In case it's useful to any - here's a diff of what Apple changed since the last update in March:
https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd7007...
Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
171–180 of 492 posts
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#172This sort of arbitrary judgments-from-heaven is a sign of monopolistic power. You only have a Hobson's choice when it comes to the app store.
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.
It appears you didn't hear the biggest shocker of them all; one does not need to have an outright monopoly to be in a dominant position, able to abuse its power in a market.
I know, shocker.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#173Here's a diff of the document. I'm not sure if it works on mobile:
https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/202009011909...
What catches my eye, other than the "person to person experiences" and game streaming changes is the complete removal of the following clause in section 3.1.3(b) "Multiplatform Services":
>You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
To me, this was the most draconian rule in the entire agreement since it governed how you could communicate with your customers outside of your app (such as on your own website). IANAL, but this change seems to allow mentioning the 30% Apple cut to your users and nudging them towards alternatives.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#174Earlier 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…
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…
Most people don’t care about side loading apps on their phone either...
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"You're claiming the nonexistence of something that clearly exists."
You have become incredibly insincere in your arguments, or you are seriously misunderstanding this discussion.
There are ARMIES of corporate developers making internal apps for corporations around the globe. I, like probably 80% of HN, spent much of our career doing this. That isn't commercial software. It has zero relevance to any App Store, Windows Store, or getting money from users. Corporate developers make up the vast bulk of participants at those conferences (based upon first hand knowledge).
We have MSDN subscriptions, go to conferences, and then we make some internal timesheet app or glue with an accounting system.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#176> 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 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.
I personally think this is the worst line that ever came out of a Supreme Court decision because of how simple it is. It is such a blatant low effort cop out that legitimizes arbitrary rulings. At least usually they obfuscate it with legal jargon and historical rulings.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#177Man I just want to have control over my phone is that too much to ask?
Buy an Android....
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#178Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to appear innocent in their ongoing legal feud with Epic.
From what I can tell, nothing here affects their legal dispute with Epic. They aren't opening up third party app stores which escape the 30% cut.
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's their treehouse; they can do what they want. None of these platforms are your friend. Half the Apple devs I know have some kind of stockholm syndrome, though.
Or just maybe they like making money on the mobile platform where people will actually spend money?
The crazy part is the people who fly into fits of rage when you suggest Apple could do something differently. Changing the web browser on iOS was one that would get tons of hate and responses like “you don’t need that! it would confuse people!”
Then Apple lets people do it and now they’re okay with it
Re: Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase
#180Earlier 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.
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 t…
I've heard anecdotally that Steve Jobs helped write those guidelines, and the "amateur hour" line in particular sure sounds like him. I don't mean that in a disparaging way; Jobs could certainly be a jerk, but there are times I wish more CEOs were willing to be that blunt in official communication.