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

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#71

Post by d3nj4l »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #63
lukifer wrote: post #57

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.

Then don't use non-Apple App Stores. You don't get to decide whether other people have a choice or not.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#72

Post by pvorb »

dataminded wrote: post #56
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.

But there's only one competitor. That's far from being a healthy market which offers much choice.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#73

Post by etchalon »

mthoms wrote: post #47
function_seven wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The costs to run the App Store are probably something like 0.1% of the fees collected on apps. Apple collected $15 billion from the app store in 2019. I'd wager that $15 million would cover the operating costs, which I'd guess are largely the salaries of app reviewers. Even if I'm off by 2 orders of magnitude, that still leaves 90% of Apple's cut as profit. The app store is a huge driver toward selling the hardware.…

Apple claims to have "hundreds"[0] of reviewers (which was notable to me because they didn't say "thousands"). So, we know it's somewhere between 200 and 1999. Just for fun, let's say it's 1500. Again, just for fun let's calculate: 1500 reviewers x $50,000 = $75 million. So, their (likely) largest expense is 0.5% of their total revenue. Even if I'm off by a factor of 10, the numbers are absolutely mind-blowing.

I'm not sure why total revenue would be what to compare to the costs against.

Apple is profitable precisely because they don't, as a company, have many/any "loss leaders". Each unit within the company is expected to financially contribute to its margins.

That was one of the (many) changes Jobs brought to Apple when he returned.

I'm also not sure how a reviewers salary would be $50,000. Where'd you get that number?

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#74

Post by tonyedgecombe »

telaelit wrote: post #6

I really wish Apple would allow third-party payment processing. All their rules around in-app purchases are overly complex and oppressive. I really believe that Apple is stifling innovation with these insane rules and monopolistic practices.

As a user the last thing I want is to start wondering whether I can trust each different app with my credit card details. If this happened I would almost certainly spend less on software.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#75

Post by captn3m0 »

JiNCMG wrote: post #62
captn3m0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And you would have to do this on a web browser, which provides the separation from the App Store and giving the parent, who is purchasing $20 worth of vbucks for their kid, "Pause" because they usually get the "Apple" Payment prompt instead of the enter your credit card. This alone is worth it.

I don't see why a browser has to come in? Uber does in-app payments on its own because they are for services outside the app.

That's what I meant.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#76

Post by nickm12 »

I for one don't understand why Section 3.3.1 wasn't the end of it. Google it if you don't remember that in 2010 Apple tried to mandate which programming languages could be used to develop apps on the iPhone. To this day, your app can be blocked for having a link to your own website or a mention that your app is also available on Android.

I don't believe all software has to be free software, in the GPL sense, but I will not use a computing device as personal as the modern phone if the vendor gets to control what software I can run.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#78

Post by emsy »

lukifer wrote: post #57
Fr33maan wrote: post #53

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…

The problem with such a „soft“ system as opposed to a hard sandbox is that rules may change after you purchased the phone and rules get applied inconsistently. Both happens regularly.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#79

Post by nodamage »

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…

> The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems:

I don't think this list is very compelling because external payment systems are already permitted for physical goods and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem that you give your credit card to Uber and Grubhub and Amazon separately.

> The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:

On the other hand I largely agree with this, mandating third-party app installs would lead to a malware and privacy disaster and should not be forced, except perhaps as some kind of developer mode where you are thoroughly warned that you're going out of bounds of normal app distribution.

Re: In-App Purchase Rules

#80

Post by maerF0x0 »

bigiain wrote: post #65
maerF0x0 wrote: post #18

> 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

And the second mistake was assuming Apple’s customers care at all about app developers fights over transaction fees or commissions. 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_ de…

This is true, generally speaking if the fee is invisible then people don't care.

I could see developers simply adding a 2nd line item "Apple Fee 30%" and gross up the price by that amount. Then let Apple answer the questions why there is a 30% fee added in their products, but not others (if that's the case).

Post reply on HN