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

451–460 of 492 posts

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

#451

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #448
scarface74 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 look…

> 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?).

I think Apple is already trying to address that through Apple Arcade, it is giving indy developers that make games that don’t have in app purchases or advertising advances to publish games. Apple Arcade has to be a loss leader to convince more people to buy iOS devices.

I would go one step further, if they really want to support good, ethical games, prominently display ethical games (no in app purchases or advertising besides games from the same publisher) in the App Store, increase the minimum price that a game maker can charge - gets rid of the race to the bottom - and take a 15% cut. This would make iOS the platform for “premium games”.

They could also say that it “protects children”. Politicians eat up “think about the children”.

> 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?

I wouldn’t buy a Mac. I use Macs because it is a consumer friendly Unix with commercial applications. I could completely live in a world running Linux and open source if it came down to it.

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

#452

Post by bsql »

jedberg wrote: post #139
Bud wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is absurd, then Google taking 30% and Sony taking 30% for Playstation and Microsoft taking 30% for Xbox is also absurd, right? So why aren't you complaining about that?

Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.

So because they aren’t a general computing device it’s okay? Also isn’t it bit disingenuous to suggest that side loading is an option to avoid the fee? I believe that’s why Epic also sued Google. Even when end users are given the option to download from an alternative store, most people won’t because it’s still not as convenient as downloading from the play store. Your app would have to be worthwhile enough to convince users to download from a 3rd party store.

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

#453

Post by bsql »

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.

The only reason PlayStation and Xbox aren’t general computing platforms is by choice. They are still computers with CPUS, hard drives and RAM. Users can watch Netflix, browse the web and consume content just like you would on an iPhone. I think this idea that because iPhones are “general computing devices” they should be held to a different standard is absurd. You can’t pick and choose how one platform operates while ignoring how other platforms have the same arbitrary restrictions.

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

#454

Post by tomc1985 »

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.

Almost nobody wants their advertisement running next to porn. Almost nobody permits their services to be used for sexual activity unless said service explicitly caters to it. Disney boxes all their "adult" stuff under the Dreamworks label IIRC.

Everybody wants to be "family friendly", which means no sexy stuff. Violence? Sure. Guns? Sure. Sex? Get that filth out of my product!

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

#455

Post by Wowfunhappy »

nodamage wrote: post #436
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't get kicked out of the store for violating people's privacy or some such, it got kicked out because they didn't want to pay Google money in exchange for absolutely nothing. Sideloading Fortnite is not opening up an attack vector unless Fortnite itself is malicious, which it's not, because it's a huge game from a huge company. As long as the official download source is known to everybody, I think it's fine. I…

I think you're understimating the level of risk associated with people attempting to sideload Fortnite. People aren't necessarily intentionally seeking shady versions (but even if they were, I find this kind of victim-blaming counterproductive). They were doing things like searching "how to install Fortnite" on Google or Youtube and getting sent links to fake versions with malware loaded. [1] How were non-sophisticat…

I guess my question is, is this problem really unique to sideloading, and if not, can it be addressed in the same ways we address other problems?

For example, does everyone know the official source of Facebook? If so, why, and if not, why is there not an epidemic of fake Facebook scams that steal login credentials? I know there are targeted phishing attacks, which is a separate issue, but I haven't heard of significant attacks from people who just didn't know the correct login page.

One way we do deal with this is with targeted blacklists of known-bad sites, particularly Google Safe-browsing. That's certainly a mechanism that could be employed for Android Malware—and I think it already is, actually.

Problems do happen—but I don't see anyone calling on Google to restrict Chrome to a whitelisted set of approved URLs. And I'd posit that gaining access to someone's Facebook account is no less invasive than gaining access to their phone.

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

#456

Post by vkou »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #446
vkou wrote: post #430

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, 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.

The issue is not that Facebook is restricted from doing some things in the App Store, that they aren't on other platforms. That's a strawman, that nobody in this thread is complaining about.

The issue is that the rules for Facebook on the App Store isn't subjected to the same rules as on the App Store.

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

#457

Post by simion314 »

scarface74 wrote: post #451
simion314 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 look…

> 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?).…

>I wouldn’t buy a Mac.

I run Linux but I am the only one that I know in my family and friends and if the hardware would be DRM and locked down you could not get an older windows machine and put Linux on it.

Don you think that the hardware and software you bought should serve you the owner? Like if it is my own OS it should execute what I tell it to do(maybe I would need to enable something to exit the "kid mode")

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

#458

Post by bumblebritches5 »

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…

K then don't force new app stores onto the iPhone, just limit Apple's ability to ban apps they don't like, like Gab.ai, Voat, 4Chan, etc.

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

#459

Post by matt_kantor »

Thorrez wrote: post #416
matt_kantor wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments.

So you can avoid the Apple tax if you're a private tutor.

However it looks like I misread blueicecubes' comment. They were asking about one-to-few vs one-to-many, but I talked about one-to-one.

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

#460

Post by matt_kantor »

blueicecubes wrote: post #113
eadan wrote: post #2

Relevant section: 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. This is huge…

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".

Looks like I misread your comment when posting my other reply (I was talking about one-to-one). Sorry about that.

I'm not sure what the few/many distinction is about, but I can guess: if they only said "one-to-many" it could be unclear whether "many" means "more than one" or "some sufficiently large number", so they include "few" to remove ambiguity. Said another way: "one-to-few and one-to-many" is just a different way to say "one to more than one". As far as I can tell the new guidelines don't use the few/many distinction anywhere and only mention both in this one sentence.

Post reply on HN