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

161–170 of 492 posts

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

#161

Post by rriepe »

_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 think it's the power dynamic. The marketing material doesn't need to be as good because they're (culturally) in charge now at the company.

It used to be that engineering/design led the company. Now it's marketing and legal.

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

#162

Post by AsyncAwait »

make3 wrote: post #19
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?

They created the store, how entitled are you.

Yes, I want my store on my hardware. Thank you.

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

#163

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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.

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 their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.

You can tell this was personally written by Steve.

---

Taken from https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://developer.... This is the earliest available in the Internet Archive as far as I can tell; circa-2012 they were kept behind an account login.

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

#164

Post by colejohnson66 »

matsemann wrote: post #86
Razengan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection Again, Apple is not the only company in this space and iOS is not the only intersection/road/whatever analogy you want. There are alternatives and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform. Honestly, all of this becomes much less complicated if you think of the iPhone as an Xbox, PlayStation or Switch. iPhone is not the e…

> and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform. But in practice, are anyone capable of that? It's a winner-takes-it-all, and the winners are so huge it's virtually impossible for anyone to upset them. You cannot compete on price, features or anything without a hundred billion investment.

Barrier to entry isn’t necessarily part of antitrust. I can’t set up my own toll roads without billions of dollars of investment, but a toll road company isn’t necessarily breaking the law.

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

#165

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".

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%".

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

#166

Post by _qulr »

hn_check wrote: post #149
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Independent software development was an absolute wasteland. It was extremely hard to get a user to give you money outside of a few extremely fortified ghettos Utter nonsense. Shrink-wrapped and downloadable software in the Windows world was all over the place using activation/serial codes either thru email or on a CD. Two examples: VueScan https://www.hamrick.com/ SnagIt screen capture (which is now cloud based, I…

Your two fringe examples hardly render that "utter nonsense". There have been over a billion Windows devices in play for 3+ decades. The average Window user has paid for at most anti-virus, Word/Office, and sometimes Adobe. It is rare to find someone who has paid a penny for anything else. Even critical software that people used day after day like WinZip and WinRAR became a meme for being something that went unpaid f…

> It is rare to find someone who has paid a penny for anything else.

Citation needed. Who are all those people attending the Microsoft developers conference every year? Who were all the people in the audience for Ballmer's infamous "Developers, developers, developers" chant?

You're claiming the nonexistence of something that clearly exists.

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

#167

Post by mynegation »

reaperducer wrote: post #84
drenvuk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please explain?

Can you please explain? It doesn't want to handle the money when you rent a hooker.

But what if I want one-to-few or even one-to-many experience?

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

#168

Post by pier25 »

veilrap wrote: post #152
pier25 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

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 you just recently bought you get an automatic instant refund. Good luck getting a refund on iOS.

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

#169

Post by hn_check »

_qulr wrote: post #112
hn_check wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed." Independent software development was an absolute wasteland. It was extremely hard to get a user to give you money outside of a few extremely fortified ghettos (Steam, for instance, which takes a 30% cut as well). Begware was the most common tactic. Even now with multiple options, while everyone piles on Apple, we shoul…

> Independent software development was an absolute wasteland. I had a 10 year career in that "wasteland". > we should note that iOS was the single most profitable platform for Epic, across all platforms Citation? From what I've seen, that's not actually true. > Okay, go and make money from Windows users and see how great it is. For a time, the Windows version of our product was my company's biggest money-maker. It se…

"I had a 10 year career in that "wasteland"."

From your CV, apparently developing for the Mac. Actually at a well known developer that probably had just a handful of employees. It isn't really a counterpoint.

"Citation? From what I've seen, that's not actually true."

Epic doesn't release these numbers, yet from third party analysis in the 30 days before being kicked from the respective stores, Fortnite made $43M on iOS, and a paltry $3.3M on Android, worldwide. Those iOS numbers would make it represent 40% of all Fortnite revenue, which would already significantly over-represent the userbase.

Nonetheless, it's funny when someone demands a citation and then gives their own belief minus citation as a counterpoint.

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

#170

Post by scarface74 »

paxys wrote: post #47
eplanit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This kindly-worded "Our way or the highway" is a hallmark: "If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too."

"We provide Safari for a great web experience too, but don't implement any standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, add to homescreen prompt, icons, launch screen, themes that would actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they should have said.

There has been the ability add to the home screen since day 1. There were plenty of website that calculated where the “share” button was in the browser app and had a pop up to add to the home screen.
Post reply on HN