3 ms·

The consistent, simple user experience is the key to the platform. I think it's reasonable to require it. I know as a customer I don't want to be hassling with

by jws 16y ago

The consistent, simple user experience is the key to the platform. I think it's reasonable to require it. I know as a customer I don't want to be hassling with multiple payment accounts. Presumably it is permissible for Sony to bump the price up on in app purchases to cover the 30% "shipping and handling" charge from Apple. I wonder if they can show it as "Apple™ brand Shipping and Handling" on the screen.

woodson 16y ago
I disagree. If a user buys a Kindle book* he is aware of the fact that it is bought from Amazon. Why would he want another party involved? Just for payment, along with an additional fee? *) I'm aware that it's about the Sony app, but it might equally affect the Kindle app.
potatolicious 16y ago
Even if it's your Amazon or eBay account that you already have? This stinks of Apple trying to tip the playing field in their favor. Despite the flashy, polished app, it appears that Kindle is trouncing Apple on its own platform in the eBooks realm. This reeks of Apple trying to cut out the competition. There's IMHO no need to enforce this sort of thing. If Nameless iPhone Game wants me to buy downloadable content and expects me to sign up for a payments account, they're not getting my money, period. For the majority of things being sold in-app, Apple's payments platform makes sense, and generates customers. For the ones where the systems makes no sense, there's usually good reason.
chc 16y ago
You're conflating two different questions — requiring the simple interface for payments, and imposing a fee on purchases. If the goal of this change is to create a consistent, simple user experience, Apple doesn't need to charge a 30% fee to do that. If Apple chooses to force a 30% fee on developers, that is a cash grab, plain and simple. The tax does not improve the UX.
- kj12345 16y ago
  Exactly, it's not about "in-app purchasing" in general. They're specifically requiring Apple's In-App Purchase(tm) system: http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Networ...

by jws 16y ago

woodson 16y ago

I disagree. If a user buys a Kindle book* he is aware of the fact that it is bought from Amazon. Why would he want another party involved? Just for payment, along with an additional fee? *) I'm aware that it's about the Sony app, but it might equally affect the Kindle app.

potatolicious 16y ago

Even if it's your Amazon or eBay account that you already have? This stinks of Apple trying to tip the playing field in their favor. Despite the flashy, polished app, it appears that Kindle is trouncing Apple on its own platform in the eBooks realm. This reeks of Apple trying to cut out the competition. There's IMHO no need to enforce this sort of thing. If Nameless iPhone Game wants me to buy downloadable content and expects me to sign up for a payments account, they're not getting my money, period. For the majority of things being sold in-app, Apple's payments platform makes sense, and generates customers. For the ones where the systems makes no sense, there's usually good reason.

chc 16y ago

You're conflating two different questions — requiring the simple interface for payments, and imposing a fee on purchases. If the goal of this change is to create a consistent, simple user experience, Apple doesn't need to charge a 30% fee to do that. If Apple chooses to force a 30% fee on developers, that is a cash grab, plain and simple. The tax does not improve the UX.

kj12345 16y ago
Exactly, it's not about "in-app purchasing" in general. They're specifically requiring Apple's In-App Purchase(tm) system: http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StoreKitGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/Networ...