361–365 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why not let everyone decide for themselves if they want to pay the extra to do the purchase in app?
Explain to me where I made the argument that they shouldn't?
Are the requirements still there for e.g. the EU storefront?
I'm pretty sure EU apps can link elsewhere for payment, but they have to show a warning message first saying that the payment is outside of Apple's jurisdiction and you can't get a refund from apple, etc.
" 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). ... Reader app developers may apply for the External Link Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in their app to a web site ...
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…
This is the root cause. I don't get the part about kids spending ceaselessly on skins, who is giving them the money?
That's the point with abusive techniques such as this - they become generationally intertwined.
Its about the kids. Those kids become parents. Those parents have kids. The abusive trauma transcends generations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"App distribution costs" is laughable as an incentive. Any business that makes an app where you can and will spend dollars would gladly let you download it directly from their website in exchange for not giving up 30% of the in-app payments. App distribution costs nothing.
390 million users. Say 10% on iOS. 39 million users. 18Gb on iOS last time Yeah app distribution costs something. Finger in the air 10's of petabytes...