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

121–130 of 492 posts

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

#121

Post by pier25 »

zaphar wrote: post #49

Here is a question I have not seen a satisfactory answer for. Why is having an App on iOS a must have? It seems like any discussion about the market fairness of Apples policies requires a shared understanding of how necessary the ecosystem actually is. If you can freely choose not to deploy to that ecosystem then you can vote with your "wallet" so to speak. If you can't freely choose however then there is an argument…

> Why is having an App on iOS a must have?

Because iOS represents about +60% of the revenue in the global mobile market, probably even more in some countries where it has a bigger market share.

It's naive to think a business with a product/service can just decide to not have a presence on iOS.

It's not even completely about the iOS revenue either, but the simple expectation from users that a service has to be on as many platforms as possible. For example, I wouldn't be a Spotify user if I couldn't use it on all my devices.

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

#122

Post by _jal »

ciarannolan wrote: post #76
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 can't believe they were dumb enough to put that SCOTUS line in this. It just plays into their current "meh, here's some rules but we'll do whatever we want anyway" image.

I'm really surprised. Did Apple shake up their PR or legal flacks? The language they've used recently (I'm thinking of the Epic stuff, too) feels different than their famously cool, considered tone; looser, more assertive, and much easier to argue with.

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

#123

Post by johnjj257 »

syspec wrote: post #65
toast0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the Microsoft Store is totally optional. Selling software for Windows has rarely required any coordination with Microsoft other than maybe code signing with a cert from an approved CA. Exceptions include drivers, and Windows Phone/Windows Mobile 10

Using Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.

Cool but there's tons of game outlets on pc, not on iphone

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

#124

Post by Bud »

mtgx wrote: post #8
jarjoura wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors but not build something that is scalable?

Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is. Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right? That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.

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?

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

#125

Post by ultrarunner »

thewebcount wrote: post #66

They say: > Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc distribution available to Apple Developer Program members. Can anyone explain this to me? I have some AppleTV apps I’ve written for myself. I can run them on my AppleTV but I have to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days to continue using them. It’s a pain in the butt. How can I install these apps without a dev account and without havin…

You could jailbreak. They actively work to prevent that, though.

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

#126

Post by pier25 »

Bud wrote: post #109
zaphar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the most compelling answer I've seen so far.

Yes. And it also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Apple deserves its 30% cut and is offering substantial value.

It doesn't prove anything.

Here's another interpretation: iOS devices are more expensive hence people that use them can spend more money on apps.

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

#127

Post by mthoms »

setpatchaddress wrote: post #50
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software. Zero %. Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk. Were Apple buying units of software/service up front and the taking a risk reselling it, it would be valid to compare the split of end-user cost with classic retail, but Apple's not doing that, so it isn't.

That is a historically inaccurate take. s/retail/distributor/ if it helps. The point is that a software developer would have been very lucky to earn a significant fraction of the retail price. 70%? Not even close. The App Store completely reversed this model. That said, it's valid to acknowledge this history and still think 30% is too much for distribution overhead in 2020. I do not have an opinion on the latter.

What the parent said is 100% accurate.

They pointed out that retailers would buy the software up front (at wholesale price), and assume the rest of the risk for "promoting, distributing, and selling" themselves. Thus, the retailer did not "charge developers" for those things[0].

I realize this is a bit pedantic but it's not fair to say the parent has said something "historically inaccurate".

[0] There were special marketing or buyback arrangements in some cases, but what's described above is the default retail model.

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

#128

Post by matsemann »

Bud wrote: post #124
mtgx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is. Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right? That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.

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?

That's whataboutism. In this post it's about Apple. That others do it doesn't excuse it.

And a big difference with Google is that you can sideload or use other stores on Android. And same on Windows, you don't have to use the store.

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

#129

Post by itake »

zaphar wrote: post #79
itake wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own a small app and iOS's free organic app search results drive 98% of my user base right now. I could see it being much more challenging to build an app if you have to develop alternative marketing channels. Personally, alternative marketing channels have yet to work for me.

Do you also have an android app? What I'm asking I guess is not why do you need the AppStore when you are on iOS. But more why do you have to be on iOS in the first place?

I have a react native app and it runs in both stores. The iOS users drive most of my revenue. My app could not survive without the organic search traffic from Apple.

I guess I was a bit misleading in my original comment. 98% of my users come from iOS and Android organic search results. I haven't been able to find any profitable non-store marketing channels.

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

#130

Post by Bud »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #115
Bud wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard of this thing called "Android". From what I've heard, and I know that this sounds crazy, but it reportedly has a larger market share than Apple does in the mobile space. So any arguments or comments here mentioning "monopolistic power" are, well, I want to be nice about this, but they are a complete fucking joke.

So there are two choices. That's not really that much better.

It's not a monopoly. By definition. It's not even close. That's all I am saying. So we should stop with this absurdity of talking about Apple having a monopoly. Apple does not even have majority market share in any of the markets that it participates in.
Post reply on HN