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

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#51

Post by MBCook »

InTheArena wrote: post #39
jamil7 wrote: post #4

I hope Apple takes notice of the path their walking down right now. When people like Marco are calling them out on their bullshit it's a clear indicator that they've pushed the envelope too far. Alienating 3rd party developers is the same mistake that nearly cost Microsoft everything.

Lets be relaistic and note that Marco has a very lucrative podcasting career hosting a apple podcast - which requires content and something to speak of. Not saying he is wrong - but let's not pretend that he is not usually at the forefront of every pitchfork carrying moment in the Apple ecosystem.

> but let's not pretend that he is not usually at the forefront of every pitchfork carrying moment in the Apple ecosystem.

I think that’s the point. Marco usually isn’t someone who rushes to pitchforks against Apple.

The fact that Marco, of all people, has had consistently very negative things to say about Apple during this whole saga shows how far their behavior has pushed developers.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#52

Post by LexGray »

staticman2 wrote: post #33
scarface74 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

This has to do with Apple using Mafia style tactics to demand 30% of all economic activity. It has nothing to do with payment processors as such.

But what percentage would developers consider appropriate? Apple works partially as a consumer advocate in this space preventing many shady practices through their draconian rules. There is definitely value preventing developers from innovating over customer expectations.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#53

Post by Fr33maan »

nodamage wrote: post #43
InTheArena wrote: post #38

I don't have a problem with the app store rules, for apps that are in the app store. What i do have a major problem with is the inability to use a third party app store with different rules. Marco is opposed to this - primarily because it offsets the immediate advantage he would get if Apple was forced to abandon IAP, while also making him have to possibly go with multiple app stores - but legally I don't think the g…

> The security in iOS is tied to the sandboxing model - not the app store. I disagree. Sandboxing is designed to prevent your phone from being compromised but it doesn't prevent bad actors from using legitimate APIs in malicious ways. As an example, the App Store review guidelines enforce certain privacy restrictions such as not allowing third-party analytics or advertising in apps designed for children. This is not…

That's all right and all fine. It's my user choice to install any crappy third party app store on the hardware I bought. I would like to not being protected. The same on windows, I'm warned than executing an unknown program is a risk for me and if I don't know what I do, then I should not do it. That is perfectly fine. Small fences with warning signs instead of 10 meters walls.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#54

Post by scarface74 »

LexGray wrote: post #52
staticman2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has to do with Apple using Mafia style tactics to demand 30% of all economic activity. It has nothing to do with payment processors as such.

But what percentage would developers consider appropriate? Apple works partially as a consumer advocate in this space preventing many shady practices through their draconian rules. There is definitely value preventing developers from innovating over customer expectations.

Fair point.

I would be okay with a graduate app fee.

Tier 1: Hobbyists, you can have a “self signed” cert that allows you to have any app tied to your own device. You could also freely share source code for other people to compile themselves and put on their own device using their “self signed certificate”. This could be free. Of course you would still have to have a Mac.

Tier 2: a really cheap fee where you could sign apps that were distributed outside of the App Store for Macs. Signing apps that are distributed outside of the Mac App Store don’t require any manual approval or sandboxing.

Tier 3: the current App Store model. But the difference is that the first $x amount is charged at 30% and then it gradually goes down at larger volumes. Say the first $10K? Where eventually it is basically barely above payment processing fees. I’m sure the Epic’s of the world would be okay with this.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#55

Post by unnouinceput »

Lol, I might've woken up my neighbors with my laugh. It's 5 AM, and reading this. Jesus I just realized that Apple is the same as Microsoft in 90's. Do all companies when become behemoths start to "do you are have the stupid?". Because it seems so.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#56

Post by dataminded »

InTheArena wrote: post #38

I don't have a problem with the app store rules, for apps that are in the app store. What i do have a major problem with is the inability to use a third party app store with different rules. Marco is opposed to this - primarily because it offsets the immediate advantage he would get if Apple was forced to abandon IAP, while also making him have to possibly go with multiple app stores - but legally I don't think the g…

Doesn't apple own the operating system?

They licensed the OS to you with a specific set of permissions to enable a specific business model. I understand how you would want them to not get paid but I don't see how that's fair.

If a customer wants a different app store, the customer can buy a non-apple device. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile devices or app stores.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#57

Post by lukifer »

Fr33maan wrote: post #53
nodamage wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The security in iOS is tied to the sandboxing model - not the app store. I disagree. Sandboxing is designed to prevent your phone from being compromised but it doesn't prevent bad actors from using legitimate APIs in malicious ways. As an example, the App Store review guidelines enforce certain privacy restrictions such as not allowing third-party analytics or advertising in apps designed for children. This is not…

That's all right and all fine. It's my user choice to install any crappy third party app store on the hardware I bought. I would like to not being protected. The same on windows, I'm warned than executing an unknown program is a risk for me and if I don't know what I do, then I should not do it. That is perfectly fine. Small fences with warning signs instead of 10 meters walls.

User choice works the other direction as well: that consumers can choose to knowingly purchase a device that is locked down, for reasons of safety, trust, experience, etc.

I happen to broadly favor anti-trust intervention against Apple in this instance; but it's not as though Apple ever deceived users about what their devices can and can't do. They sell appliances, not "computers". Freedom (arguably) includes the freedom to take one's own freedoms away, at least up to a point.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#58

Post by JiNCMG »

The thing no one talks about, because Apple has kept full control of its platform, it can/has easily changed directions and drop entire sections of its API with minimal issues. They even do this on their CPUs.

Imagine all these other 3rd party App-Stores, they need to flag and request updates from their developers. All this causing a sh*tstorm on the iOS device and the customer will expect Apple to fix it at the Genius Bar. Proof of this already happening is the Microsoft Stores. People bringing in their OEM laptops for repair and workers providing them with phone numbers to call Sony, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#59

Post by captn3m0 »

Razengan wrote: post #46

Let's say Apple allows everything that Epic etc. is asking for. Would it really be better for everyone? ---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems: • Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system. • Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guarantee…

If any company wants your payment details, they can still have them by promising services outside the app.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#60

Post by JiNCMG »

Razengan wrote: post #46

Let's say Apple allows everything that Epic etc. is asking for. Would it really be better for everyone? ---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems: • Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system. • Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guarantee…

"Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?" Thats the thing. Epic doesn't want Apple to have access/approval to anything. They want OS level access! It's in the court filings. So at that point Parental Control, agreements made with carriers, everything is out the door aka it's like buying an Android phone from some unknown company on AliExpress.

You get all these people screaming about how unjust Apple is! Everyone has been doing this for decades in different markets.

Post reply on HN