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

Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

developer.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 365 posts

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#331

Post by foolswisdom »

pc86 wrote: post #323
foolswisdom wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but at the same time, "Justice delayed is justice denied"[1]. An excessively slow justice system means that you need substantially more resources (money, and time living under the uncertainty of the outcome) to deal with it, which is part of why the threat of court action against you from a large corporation (or another entity with deep pockets) is so concerning. I know someone who was in court defending agains…

Yes but the maxim presupposes the existence of an injured party, and that's a little different in the context of civil claims (e.g. your example of the large corporation bringing a civil suit against someone) compared to the state bringing criminal charges against a person. There are intentional roadblocks to the state bringing charges, e.g. the separation of powers I mentioned above, that don't really exist on the c…

It's good that there are checks, but the core point remains that nimbleness is required for effectiveness. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm observing that the courts are slow, and that the same logic (slow is good) can indicate that is a good thing, which is why I take issue with general application of the concept without limiting context.

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#332

Post by mholm »

chipsrafferty wrote: post #312
14 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? My kids asked me for skins for years. As the one who owned a credit card and would be the one needed to pay for it I laughed them out of the room. Maybe parents should learn to parent and tell their kids no. My kid now older and with a job now tells me how he remembers when he used to ask for skins and I would say no damn way. He also says now that he makes his own money and buys things himself there is no…

I get spending $20 on one skin to support the development of a game you enjoy. Just don't see the point in having multiple.

It's fashion, to an extent. Do you only have a single outfit? Would you even if it was always the right weather for them, and was always clean? Kids often spend a lot of time in these environments, which makes them want variety of expression there.

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#333

Post by anton-c »

const_cast wrote: post #328
jajuuka wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it exploiting if they participate under their own volition? Is Auto Zone exploiting people who like working on their cars?

I've said this before and I'll say it a hundred times more - choice isn't binary. There isn't no choice and then free choice. There's infinite levels of choice. Some things are very choosy. Like me cutting off my arm right now - very choosy, I get a lot of control in that. Some things are not very choosy. Like a heroine addict deciding to shoot up or not today. I won't make any claims on the addictiveness of fortnite…

I agree. While I do think the skin issue is a parenting thing and a good time to teach a lesson about advertising and fomo*, there's more too it.

We protect people(arguably not enough) from gambling and alcohol which are basically banking on a portion of the population becoming addicted.(tho I also do not make any claims on the addictiveness of fortnite or say, gacha games)

At what point is the level of manipulation from these companies messing with psychology too much? It's an open secret they are researching how to farm attention. Don't people that are susceptible to this stuff deserve some warnings like booze and slots? I'm all for personal responsibility but we've created lines with other things where people lose control. Idk why this should be treated different.

No idea if anything needs regulated or what exactly needs to change, but as you said, at least more analysis.

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#334

Post by matwood »

leakycap wrote: post #274
matwood wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One word: greed. This is too easy of an answer. Would you take more money if I offered it to you? My problem with Apple here is that I believe it's short sighted. Lack of compliance or whatever you want to call it, could threaten the whole business by forcing legislation and legal action.

Beyond the morality of taking money in this situation, Apple soured it's relationship with everyone who makes income off Patreon or other apps with their unstoppable greed. The idea Apple deserved a cut of Patreon podcaster's monthly subscription fees was beyond the pale.

I agree completely. My point above is that they are really focused short term. The hubris that nothing would change I believe shows how disconnected they are. They could have made some self adjustments and likely made more money long term, but now the entire payments business is threatened.

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#335

Post by zackify »

candiddevmike wrote: post #119
zackify wrote: post #112

Crazy. I thought hackernews didn’t care because this happened yesterday and I never saw anything! We’re updating our app in a couple days this will save a LOT of money. We will kick users out to web and pass a JWT in the url with a short lifespan to log the user in on web and then prompt for Apple Pay or credit card. Then a link back to our app’s deep link

So many questions: - Why not just handle all of this in the app? Do you think Apple won't allow it? - Are you geofencing this functionality? It seems like per other comments this is US only. - How are you handling existing subscribers (not sure if applicable)? Will you "encourage" them to migrate?

It seems right now the rules are more clear about if you mention or link out, it’s ok. So that’s why.

We should geofence it to US yeah.

We are thinking of sending a push notification with a discount to pay on web and cancel

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#336

Post by smallmancontrov »

satvikpendem wrote: post #320
smallmancontrov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is HN, the Church of the Free Market is well represented. If you haven't yet seen someone give the "free markets create competition" speech on Monday and the "my company aims to capture this space and then entrench a monopoly with economies of scale / network effects / platform effects / two sided markets / last mile dynamics" pitch on Tuesday, just hang around HN a bit more. You won't have to wait long.

A monopoly isn't a free market though, because, well, the market is not free. This ruling is precisely about making the market of payment processing on iOS more free, creating such a market.

Sure, we can say that it isn't true communism -- err, sorry, market freedom -- so long as we acknowledge that the incentives which create, establish, and perpetuate the monopolies emerge due to market freedom and attempts to curtail monopolies are regularly attacked under the banner of market freedom and that actual market freedom requires (metaphorical) mace-wielding regulators to regularly go on (metaphorical) skull-cracking expeditions which will be fought tooth and nail by investors seeking the windfall profits that come from monopoly.

Do we agree? Or will we find ourselves on opposite sides of this fight the millisecond the specifics of this case fade from the public eye?

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#337

Post by LPisGood »

chipsrafferty wrote: post #312
14 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? My kids asked me for skins for years. As the one who owned a credit card and would be the one needed to pay for it I laughed them out of the room. Maybe parents should learn to parent and tell their kids no. My kid now older and with a job now tells me how he remembers when he used to ask for skins and I would say no damn way. He also says now that he makes his own money and buys things himself there is no…

I get spending $20 on one skin to support the development of a game you enjoy. Just don't see the point in having multiple.

Me and many of my friends were children when Fortnite came out. We still play, and we now have full time jobs. When fun new skins or dances come out, it’s not uncommon for us to get them.

They’re fun and entertaining. I hardly feel addicted or preyed on moreso than when I buy any other entertainment product.

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#338

Post by LPisGood »

robertlagrant wrote: post #246
tracerbulletx wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard they make whole cartoons to feature a specific toy character and put them in kids happy meals and have limited collectors editions. Will the manipulative horrors of marketing to children ever cease or will we all be coerced into a life time sentence at Disney land by a clever cereal tie in.

They do, and that is bad. Growing up surrounded by toy adverts that make kids despondent if they don't have the toys is not good.

I feel like people with tour stance aren’t considering that skins and emotes are fun to have without fomo or addiction.

Similarly, toys are fun to have for their own sake.

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#339

Post by dlubarov »

bsimpson wrote: post #173
EcommerceFlow wrote: post #167

If you haven't watched Tim Sweeney's appearance on Lex Fridman (which went live two days ago ironically), he discusses this battle against Apple, which he's maintained at a furious pace for years. He goes into detail on how the previous guidelines stifle innovation, how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc.…

Tim's a selfish businessman, whose interests just happen to align with the public interest in this instance. He makes excuses about Linux market share when asked why Fortnite isn't on the Steam Deck, then ships a build for Windows ARM. Fortnite Festival, their Rock Band recreation in the Fortnite ecosystem, recently started limiting when you can purchase songs in an effort to get people to impulse buy them when avail…

> He makes excuses about Linux market share when asked why Fortnite isn't on the Steam Deck, then ships a build for Windows ARM.

What's the implication here, that he has some personal vendetta against Linux? A sibling comment seems to imply this as well.

It seems like Hanlon's Razor would suggest there was just some engineering complication that they never dealt with. I can imagine a bunch of explanations for why Windows ARM might have happened first. Maybe there were fewer complications, maybe some competent engineer personally cared about Windows ARM, maybe they have Windows based testing infrastructure, etc.

Re: Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

#340

Post by mvdtnz »

duped wrote: post #305
EcommerceFlow wrote: post #167

If you haven't watched Tim Sweeney's appearance on Lex Fridman (which went live two days ago ironically), he discusses this battle against Apple, which he's maintained at a furious pace for years. He goes into detail on how the previous guidelines stifle innovation, how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc.…

The only reason he is fighting Apple's monopoly on IAP is because he wants to ship the Epic store on mobile devices so he can make his 12% cut off exclusive titles. Now is that better than the Apple store? Sure! But the real problem is that users can't install their own games without going through an arbiter like Epic or Apple.

You mean because he wants to compete in a market?
Post reply on HN