61–70 of 84 posts
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 si…
The Chardonnay Socialist in me reckons that should be completely the opposite. Let apps that make less than $10k a year (or perhaps apps from companies/brands with less than $1mil turnover per year) be free. As your revenue goes up, your percentage “tax” for using the AppStore goes up.
In my opinion, Epic needs a free ride way way less than a couple of high school kids or college grads with an innovative idea.
> developer relations are significantly repaired, and Apple can go back to spending its time, resources, PR, and political capital on making their products better and customers happier. Your first mistake was assuming that they care about those more than maximizing shareholder value
It’s no surprise a lot on HN readers/posters care here, because there’s “free money” on the table for them if Epic win. Money they knew Apple was gonna take if they’d looked at AppStore guidelines any time in the last 12 years or so, since the AppStore first debuted. Nobody has _ever_ developed an iPhone app, without knowing the rules to get into the AppStore include a 30% cut to Apple. IAP is newer, but it’s still the same deal, in my opinion.
Non HN reading iPhone owners, largely, don’t give a fuck about developers feeling hard done by paying a 30% cut to Apple. A non technical friend of mine explained to her son why he can’t install Fortnite on a new phone right now, saying “They’re fighting with Apple over the rules to be allowed to have apps on iPhones.”
This is totally not customer or customer PR problem for Apple, and they know it. Epic haven’t worked that out yet.
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…
So, install AltStore?
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 b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 si…
Your tier 3 is effectively regressive taxation. The “Epics of the world” who benefit most from Apple/iPhones/iOS/AppStore existing, end up paying the smallest percentage of their profits back to the org that built all that for them. The Chardonnay Socialist in me reckons that should be completely the opposite. Let apps that make less than $10k a year (or perhaps apps from companies/brands with less than $1mil turnove…
But with the limit being $10K. The difference between Apple taking a $3000 cut and a $500 cut is not going to make or break your business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fre…
I agree with this. I pay for the experience Apple delivers. I don’t want an open mobile device, or a free (as in software) mobile device. It’s my hardware but I agree that Apple dictates the terms and delegate them the authority necessary. I want a curated experience and pay a premium for it, after tolerating the rough edges of Android for years.
The rules are complex but the principle is simple. Apps are required to use in-app purchase if: (1) The customer relationship originated in the app; and (2) The primary nexus of the purchased item is to improve the purchaser's personal in-app experience. Rules get complex around edge cases even when the principles are simple. Sometimes Apple makes the wrong call on those edge cases based on those principles (Hey, Wor…