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

81–90 of 492 posts

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

#81

Post by ForHackernews »

ciarannolan wrote: post #76
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…

I can't believe they were dumb enough to put that SCOTUS line in this. It just plays into their current "meh, here's some rules but we'll do whatever we want anyway" image.

It's their treehouse; they can do what they want. None of these platforms are your friend. Half the Apple devs I know have some kind of stockholm syndrome, though.

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

#82

Post by bitxbit »

itake wrote: post #52
zaphar wrote: post #49

Here is a question I have not seen a satisfactory answer for. Why is having an App on iOS a must have? It seems like any discussion about the market fairness of Apples policies requires a shared understanding of how necessary the ecosystem actually is. If you can freely choose not to deploy to that ecosystem then you can vote with your "wallet" so to speak. If you can't freely choose however then there is an argument…

I own a small app and iOS's free organic app search results drive 98% of my user base right now. I could see it being much more challenging to build an app if you have to develop alternative marketing channels. Personally, alternative marketing channels have yet to work for me.

But that’s something Apple can quantify. In your case it appears paying 30% is justifiable. Why can’t they just change it to either pro-rata or flat fee based on active install base?

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

#83

Post by conductr »

drenvuk wrote: post #72
reaperducer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so arbitrary and petty It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

Can you please explain?

This was local news for me. Basically, as a classified platform they were a pimp and got shut down by feds (granted they helped produce the ads, which is what a digital pimp would do). Laws have been amped up as focus on reducing sex/human trafficking. It’s now similar to the money laundering laws put in place in the big narco cocaine days. If you’re any type of legit business, or prison fearing at all, you don’t want to have any relations with that type of 1:1 transaction

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

#84

Post by reaperducer »

drenvuk wrote: post #72
reaperducer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so arbitrary and petty It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

Can you please explain?

Can you please explain?

It doesn't want to handle the money when you rent a hooker.

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

#85

Post by x0x0 »

reaperducer wrote: post #61
_qulr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed. >That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers. No, that was caused by a billion people buying shiny new mobile computers. They would have bought a lot of software in any case, even without an App Store. Ne…

People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed. He's talking about when you used to have to pay $50 to $500 for software in a store, but the author was lucky to see $5-$10 of that.

And now Apple generously gives you up to 85% of $1 to $5!

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

#86

Post by matsemann »

Razengan wrote: post #55
konschubert wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection AFTER selling those roads to the public, then yea, call me a communist but I don’t think that’s good for the economy. And I don’t care if that company single-handedly invented roads - there should a limit to how far you can milk the society you operate in.

> If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection Again, Apple is not the only company in this space and iOS is not the only intersection/road/whatever analogy you want. There are alternatives and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform. Honestly, all of this becomes much less complicated if you think of the iPhone as an Xbox, PlayStation or Switch. iPhone is not the e…

> and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start their own platform.

But in practice, are anyone capable of that? It's a winner-takes-it-all, and the winners are so huge it's virtually impossible for anyone to upset them. You cannot compete on price, features or anything without a hundred billion investment.

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

#87

Post by lenzm »

reaperducer wrote: post #73
dragonwriter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought they just returned unsold boxes back to the vendor? Even in the cases where the vendor/distributor allowed that (and discount bins were a thing because they often did not, at least at no restocking fee), the retailer still accepted the risk that the vendor or distributor would be defunct. If they had a consignment model where they only paid contingent on a retail sale, that was different, but (at least AF…

The discount bins you mention illustrate the previous poster's point: That developers used to get far less before the App Store existed. If Electronics Boutique can dump a $50.00 game in a discount bin for $3.00, how much do you think it paid for that game in the first place? And how much of that amount went to the author?

The amount they spent in the first place is irrelevant, that's the sunk cost fallacy. They sell it for three dollars because that's their best expected return (weighing in factors like opportunity cost of keeping the box on the shelf).

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

#88

Post by BillinghamJ »

bww wrote: post #42

It seems to me like Apple has created the appearance of a new exemption without actually changing anything. All of the example transactions in the guidelines (“tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training”), are for real-world services performed by people. In-App Purchases have always been specifically and exclusively intended for digital content. The introduction for the IAP secti…

I think they're highlighting that they're specifically exempt when happening entirely within the app - e.g. if the app provided the service via video chat. Makes sense given a lot of those things are not currently happening in-person.

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

#89

Post by Razengan »

est31 wrote: post #32
1f60c wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty ridiculous thought, right? Yeah, because Apple isn't doing that at all. What's more, it seems like the fee Microsoft charges for every sale in their Microsoft Store is also either 15% or 30%. (Source: the App Developer Agreement, https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE... )

They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading. This leads to Apple capturing a much larger percentage of transactions pertaining software for their devices.

> They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all.

Not on the Xbox, which Epic doesn't seem to mind in regards to Fortnite etc.

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

#90

Post by cgriswald »

jfk13 wrote: post #70
est31 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading. This leads to Apple capturing a much larger percentage of transactions pertaining software for their devices.

> Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.

That's an incredibly weak claim. The statement is certainly true for some value of 'many', but then so is its opposite. Unless many means, "the vast majority", which certainly is not clear and definitely would need some support, it is a meaningless claim.

It is also difficult to see how it is a feature. In a world where additional app stores or side-loading was enabled for those that want it, it wouldn't somehow remove the ability to use a single app store for those that don't.

Post reply on HN