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

131–140 of 492 posts

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

#131

Post by pier25 »

_jal wrote: post #122
ciarannolan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. Sentences like "we think that you will also know it when you cross it" are extremely arrogant.

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

#132

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

> 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 clients. User plays a browser or PBEM game that has subscriptions? Ka-ching

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

#135

Post by damnyou »

jfk13 wrote: post #70
est31 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading. This leads to Apple capturing a much larger percentage of transactions pertaining software for their devices.

> Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.

I would fully support Apple charging, say, $50 extra to lock down its devices to the current standard. That would be a much better world and the users who desire the "premium experience" still get to have it.

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

#136

Post by Bud »

matsemann wrote: post #128
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?

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.

That's not a big difference, with Android, because nobody is making any money doing that. It doesn't work.

I didn't mention Windows. I was discussing platforms where everyone takes a 30% cut. You may say this is mere whataboutism, but anyone who reads Hacker News knows that 99% of the anger and attacks on this practice are directed at Apple. Nobody bitches at Google and Sony and Microsoft for doing the exact same thing.

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

#137

Post by nodamage »

dragonwriter wrote: post #38
dmitriid wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have meant mobile marketplaces before AppStore. Those charged anywhere up to 90%. And retail doesn't charge "0%" on boxed products, or they would go out of business. Logistics, distribution, and store markup all add up to the final price of the product on the shelf.

> And retail doesn't charge "0%" on boxed products Yes, they do, unless it's consignment model, which wasn't usually the case for boxed software. The retail sale happens after retail has made the purchase. It’s obviously usually at a higher price than the retailer paid, but they don't take a cut of what the vendor is asking for the software. They pay whatever the vendor (or, often in real retail, a distributor that s…

This seems like splitting hairs. At the end of the day, if the consumer buys an app for $10, the developer gets some portion of that, and the retail store gets the other.

Whether that happens in one simultaneous transaction or two different ones doesn't really make a difference to how much the developer gets paid in the end, which is less with the retail store model compared to the current digital storefront model.

Let's also not forget that Steam launched with a 30% cut a full 5 years before the App Store ever existed, so it's not like Apple dictated this price, they were following industry norms at the time.

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

#138

Post by scarface74 »

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.

Everything is a judgment call. You can no more spell out everything that is considered explicit than your HR department can spell out everything that might constitute harassment.

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

#139

Post by jedberg »

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?

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

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

#140

Post by shaftway »

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 completely agree. When rules aren't codified it invites biased interpretation of them.

However....

I've worked on an internal communications platform. For some reason people would forget that they were on a corporate site with their corporate email linked to it and spew garbage that any decent person would be embarrassed to say out loud.

So we deliberately didn't codify our rules. We chose not to because we were aware that if we did then people would deliberately cozy up as close to the line as they could, and that wasn't the kind of environment we wanted to foster.

We avoided bias by removing information about the flagger or flagee when content was flagged and judged it based on the content ourselves. After we judged we'd look up who was responsible for the content, and if we felt they were doing some penetration testing to see exactly where those lines were we would start to loop in their manager, HR, legal, and anyone else we felt should be aware. Our escalation procedure went up to banning, though nobody ever reached that point. And our content improved.

If the story ended there I would still be against not having codified rules, but begrudgingly accept that it worked in that situation.

Unfortunately the story doesn't end there. Staff was hired so that engineers wouldn't be responsible for this. The staff was less familiar with the ecosystem and they proceeded to clamp down more and more on acceptable content. They cozied up to HR and legal who were never really comfortable with the permissiveness of the platform, and received praise and additional funding to grow the team for these clampdowns.

I left the project and haven't looked back.

You're right, "I'll know it when I see it" is a garbage sentiment that at best is a cop out, but too often is used to withhold rules and keep people in the dark as a power play, or even squash dissenters with arbitrary and unbalanced application of force.

Post reply on HN