Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In-App Purchase Rules

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#21

Post by codetrotter »

jasonlotito wrote: post #12
gok wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It works well enough on the web without tons of scams What web have you been using?

The one where I can charge back any fraudulent charge with ease. I know how to do that without thinking about it. I've logged into Apple twice now and neither account areas provide a place for me to cancel subscriptions.

> I've logged into Apple twice now and neither account areas provide a place for me to cancel subscriptions.

You mean like so?

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039

I agree that it is weirdly convoluted, but I don’t see what you mean about there being no place to cancel subscriptions.

But perhaps you were talking about something else and I misunderstood?

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#22

Post by Spivak »

MBCook wrote: post #15
Spivak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I mean regardless of which processor you use Apple still takes a 30% cut of all digital sales on iOS. So if you use PayPal you pay Apple 30% and PayPals fees too. Because Apple isn't charging 30% to be your payment processor, they're charging 30% for the ability to sell your goods on iOS at all.

I understand what you said. That was not how my plan was designed to work.

But your plan was essentially that Apple stops taking a 30% cut of digital sales because… they’re nice? Or someone forces them?

What does it have to do with payment processors?

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#23

Post by microtherion »

meritt wrote: post #17

I'm glad Marco finally stepped up to set the HN groupthink tone because you guys have been salivating to defend Apple the past month in every goddamn thread about Epic Games.

It's funny; coming from the other side, I mostly see people opining confidently that Obviously the Supreme Court Will Cap Apple's Fees at 1.5% or the EU Will Most Certainly Break Apple Up etc.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#24

Post by droopyEyelids »

dang wrote: post #20
meritt wrote: post #17

I'm glad Marco finally stepped up to set the HN groupthink tone because you guys have been salivating to defend Apple the past month in every goddamn thread about Epic Games.

Obviously some HN users have defending Apple while others have been denouncing Apple. So much so that I've had to pin moderation comments to the top asking for better discussion than Glory-to-$BigCo vs. Death-to-$BigCo flamewars [1]. But everyone notices and remembers the comments they dislike the most [2], so each side thinks that "HN" is slavishly and perversely on the other side [3]. It would be good to get a litt…

It's really a universal human flaw: to perceive a huge group of people as an entity that can be dealt with as if it were an individual.

Would be cool to see a UI that added friction to that.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#25

Post by jeff_tyrrill »

The rules are complex but the principle is simple.

Apps are required to use in-app purchase if:

(1) The customer relationship originated in the app; and

(2) The primary nexus of the purchased item is to improve the purchaser's personal in-app experience.

Rules get complex around edge cases even when the principles are simple. Sometimes Apple makes the wrong call on those edge cases based on those principles (Hey, WordPress, in-app fitness training calls), and today's rule changes feel like Apple's acknowledgement of that.

Apple has also signaled that they don't feel the simple principles need any adjustment.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#26

Post by meritt »

dang wrote: post #20
meritt wrote: post #17

I'm glad Marco finally stepped up to set the HN groupthink tone because you guys have been salivating to defend Apple the past month in every goddamn thread about Epic Games.

Obviously some HN users have defending Apple while others have been denouncing Apple. So much so that I've had to pin moderation comments to the top asking for better discussion than Glory-to-$BigCo vs. Death-to-$BigCo flamewars [1]. But everyone notices and remembers the comments they dislike the most [2], so each side thinks that "HN" is slavishly and perversely on the other side [3]. It would be good to get a litt…

> It would be good to get a little more awareness into this process.

Make upvotes and downvotes public, and do something to reduce the constant flood of throwaway accounts who do nothing more than constant trolling on contentious topics.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#27

Post by microtherion »

scarface74 wrote: post #5
MBCook wrote: post #3

At this point I think I’d like to see Apple allow a form of third-party payment. It works well enough on the web without tons of scams, it could be done on the iPhone. Let developers choose between any “certified“ payment provider. Apple would be one, and then you could add Square, PayPal, and other big companies that could jump through Apple’s hoops. Like making sure the refund experience is easy so no one can make…

It doesn’t need to be that complicated. Scrap IAP entirely and just consolidate everything with Apple Pay in the countries where it is available. Apple Pay has standard credit card processing fees that aren’t much higher than any other credit card processor. Then force every company to offer Apple Pay without these crazy rules. Most companies already have the facilities to accept credit cards. For those that don’t, A…

Apple does not charge the fees just for the payment processing.

Ultimately, Apple would like to earn money from the products they make. There are a variety of models to do so:

* You can sell the hardware, sell OS upgrades, and let third parties sell apps without taking a cut. This was the original Mac model.

* You can sell the hardware, give away OS upgrades, and privilege third party developers who give you a cut, while preserving a way to side load. This is the current Mac model.

* You can sell the hardware, give away OS upgrades, and take a cut from third party apps. This is the current iOS model.

* You largely let others build and sell the hardware, give away OS upgrades, take a voluntary cut from developers, and sell or monetize the user's data. This is the Android model.

* You give away the hardware and OS upgrades and live off venture capital. This is a popular startup model.

Each of these is viable to some extent. None is 100% popular with customers.

But what some people seem to be asking for is "Gilette, but give away razors and adopt an open standard for the razor blades".

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#28

Post by pchristensen »

meritt wrote: post #17

I'm glad Marco finally stepped up to set the HN groupthink tone because you guys have been salivating to defend Apple the past month in every goddamn thread about Epic Games.

There's a difference between defending Apple vs Epic, and defending Apple vs itself - Epic acted horribly. It was much easier to defend Apple's position than Epic's, even though I hope that Epic's revolt will push Apple to change their App Store policies.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#29

Post by easton »

meritt wrote: post #26
dang wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously some HN users have defending Apple while others have been denouncing Apple. So much so that I've had to pin moderation comments to the top asking for better discussion than Glory-to-$BigCo vs. Death-to-$BigCo flamewars [1]. But everyone notices and remembers the comments they dislike the most [2], so each side thinks that "HN" is slavishly and perversely on the other side [3]. It would be good to get a litt…

> It would be good to get a little more awareness into this process. Make upvotes and downvotes public, and do something to reduce the constant flood of throwaway accounts who do nothing more than constant trolling on contentious topics.

Downvotes and upvotes being hidden is the only thing keeping HN from devolving into reddit. Otherwise, people would just agree with whatever had the biggest number instead of (hopefully) applying some critical thinking.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#30

Post by scarface74 »

microtherion wrote: post #27
scarface74 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t need to be that complicated. Scrap IAP entirely and just consolidate everything with Apple Pay in the countries where it is available. Apple Pay has standard credit card processing fees that aren’t much higher than any other credit card processor. Then force every company to offer Apple Pay without these crazy rules. Most companies already have the facilities to accept credit cards. For those that don’t, A…

Apple does not charge the fees just for the payment processing. Ultimately, Apple would like to earn money from the products they make. There are a variety of models to do so: * You can sell the hardware, sell OS upgrades, and let third parties sell apps without taking a cut. This was the original Mac model. * You can sell the hardware, give away OS upgrades, and privilege third party developers who give you a cut, w…

I didn’t say that Apple does just make money from payment processing I said they could. There are dozens of payment processors that make money just by being credit card processors. It would make things a lot simpler and they could get a cut of payments that they can’t get right now from companies that won’t do in app purchases through the App Store. Netflix and Spotify were consistently two of the “top paid” apps when they had in app subscriptions. Now Apple doesn’t get anything from them.

They could even charge slightly higher fees than most credit card companies just like AmEx does. They have the infrastructure in place via Apple Pay.

Since Apple Pay already supports the industry standard Web Payments API. They could convince more companies to accept Apple Pay on the web without being “locked in” to Apple Pay since if you implemented the payments API, it would also work on Android with Android Pay.

Apple Pay is an open standard that integrates with your standard credit card processing flow.

Post reply on HN