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

321–330 of 492 posts

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

#321

Post by hn_check »

hn_check wrote: post #93
_qulr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed. >That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers. No, that was caused by a billion people buying shiny new mobile computers. They would have bought a lot of software in any case, even without an App Store. Ne…

"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…

Please flag the above comment. It won't let me delete it now, and debating with this crew of simpletons is just entirely unrewarding.

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

#322

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #319
scarface74 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you run Windows PCs and complain that it isn’t open source or do you use Linux? If not, why buy an iOS device instead of an Android if it meets your needs better?

I run Linux only for 3 years, I was dual booting before that. This is not about what shit smells better, see people (not your tribe) complained and now Apple did something , is this article surprising you because you thought Apple policies are perfect and now because of this complains the good Apple had to give up some money to improve it's PR. Remember the keyboard issues with broken keys, people like you were accus…

I said no such thing. No one said that there weren’t keyboard issues. Apple was getting eviscerated for years by the Apple pundits for their horrible keyboards.

But you know what I didn’t do? I didn’t buy a Mac laptop with a keyboard after everyone knew the keyboards were bad and then complain about the keyboards.

It’s not about Apple being perfect - it’s about people buying a product that doesn’t meet their needs and then complaining when there are alternatives.

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

#323

Post by Razengan »

newbie578 wrote: post #250
konschubert wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection AFTER selling those roads to the public, then yea, call me a communist but I don’t think that’s good for the economy. And I don’t care if that company single-handedly invented roads - there should a limit to how far you can milk the society you operate in.

I love how people are completely missing your point and introducing Nintendo to the discussion. Trying to equal a smartphone and a fucking gaming console (Switch). A smartphone has become as you said an intersection, i.e. a bridge to the digital world and has become an absolute neccessity in today's world. And as such should also be regulated. All these people who are comparing Nintendo to Apple, try going a month wi…

> try going a Month without using your Macbook, Ipad or iPhone. Hint:Good luck

Hint: PC, Windows, Linux, Android. Congratulations.

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

#325

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

Hokusai wrote: post #201
baybal2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To begin with, I think they made it to accommodate Tencent, who once threatened to pull Wechat from App Store if they don't let them use their own payments. First, they used them for transfers only, but later came games, and etc.

Because it is not about fairness or rules. It is about extracting as much values as possible from app developers. That made sense when the Apple store was a small kind of start up enterprise. Nowadays, it should be regulated so all developers can use the platform in a level field where competition is real and it is not just a game for big corporations.

The fact they need rules to enforce use of their inferior payment system shows how inherently anti-competitive IAP is. If it were optional and you could freely roll your own purchase mechanism, most (not all) developers would remove Apple IAP with the current 30% fees.

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

#326

Post by sjwright »

scarface74 wrote: post #298
sjwright wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Google’s sideloading experience is intentionally full of warnings and hurdles. Do you really think that if Apple had a court ruling against them they could get away with that? No, Epic (et al) will be very clear about third party stores being utterly seamless to install and use. That’s why we’d see a proliferation of stores on iOS.

So now you want third party app stores and no warnings? Even though Epic - one of the first major apps to try side loading, actually had a security vulnerability. https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...

Ew, god no. I think Apple should be allowed to offer us their idea of a good product and let the marketplace choose between that, Google Android, or other competitors who believe they could do better offering open source Android. The idea of having parts of your product designed by the competitors who envy your success is utter madness.

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

#327

Post by pier25 »

hn_check wrote: post #316
pier25 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should note that iOS was the single most profitable platform for Epic, across all platforms Almost 80% of Fortnite players are on console, so I very much doubt that's even remotely true. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...

I would respond sincerely and absolutely eviscerate your ignorant nonsense, but this is HN so it is wholly undeserving of that. Instead - lol, ok

If you have better data, then by all means, do share it with us.

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

#328

Post by chillfox »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #268
Hokusai wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is not about fairness or rules. It is about extracting as much values as possible from app developers. That made sense when the Apple store was a small kind of start up enterprise. Nowadays, it should be regulated so all developers can use the platform in a level field where competition is real and it is not just a game for big corporations.

Regulating the app store isn't beneficial. They should be able to reject bad apps for being bad without having to go to court over it. The problem is that they restrict the user from using any other app store. So then when they get it wrong there is nothing anybody can do. And then they have less incentive not to get it wrong, because it's much harder for them to lose users to a competitor, so then they prohibit thin…

I don’t know if you have seen the trash heap of bad apps that is on the App Store. It gives the distinction impression that Apple does not reject bad apps, only apps they don’t like for arbitrary reasons.

I do agree that the best solution would be allowing third party stores.

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

#329

Post by crehn »

Aeolun wrote: post #317
systemvoltage wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not want these apps and average Joe doesn't want them either. Why is it so difficult for people to imagine how insanely powerful and datapacked your phone is? Allowing sideloading to average people means they will get hacked and ransomwared left and right. Your entire life is on the iPhone. While I agree with you about sideloading apps for enthusiasts and hackers , but the world is far different than you and me.…

Android allows sideloading and I’ve literally never heard of anyone even doing that, much less getting hacked by it. I think you massively overestimate how many people would use that functionality.

Even without sideloading, the Google Play Store is so full of trash apps that request dubious permissions and are littered with dark patterns. Not that it doesn't happen on the App Store, but it's significantly worse on Android. I saw the state of my little brother's phone (tween) and it was quite shocking.

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

#330

Post by chipotle_coyote »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #245
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with Lap Cat here. There's a place for cheap apps, but the problem comes for people developing productivity (or worse, vertical market) software that's going to sell "mere" thousands of copies, or tens of thousands at best, rather than hundreds of thousands or more. If you sell 10,000 copies at $50 a copy, you've grossed well over a quarter-million even subtracting Apple's 30% -- but if you're selling…

Those kinds of apps today tend to be part of a SaaS service and listed as Free in the App Store. Provided it’s B2B and not B2C - and you do signups and payments on your own website - then you’re exempt from the self-service signup (and 30% tax) requirements. The catch is that as you get bigger and seem more B2C than B2B then Apple might start to take notice (see: Hey e-mail).

Well, I was thinking of things like media editing (or specialized text editing) and other apps, not all of which work well in a true SaaS model. On the other hand, it's significant that more and more of those have moved toward a subscription model...
Post reply on HN