and DRMed and others are afraid that competition will destroy apples garden.

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

#449

Post by m463 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

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 page out of the constitution - "high crimes and misdemeanors" - deliberately overtly vague.

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

#450

Post by arvinsim » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

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 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.

I am sorry but this is just FUD.

I own both a Macbook Pro and PC that I built and I have yet have these supposed "multiple app stores nightmare" that you are talking about.

Do you own a Windows machine yourself? Because the above comment doesn't seem to be done in good faith.