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

421–430 of 492 posts

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

#421

Post by _-___________-_ »

withinboredom wrote: post #244
isatty wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> build something that is scalable? That's probably the point - 1:1 experiences that are not scalable is a drop in the bucket even if they charge a 30% commission.

I beg to differ. I use a website to schedule our baby sitter, but with this rule, it's possible to be an app.

The baby sitter is a service delivered outside the platform, so just like Uber and the like, they already didn't have to use IAP. There are tons of similar apps on the App Store that already don't use IAP.

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

#422

Post by nodamage »

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.

I think you massively underestimate the number of people that will click yes to install random packages on their own phones in order get access to free games or porn or whatever.

https://research.checkpoint.com/2019/agent-smith-a-new-speci...

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/android/2019/08/mobile-menace-...

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/07/virul...

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

#423

Post by wruza »

elteto wrote: post #278
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #44

> 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…

That quote even has its own wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

For more context, it ruled out a false positive and pushed the boundary further, not vice versa:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the conviction by ruling that the film was not obscene and so was constitutionally protected.

Absurdly, apple opponents itt use its completely opposite meaning in their arguments.

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

#424

Post by simonh »

burtonator wrote: post #361
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #44

> 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…

So they block Safari right, because I can definitely see sexual content in Safari.

The exception for web browsers also extends to Firefox, Chrome, etc on the App Store so that exception is applied consistently.

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

#425

Post by wruza »

thekyle wrote: post #384
design-material wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's fine - Apple users knew that was the deal when they decided to get an iPhone over Android (for many that was why they made that decision)

I see this a lot, but do they really? I'm sure the technical Apple users knew what they were getting themselves into but most average Joe users I've run into that have iPhones for other reasons like: needing iMessage to talk with family, liking the UI, wanting to sync with their Mac, etc. None of which require Apple to have a monopoly on app distribution. Saying Apple users knew what they were getting into is kinda l…

You don't expect from average Joe to formulate the exact value of their phone on demand. There may be much more behind these phrases, but they are simply not used to articulating the full difference, cause they do not discuss it often, and they have less vocabulary for that kind of thing.

What we should not do, is treating average Joes as idiots with no knowledge. They are non-tech, but not clueless. If you ask one of them about installing apps from the internet, they will likely remember that guy who told them it may be unsafe and it's better to stick with official store. PC users will definitely know about viruses and other "in the wild" hazards. Even my life-long non-tech grandma asked me about dangers and banking app practices when I brought her a tablet.

Personally I even bet that many of android users want/pretend apple safety or think that these two platforms are probably as safe as apple. They do not know what they are getting info, they assume that, because why wouldn't you.

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

#426

Post by j-pb »

_qulr wrote: post #112
hn_check wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Independent software development was an absolute wasteland. I had a 10 year career in that "wasteland". > we should note that iOS was the single most profitable platform for Epic, across all platforms Citation? From what I've seen, that's not actually true. > Okay, go and make money from Windows users and see how great it is. For a time, the Windows version of our product was my company's biggest money-maker. It se…

Thanks for having been a part of this golden age of computing. There's not a day that goes by where I don't reminiscent about the time when companies like "rogue amoeba", "made by sofa", "monster", or "Strange Flavour" and people like Alexander Repty, Austin Sarner and Brian Ball made really great mac software.

There was so much community, and such an optimistic mood with things like the Appsterdam movement.

And then it all crashed and burned, because Apple decided to get greedy, and that 99cents was going to be the default App price, with 30cents going to Apple.

Those are scraps, and nobody who wants to make an artisanal niche app to scratch their own itch, and maybe sell it, can live from that money. It was either win the lottery, or starve.

Apple killed its own ecosystem, most app store apps suck nowadays. It's ironic that they were the ones with an ad saying "we mistake abundance with choice".

I wish all the old mac devs would get together and collaboratively write a good GUI-toolkit for linux and a new Userland. Right now there is not a single good operating system. Having all those apps on linux would be a dream come true. But a dream it is...

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

#427

Post by SahAssar »

design-material wrote: post #370
SahAssar wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still can't change the browser on iOS. All the other "browsers" are heavily restricted skins over a webview, not a proper other browser.

And that's OK; if it wasn't for Apple then Google would essentially own the current and future direction of the web by now

Competition should not be created by limiting the market on one specific platform.

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

#428

Post by scarface74 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #400
scarface74 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether that was your “initial argument” or not, your statement > And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok flow. Was wrong. Also, it’s coming to iOS 14 https://caniuse.com/web-app-manifest

You're talking past each other. Look back at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24447692 There are two complaints in that comment. You addressed one of those complaints, showing it to be wrong. You did not address the other complaint, and it was not "moving the goalpoats" to repeat it. > Also, it’s coming to iOS 14 Good.

Let’s go with his initial complaints.

> push notifications,

Abused by spammers even on supposed reputable sites like PC Mag and Toms Hardware. I’ve made the mistake of clicking on Ok on my computer since every site now forces you to acknowledge that they use cookies. It’s back to the toolbars of old level of annoyance. I would be okay if only websites that were added to your home screen could ask for permission.

> data persistent.

iOS has supported localStorage since 2007

> bluetooth, NFC

How many “web apps” are really being held back by either? And Apple and to a lesser extent Mozilla has said some of the standards are privacy invasive.

https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-priv...

>add to homescreen prompt,

Already shown not to be true.

>icons

The icon when you add a web page to your home screen is the same that shows up in your browser bar.

> launch Screen

Is this really stopping you from creating a PWA because you want a launch screen?

But the larger question is if PWAs are so powerful, why aren’t Android developers forgoing apps and just writing PWA’s in droves?

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

#429

Post by scarface74 »

simion314 wrote: post #395
scarface74 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So first you said that “people like me” didn’t complain, but now you are saying that people did complain? All of the well known Apple pundits complained - John Gruber, Marco Arment, John Siracusa, etc. The difference was that people who owned the devices complained. How many Apple pundits spent time complaining about Android devices instead of just not buying them? Well Gruber always buys the top of the line Android…

OK, this is the first time you mention government, so then you acknowledge there is a problem but you are scared that the government can get involved? I don't see how free market can solve this since there is a duopoly that is happy how things are at the moment(they don't want to compete on the 30% tax)

The argument was that you wanted the ability to use your phone as you please and download what you want. You can do that now.

How much money have you really spent buying apps or doing in app purchases over the past year? What’s more likely to happen, you will save money or the developers will keep more of a cut?

On the other hand, most money on either store is not being spent buying apps from Indy developers - it’s being spent on loot boxes and pay to win games. Do you think that getting rid of the 30% is going to all of the sudden mean indy developers can make a come back like they did in 2008?

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

#430

Post by vkou »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #393
vkou wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why developers want to make apps for iOS is because there's a large market. That market exists because Apple has done a great job prioritizing the protection of their customers' privacy and payment information. You vastly overestimate the number of figs the average user gives about most of the privacy problems that HN grapples with. The average user, after all, uses Facebook. What the average user wants…

Breach a user's trust and/or misuse their data and you'll know about it pretty quickly. I'd wager that the average user cares much more about protecting, say, their browsing history, than they care about petty B2B contract drama.

> Breach a user's trust and/or misuse their data and you'll know about it pretty quickly.

> I'd wager that the average user cares much more about protecting, say, their browsing history,

No, you won't, for a lot of reasons.

1. If people gave a fig about their browsing history, they wouldn't have Facebook accounts. (Which, combined with tracking cookies, do a great job of leaking their browsing history.)

2. If people gave a fig about their browsing history, they wouldn't use browsers with omnibars.

3. Or browsers which sync their accounts across multiple computers/devices.

3. People don't even understand which part of the tech stack (The OS, the app, the browser, the website, the third-party cookies served by the website) that they use actually compromises their information.

4. Unless you're a political dissident being hunted by the CIA, the House of Saud, and the Mossad, when this information is compromised, the harm is difficult to quantify, and is never directly linked to the part of the stack that caused the compromise.

Ask five different people 'Who knows your browsing history?', and you will get five different answers, all of which will be wrong. If normal people cared about this in the particular, they'd be tech-literate about this sort of thing. They aren't. As long as some asshole is not using that compromised browsing history to harass them personally, as long as it's being used in the abstract, by some information broker to show them ads, most of them don't give a damn. I know that they don't, because they don't take any steps to secure it.

Obviously, the users don't care about the B2B spat between Apple and developers. I'm not asking them to - I'm pointing out that rigged markets rarely produce good products.

Post reply on HN