35 ms·

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

338 points by BigBalli 6y ago

projektfu 6y ago
Oh, so they're saying that they don't need a 30% cut of items they neither created nor sold? How magnanimous.
eadan 6y ago
Relevant section: 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. This is huge news. Being able to use third-party payments methods to bypass Apple's 30% charge is essential for service driven marketplace apps. Classpass and AirBnB bumped into this issue [0], but, I wonder if this exception will apply for them? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-store-airbnb-classpass.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor... Edit: In excitement, I missed the last sentence; group services aren't covered by the exception :(
- jarjoura 6y ago
  > One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors but not build something that is scalable?
  - mtgx 6y ago
    Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is. Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right? That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.
    - 1f60c 6y ago
      > 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/RE4o4bH https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE...)
      - est31 6y ago
        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.
        jfk13 6y ago
        > Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.
        cgriswald 6y ago
        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.
        nodamage 6y ago
        I mean, presumably the people who really cared about side-loading decided to buy alternative phones instead. So, of iPhone buyers, you're left with two remaining groups: 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device. 2. People who don't care about side-loading at all.
  - chinathrow 6y ago
    Of course it's arbitrary - the whole fee structure of the app store (stores, to be fair) is arbitrary. 5% could be more than enough for everyone, but no, it has to be 30%...
    - ancorevard 6y ago
      Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software. People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. It's also not about the developers, the success of the App Store comes from Apple's users. They trust the App Store because they trust Apple's curation/privacy/security. That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers. Trust doesn't come cheap.
      - lostlogin 6y ago
        > People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. We do, but at the same time, physical stores selling software are now rare or non-existent. Apple is not competing with them.
        thewebcount 6y ago
        Right and that’s partly because online store like Apple's out-competed then on price by taking less than traditional distributors.
        biktor_gj 6y ago
        More because the Inetrnet came and allowed every vendor to sell directly from their webpage instead of going through the distribution channel, making retail software stores obsolete There are two platforms that drive 100% of the mobile phone industry. One (Android) allows other distributors in the platform (even if they have to go through loops like sideloading an app and then allowing that app to install other apps). The other will kick and try to destroy you if you try to do something like that. Is that legal or anti-competitive in the US & Europe? We'll find out...
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    Clearly, Apple has been and still is in a long process of seeing what they can get away with. It seems they thought this was something they couldn’t continue under new scrutiny.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    .
    - mrpippy 6y ago
      Uber (and any other "real-world" service) does not (and I believe are not even allowed to) use in-app purchases. This rule only applies to "virtually-provided" services.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        The Uber app actually lets you use Apple Pay (as opposed to in app purchasing). Apple Pay charges standard credit card rates that you would pay anywhere.
  - make3 6y ago
    They created the store, how entitled are you.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      Yes, I want my store on my hardware. Thank you.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    This is so arbitrary and petty It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.
    - drenvuk 6y ago
      Can you please explain?
      - conductr 6y ago
        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
      - reaperducer 6y ago
        Can you please explain? It doesn't want to handle the money when you rent a hooker.
        drenvuk 6y ago
        Thanks.
        mynegation 6y ago
        But what if I want one-to-few or even one-to-many experience?
        artursapek 6y ago
        That's just like Apple fucking its developers. One to many.
        sneak 6y ago
        If you’re throwing a seminar or training, there are witnesses that will likely reduce the chance of illegal behavior. Unless, of course, you throw a gangbang, and Apple ends up eating 30% of the price of admission. Imagine the headline!
  - Bud 6y ago
    I think you're confused. Of course you can build something that is scalable. But if you do that, you will be relying on all of the massive strengths of Apple's platform to make that much, much easier for you to do. And so you will have to pay for that. Of course.
  - isatty 6y ago
    > build something that is scalable? That's probably the point - 1:1 experiences that are not scalable is a drop in the bucket even if they charge a 30% commission.
    - withinboredom 6y ago
      I beg to differ. I use a website to schedule our baby sitter, but with this rule, it's possible to be an app.
      - rpdillon 6y ago
        Not to my reading. This rule only applies to real-time experiences. > If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training)...
        withinboredom 6y ago
        How would it not? It’s no different than tutoring. I pay the website a monthly fee (which probably needs to be an IAP) but the payment to the babysitter could continue as-is via bank transfer/ideal.
        rpdillon 6y ago
        Ah, I see. I was intersecting "real-time experience" with Apple's previous "digital goods" and thinking "real-time experience that happens digitally" (which tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training all can support), and I quickly wrote off babysitting as something that can't happen digitally. I'm much less confident now based on how you're reading it.
      - sheeshkebab 6y ago
        I think baby sitter type services are already allowed without iap - similar to Uber, etc
      - 6y ago
  - simply_sam 6y ago
    I’m in the process of building an app for massage services to the home. There are formulas like 1 on 1, 1 on 2 and 2 on 2. This change would mean that I could make all of this happen without any in app purchases as long as the purchases are independent and Then linked together. Am I getting this right?
- compscistd 6y ago
  Do dating apps fall into this at all?
  - escapecharacter 6y ago
    depends on whether they're person-to-person or person-to-many.
  - macinjosh 6y ago
    Not for throuples apparently.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    On the face of the policy viewed in isolation, if they facilitate paid one-on-one encounters, yes, if they facilitate paid one-to-few or one-to-many encounters, no. But I'm pretty sure pay-per-date apps of either type have bigger legal and App Store policy issues than whether the payment must be made via IAP with the Apple Tax.
  - syspec 6y ago
    Only if they're paying for dates
  - pantalaimon 6y ago
    Are you paying the person you date or are you paying the dating app?
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    If you are doing person to person cash transactions via a app, you aren't dating.
- rvz 6y ago
  Once again Netflix is crowned as the biggest of the Les Incorruptibles on the App Store by Apple since they can get away from not only the 30% charge as it is a reader app but is able to roll their own payments on the web and still scale to many users without in app purchases. There are probably more apps / companies who belong to this group due to secret deals by Apple, but now Apple says: No 30% charge for apps who's customers are 1-1. That's it. Charging at scale without the app store tax is disqualified. But not for the Les Incorruptibles.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    There's nothing "secret". Everybody can roll their own payment in the web. They cannot advertise alternative payment methods in the app. See Spotify as an example.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      Everybody can't. The Hey.com email guys did the same thing. They allowed only signing into the up. No sign up. Then Apple made up another rule saying ''You download the app and it does not work. Therefore it has to be removed'' . Lets keep adding more rules and exclusions as time passes. That's the Apple way of doing things.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        > Everybody can't. The Hey.com email guys did the same thing. They allowed only signing into the up. No sign up. Yes. And that's the gray area that needs to be challenged. Are email apps for private services reader apps? Yes, they probably are. But the current guidelines specifically tell you what reader apps are [1]. So, no, there's no "secret agreement" between Netflix and Apple. They are a reader app by Apple's definition. Same as Spotify, Kindle, etc. etc. [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#reader-apps https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...
      - nodamage 6y ago
        Hey is not a reader app, so the rule for reader apps does not apply.
- blueicecubes 6y ago
  Is there a (business, legal, etc.) reason for the distinction between one-to-few and one-to-many? Both are one to "more than one".
  - matt_kantor 6y ago
    I assume the business case is mostly about PR. "Apple takes 30% of my math tutor's income" sounds worse than "Apple charges Epic Games 30%".
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      I don't understand. I think Apple is taking 30% from both of those.
      - matt_kantor 6y ago
        > If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. So you can avoid the Apple tax if you're a private tutor. However it looks like I misread blueicecubes' comment. They were asking about one-to-few vs one-to-many, but I talked about one-to-one.
  - matt_kantor 6y ago
    Looks like I misread your comment when posting my other reply (I was talking about one-to-one). Sorry about that. I'm not sure what the few/many distinction is about, but I can guess: if they only said "one-to-many" it could be unclear whether "many" means "more than one" or "some sufficiently large number", so they include "few" to remove ambiguity. Said another way: "one-to-few and one-to-many" is just a different way to say "one to more than one". As far as I can tell the new guidelines don't use the few/many distinction anywhere and only mention both in this one sentence.
- nickjj 6y ago
  I'm not a part of Apple's eco-system (I don't have a smartphone) but isn't this a matter of Apple knowing it's impossible to enforce what happens during a person to person experience -- so they might as well come off as being "nice"? What would stop someone from meeting up with another person and then agree to pay in cash or Zelle or any other way to transfer funds? There's no way for Apple to track that.
pier25 6y ago
Is this new?
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Just got an e-mail now about an App Store guidelines update. There's more juicy stuff in there besides this.
scarface74 6y ago
There original stance was wrong on so many levels. With Covid, plenty of people are having to go virtual. Before this change and before Covid, you didn’t have to pay to book a personal trainer in person. Then when they went virtual, Apple asked for a cut. This reverses their previous rule.
ogre_codes 6y ago
Seems like a lot of much overdue reform in here. In addition to the PtP Fixes, they also fix some of the more egregious issues we've seen this year which Hey and WordPress encountered. Still a lot of room for improvement, but good to see they are moving in the right direction.
smnscu 6y ago
Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to appear innocent in their ongoing legal feud with Epic.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  From what I can tell, nothing here affects their legal dispute with Epic. They aren't opening up third party app stores which escape the 30% cut.
  - cma 6y ago
    Facebook joined in after Epic and talked about how it made their one on one feature for tutoring/guitar lessons/etc. infeasible. This seems targeted at allowing that, with the one to many restriction still asking for 30% of school tuitions if they have a remote classroom app and offer payments through the app, or refuse to offer in app purchases of tuition for a free app.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Facebook's action wouldn't effect Epic and vice-versa. The two are unconnected outside the fact that they relate to the App Store.
      - cma 6y ago
        It was connected in that they were together in time: > Facebook’s complaints come a day after Epic Games Inc., the creator of Fortnite, sued Apple and Google after both companies removed Fortnite from their respective app stores over a payment dispute. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/facebook-says-apple-in-app-fees-hurt-businesses-during-covid/2020/08/14/2ce1cd80-de6f-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/fa... Both were obviously also timed to go near the antitrust scrutiny.
emdowling 6y ago
The bigger story here is for game streaming apps (section 4.9). Previously Xbox game streaming and Stadia had been rejected as they were a single app that provided access to multiple apps. tl;dr the new rules allow For games to be streamed, but each title must be a separate app and run all in-game purchases through in-app purchase. They’ve also explicitly allowed for game streaming services to have catalogue apps that link to the individual App Store listings. This is massive and strikes me as a great compromise solution. It separates the technical implementation (streaming) from the actual value proposition to users (the game itself). Essentially, each individual game needs be a separate app in the store and be reviewed individually. I think the xCloud team at Microsoft is about to pull a few late nights to get this launched on iOS in the next few weeks.
- dindresto 6y ago
  I still wonder why games are often treated so much differently than movies or shows today. They should've reached the same cultural acceptance by now and are often as much art as their non-interactive counterparts.
  - caleb-allen 6y ago
    Yes! Will Netflix's Bandersnatch require a separate application?
  - arvinsim 6y ago
    The stereotype of it being juvenile and for "nerds" is alive and well. It will take one generation who grew up playing video games to normalise it.
- nvrspyx 6y ago
  I disagree. This is an annoying compromise for something that doesn't need compromising. My phone's home screen is cluttered enough as it is and now I'll need separate apps for all the games in my Xbox library and those on Game Pass? I'll also need to download a redundant amount of code for each game and may not be able to play certain games due to Apple's arbitrary rulings? I'll have to dig through hundreds of games on Microsoft's developer page just to peruse through Microsoft's non-gaming apps to stumble upon something like Family Safety or Math Solver? This sounds like a huge pain in the butt for users and kind of loses some of the value proposition of game streaming: trying games instantly, not needing to download anything, and not taking up a bunch of space for your whole library.
nimish 6y ago
This sort of arbitrary judgments-from-heaven is a sign of monopolistic power. You only have a Hobson's choice when it comes to the app store.
- eplanit 6y ago
  Yes. This kindly-worded "Our way or the highway" is a hallmark: "If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too."
  - paxys 6y ago
    "We provide Safari for a great web experience too, but don't implement any standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, add to homescreen prompt, icons, launch screen, themes that would actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they should have said.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      All those little bits you stuffed onto the end of your pretend quote negate the "great web experience" portion.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      There has been the ability add to the home screen since day 1. There were plenty of website that calculated where the “share” button was in the browser app and had a pop up to add to the home screen.
      - paxys 6y ago
        There is no option to do so from any other browser other than Safari. And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok flow.
adamsmark 6y ago
Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed. We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way. We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressure. Because you get things like this - rules on Apple's platform that won't be applied to significant platforms, just the developers who are too small to have any influence.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Platforms need to be regulated No. God no. Regulation has its place. But regulation is also a slooow bureaucratic process. Regulators have no incentive to change with market conditions and in a fast moving industry will be a hindrance in no time. They also increase the cost of development benefiting the big guys that can afford an army of HR, Regulatory and Legal people to handle compliance.
  - naringas 6y ago
    what about forcing them to be developed in the open? (everybody get's to read and audit all their code and processess)
  - clusterfish 6y ago
    We do need regulation that will protect developers and consumers from the huge monopolistic power of platform owners like Apple, Facebook, and Google. The regulation would be targeted specifically at those behemoths and not at small fry developers, since those don't have significant market power. Today you don't need an army of legal people to deal with existing anticompetitive regulations if you're not a behemoth yourself. To argue that regulation designed to protect from monopolists will actually help those monopolists by its mere existence is ridiculous.
- michaelmarion 6y ago
  Ben Thompson has argued for this, but more in the abstract: government is focusing too much on using preexisting legal frameworks to handle these issues. In reality, the right framework doesn't exist yet! In the States, this is on Congress: we need new laws and a new process to sort out this flavor of antitrust issue. The current stuff on the books doesn't cut it. Also of note: I'm also not saying we need more laws. It's not a question of to what degree we do regulate this sort of thing: my point is that we don't even have a process to think about the issues! It's totally archaic.
konschubert 6y ago
Apple should just be forced to allow alternative app stores. Yes, they will loose out on money and yes, this will dilute the iPhone experience. But come on - That company is worth 2 trillion and it’s holding a whole economy hostage.
- Razengan 6y ago
  > a whole economy hostage. iOS is not even near to the "whole economy" of mobile software. Companies should just stop being based in the US. With what’s happening to TikTok and this ridiculous push for a Communist-style reappropriation of Apple’s platform, it seems that the US may no longer be a safe place for businesses to become too big in (except of course, the ancient titans of oil, guns, pharmaceuticals etc. that have been happily screwing the planet since forever..) None of this indignation is really about protecting the people, is it, but rather about taking a slice of the billion user pie, which Apple has historically denied other companies ever since they refused to put AT&T bloatware on the first iPhone.
  - konschubert 6y ago
    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.
    - Razengan 6y ago
      > 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 entire mobile industry, it is one phone among hundreds. Will you move for a forced break up of their exclusive stores too if MS/Sony/Nintendo started allowing general-purpose apps on those consoles? (They already have YouTube, Netflix, etc.) iPads on the other hand may be a different story, given how Apple likes to market them as general purpose computers, and the reason why they forked iOS into iPadOS I think.
bww 6y ago
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 section explains: “If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app […] you must use in-app purchase.” Apple Pay is the Apple-provided payment mechanism that has always been used for real world goods and services on the App Store, for which all of the above examples would qualify.
- BillinghamJ 6y ago
  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.
- megablast 6y ago
  >are for real-world services performed by people but they can be done over the app.
dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
> 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 "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Do they not know from which ruling that quote comes from?
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  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.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    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.
    - xnyan 6y ago
      Apple owns the platform. I'm still going to try and change how they do business because that would be better for me. Everyone is allowed to do that and there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to give up your power as a person to try to affect change, that's cool but I'm not giving up any non-immoral tool I have.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Or just maybe they like making money on the mobile platform where people will actually spend money?
      - dmonitor 6y ago
zaphar 6y ago
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 to be made regarding if they distort the market unfairly.
- itake 6y ago
  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.
  - zaphar 6y ago
    Do you also have an android app? What I'm asking I guess is not why do you need the AppStore when you are on iOS. But more why do you have to be on iOS in the first place?
    - 52-6F-62 6y ago
      Do they have to be or want to be? If they want access to the market then it's a "Want to be" not a "have to be" because of the opportunities apparent.
    - itake 6y ago
      I have a react native app and it runs in both stores. The iOS users drive most of my revenue. My app could not survive without the organic search traffic from Apple. I guess I was a bit misleading in my original comment. 98% of my users come from iOS and Android organic search results. I haven't been able to find any profitable non-store marketing channels.
      - Qahlel 6y ago
thewebcount 6y ago
They say: > Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc distribution available to Apple Developer Program members. Can anyone explain this to me? I have some AppleTV apps I’ve written for myself. I can run them on my AppleTV but I have to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days to continue using them. It’s a pain in the butt. How can I install these apps without a dev account and without having to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days?
- andreasley 6y ago
  Here you go: https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c Ad Hoc provisioning profiles are usually only used for testing, since all of the target devices have to be registered in your developer account before signing the app. Also, Ad Hoc profiles expire after 12 months and the app needs to be re-signed and installed again. You can install the signed app by using Xcode or Apple Configurator or "over the air" (see https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-ios-1524 https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-ios-1524 for an example).
  - thewebcount 6y ago
    Oh, I see. The wording made it sound like there was a way to do it for free. They mention installing onto a friend's device, but apparently that won't work for free. Bummer. I can't justify the cost right now just for these few home projects. What a pain.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  You could jailbreak. They actively work to prevent that, though.
- zaroth 6y ago
  You have a get a paid Developer account. It costs $99/year for the Developer account which gets provisioning profiles that are valid for a year at a time.
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
monadic2 6y ago
Man I just want to have control over my phone is that too much to ask?
- bsaul 6y ago
  don't understand why you got downvoted because ultimately it's what it all boils down to..
  - electriclove 6y ago
    You never had control with Apple. It didn't seem to matter to many for the longest time.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Buy an Android....
- fortran77 6y ago
  Surface Duo!
- newbie578 6y ago
  But you don't understand, Apple hAs aLwAyS bEeN tHiS wAy and don't forget my wAlLeD gArDeN. ( /s for the Apple cultists on HN)
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
> 3.1.3(b): Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. This is worded so broadly, that it can perfectly be applied to browsers and email clients. User plays a browser or PBEM game that has subscriptions? Ka-ching
- perlgeek 6y ago
  So could a game developer offer the items for 30% more with in-app purchases, and provide a link to the browser where they can be purchased for regular price?
dozy 6y ago
In case it's useful to any - here's a diff of what Apple changed since the last update in March: https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd70072dd1f/revisions https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd7007...
mthoms 6y ago
Here's a diff of the document. I'm not sure if it works on mobile: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/20200901190956/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/202009011909... What catches my eye, other than the "person to person experiences" and game streaming changes is the complete removal of the following clause in section 3.1.3(b) "Multiplatform Services": >You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase. To me, this was the most draconian rule in the entire agreement since it governed how you could communicate with your customers outside of your app (such as on your own website). IANAL, but this change seems to allow mentioning the 30% Apple cut to your users and nudging them towards alternatives.
- megablast 6y ago
  It says you can not treat apple customers any different to other customers.
  - cma 6y ago
    Does that mean no discount for buying off-App Store?
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Apple has used that clause to muzzle any mention of the 30% fee... even outside of Apple's ecosystem (eg. on your own mailing list).
    - xsmasher 6y ago
      Citation? I have heard about rejection for in-app mentions but not for out-of-band messages.
- summitsummit 6y ago
  (tangent) the diff feature looks awesome, and is definitely a massive under-leveraged tool for us. respect for wmbs just went up. https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/ if anyone else also feels the same :)
ranman 6y ago
Apple should make a profit for providing the platform. That profit shouldn’t be 30%... as a business operator I wouldn’t mind paying ~3%
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  I wouldn't mind paying $100 for an iPhone either. Unfortunately, you and I don't get to set the prices on the products we buy. And if you don't find the price reasonable, don't buy the product. Apple has no obligation to let you reach all of its customers just because they are successful.
- Qahlel 6y ago
  iPhones are not free. There are paid apps. Apple does not allow others to have a store in their platform, so why doesn't Apple pay extra tax to keep others out rather than taxing devs to be in Apple's store?
- Terretta 6y ago
  3%? What percentage do you think it costs simply to process the credit card for a $10 app? What about for a $1 app? Why do you think so many bricks and mortar shops have a “minimum purchase” requirement to pay with a card? If the swipe costs 3%, what should all the rest of the app store’s value cost? You could compare to competitors, such as Xbox store, for an answer.
Qahlel 6y ago
If Apple was a Chinese company, US would have "liberated" App Store decades ago.
ab_testing 6y ago
Just as a data point, Wechat exists in the Chinese App store and has its own payment system. So people and businesses can buy and sell using Wechat in China on the iPhone while being in the Apple App store and avoiding the 30% Apple cut.
branon 6y ago
> For example, apps should not encourage placing the device under a mattress or pillow while charging Is this rule referring to anything in particular? Was there an issue with a pillow-warming app that I missed out on hearing about?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jonny383 6y ago
Apple is really waiting to be toppled over. If only Microsoft could up their hardware game and start producing good computers.
santoshalper 6y ago
"Offline experiences not involving as phone do not have to use in-app purchases." "Family interactions do not have to use in-app purchases." "Your hopes and dreams do not have to use in-app purchases." Thank you Apple. I for one, appreciate your generosity.
tsycho 6y ago
I am genuinely sad to write this: Apple has become the most arrogant asshole company of all the tech giants. They have forgotten the role that we developers played in making them the largest company in the world. But in their moment of financial victory, they have lost their soul. :(
summerlight 6y ago
I'm personally not okay with Apple to take a full control on the App Store, but let's admit the reality and think about feasible options; then what would be remedies that Apple doesn't have a good justification against? I think one of the issue is information asymmetricity between Apple and customers. * For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST explicitly highlights how much commission they're taking. * For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST allow app developers to show alternative payment options available. * Apple may review the alternative payment options and reject the app if it is implemented in an obviously unfair way against Apple IAP, but no other reasons. If it is violated, Apple MUST give a clear reason and actionable items to app developers within a reasonable time frame. This doesn't require any technically complex changes but just gives strictly more information to their customers. If the customers think it's justifiable, then they will continue to use Apple's IAP. If not, they will go to the developer's site. If the alternative is designed to be unfair against Apple, at least they can have a chance to raise an objection. For the rest, let the market decide.
- olliej 6y ago
  For the last one you mean offering an alternative to IAP but it must be <= iap price-commission?
elif 6y ago
so, in theory epic could add an option for a $5 coaching session, where a coach watches you play and coaches you over voice, and the student receives a skin upon completion. Can a yoga instructor add personalized text to each individual stream to have 5 simultaneous 1-1 sessions? etc. this is so rife for double standards, in practice it basically boils down to "what we say goes"
trzeci 6y ago
> 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchas In Sweden, via-app medical consultancy gets a standard way for this services as a first - line support. Payment for this is fixed and goes to the registry, where after certain amount of payments, you're getting free consultancy (It's by the health care system). How they are going to handle that? Too me this new guideline is like a wide net - most of top application will have to violate some rules there, but in case of miss subordination (like Epic) then having that rule is a simple case in court.

338 points by BigBalli 6y ago

Oh, so they're saying that they don't need a 30% cut of items they neither created nor sold? How magnanimous.

Relevant section: 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. This is huge news. Being able to use third-party payments methods to bypass Apple's 30% charge is essential for service driven marketplace apps. Classpass and AirBnB bumped into this issue [0], but, I wonder if this exception will apply for them? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-store-airbnb-classpass.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor... Edit: In excitement, I missed the last sentence; group services aren't covered by the exception :(

jarjoura 6y ago
> One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase. WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors but not build something that is scalable?
- mtgx 6y ago
  Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is. Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right? That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.
  - 1f60c 6y ago
    > 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/RE4o4bH https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE...)
    - est31 6y ago
      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.
      - jfk13 6y ago
        > Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.
        cgriswald 6y ago
        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.
        nodamage 6y ago
        I mean, presumably the people who really cared about side-loading decided to buy alternative phones instead. So, of iPhone buyers, you're left with two remaining groups: 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device. 2. People who don't care about side-loading at all.
- chinathrow 6y ago
  Of course it's arbitrary - the whole fee structure of the app store (stores, to be fair) is arbitrary. 5% could be more than enough for everyone, but no, it has to be 30%...
  - ancorevard 6y ago
    Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software. People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. It's also not about the developers, the success of the App Store comes from Apple's users. They trust the App Store because they trust Apple's curation/privacy/security. That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers. Trust doesn't come cheap.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      > People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers. We do, but at the same time, physical stores selling software are now rare or non-existent. Apple is not competing with them.
      - thewebcount 6y ago
        Right and that’s partly because online store like Apple's out-competed then on price by taking less than traditional distributors.
        biktor_gj 6y ago
        More because the Inetrnet came and allowed every vendor to sell directly from their webpage instead of going through the distribution channel, making retail software stores obsolete There are two platforms that drive 100% of the mobile phone industry. One (Android) allows other distributors in the platform (even if they have to go through loops like sideloading an app and then allowing that app to install other apps). The other will kick and try to destroy you if you try to do something like that. Is that legal or anti-competitive in the US & Europe? We'll find out...
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Clearly, Apple has been and still is in a long process of seeing what they can get away with. It seems they thought this was something they couldn’t continue under new scrutiny.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  .
  - mrpippy 6y ago
    Uber (and any other "real-world" service) does not (and I believe are not even allowed to) use in-app purchases. This rule only applies to "virtually-provided" services.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      The Uber app actually lets you use Apple Pay (as opposed to in app purchasing). Apple Pay charges standard credit card rates that you would pay anywhere.
- make3 6y ago
  They created the store, how entitled are you.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    Yes, I want my store on my hardware. Thank you.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  This is so arbitrary and petty It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.
  - drenvuk 6y ago
    Can you please explain?
    - conductr 6y ago
      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
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      Can you please explain? It doesn't want to handle the money when you rent a hooker.
      - drenvuk 6y ago
        Thanks.
      - mynegation 6y ago
        But what if I want one-to-few or even one-to-many experience?
        artursapek 6y ago
        That's just like Apple fucking its developers. One to many.
        sneak 6y ago
        If you’re throwing a seminar or training, there are witnesses that will likely reduce the chance of illegal behavior. Unless, of course, you throw a gangbang, and Apple ends up eating 30% of the price of admission. Imagine the headline!
- Bud 6y ago
  I think you're confused. Of course you can build something that is scalable. But if you do that, you will be relying on all of the massive strengths of Apple's platform to make that much, much easier for you to do. And so you will have to pay for that. Of course.
- isatty 6y ago
  > build something that is scalable? That's probably the point - 1:1 experiences that are not scalable is a drop in the bucket even if they charge a 30% commission.
  - withinboredom 6y ago
    I beg to differ. I use a website to schedule our baby sitter, but with this rule, it's possible to be an app.
    - rpdillon 6y ago
      Not to my reading. This rule only applies to real-time experiences. > If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training)...
      - withinboredom 6y ago
        How would it not? It’s no different than tutoring. I pay the website a monthly fee (which probably needs to be an IAP) but the payment to the babysitter could continue as-is via bank transfer/ideal.
        rpdillon 6y ago
        Ah, I see. I was intersecting "real-time experience" with Apple's previous "digital goods" and thinking "real-time experience that happens digitally" (which tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training all can support), and I quickly wrote off babysitting as something that can't happen digitally. I'm much less confident now based on how you're reading it.
    - sheeshkebab 6y ago
      I think baby sitter type services are already allowed without iap - similar to Uber, etc
    - 6y ago
- simply_sam 6y ago
  I’m in the process of building an app for massage services to the home. There are formulas like 1 on 1, 1 on 2 and 2 on 2. This change would mean that I could make all of this happen without any in app purchases as long as the purchases are independent and Then linked together. Am I getting this right?
compscistd 6y ago
Do dating apps fall into this at all?
- escapecharacter 6y ago
  depends on whether they're person-to-person or person-to-many.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Not for throuples apparently.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  On the face of the policy viewed in isolation, if they facilitate paid one-on-one encounters, yes, if they facilitate paid one-to-few or one-to-many encounters, no. But I'm pretty sure pay-per-date apps of either type have bigger legal and App Store policy issues than whether the payment must be made via IAP with the Apple Tax.
- syspec 6y ago
  Only if they're paying for dates
- pantalaimon 6y ago
  Are you paying the person you date or are you paying the dating app?
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  If you are doing person to person cash transactions via a app, you aren't dating.
rvz 6y ago
Once again Netflix is crowned as the biggest of the Les Incorruptibles on the App Store by Apple since they can get away from not only the 30% charge as it is a reader app but is able to roll their own payments on the web and still scale to many users without in app purchases. There are probably more apps / companies who belong to this group due to secret deals by Apple, but now Apple says: No 30% charge for apps who's customers are 1-1. That's it. Charging at scale without the app store tax is disqualified. But not for the Les Incorruptibles.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  There's nothing "secret". Everybody can roll their own payment in the web. They cannot advertise alternative payment methods in the app. See Spotify as an example.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    Everybody can't. The Hey.com email guys did the same thing. They allowed only signing into the up. No sign up. Then Apple made up another rule saying ''You download the app and it does not work. Therefore it has to be removed'' . Lets keep adding more rules and exclusions as time passes. That's the Apple way of doing things.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > Everybody can't. The Hey.com email guys did the same thing. They allowed only signing into the up. No sign up. Yes. And that's the gray area that needs to be challenged. Are email apps for private services reader apps? Yes, they probably are. But the current guidelines specifically tell you what reader apps are [1]. So, no, there's no "secret agreement" between Netflix and Apple. They are a reader app by Apple's definition. Same as Spotify, Kindle, etc. etc. [1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#reader-apps https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Hey is not a reader app, so the rule for reader apps does not apply.
blueicecubes 6y ago
Is there a (business, legal, etc.) reason for the distinction between one-to-few and one-to-many? Both are one to "more than one".
- matt_kantor 6y ago
  I assume the business case is mostly about PR. "Apple takes 30% of my math tutor's income" sounds worse than "Apple charges Epic Games 30%".
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    I don't understand. I think Apple is taking 30% from both of those.
    - matt_kantor 6y ago
      > If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. So you can avoid the Apple tax if you're a private tutor. However it looks like I misread blueicecubes' comment. They were asking about one-to-few vs one-to-many, but I talked about one-to-one.
- matt_kantor 6y ago
  Looks like I misread your comment when posting my other reply (I was talking about one-to-one). Sorry about that. I'm not sure what the few/many distinction is about, but I can guess: if they only said "one-to-many" it could be unclear whether "many" means "more than one" or "some sufficiently large number", so they include "few" to remove ambiguity. Said another way: "one-to-few and one-to-many" is just a different way to say "one to more than one". As far as I can tell the new guidelines don't use the few/many distinction anywhere and only mention both in this one sentence.
nickjj 6y ago
I'm not a part of Apple's eco-system (I don't have a smartphone) but isn't this a matter of Apple knowing it's impossible to enforce what happens during a person to person experience -- so they might as well come off as being "nice"? What would stop someone from meeting up with another person and then agree to pay in cash or Zelle or any other way to transfer funds? There's no way for Apple to track that.

pier25 6y ago

Is this new?

Nextgrid 6y ago
Just got an e-mail now about an App Store guidelines update. There's more juicy stuff in there besides this.

scarface74 6y ago

There original stance was wrong on so many levels. With Covid, plenty of people are having to go virtual. Before this change and before Covid, you didn’t have to pay to book a personal trainer in person. Then when they went virtual, Apple asked for a cut. This reverses their previous rule.

ogre_codes 6y ago

Seems like a lot of much overdue reform in here. In addition to the PtP Fixes, they also fix some of the more egregious issues we've seen this year which Hey and WordPress encountered. Still a lot of room for improvement, but good to see they are moving in the right direction.

smnscu 6y ago

Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to appear innocent in their ongoing legal feud with Epic.

ogre_codes 6y ago
From what I can tell, nothing here affects their legal dispute with Epic. They aren't opening up third party app stores which escape the 30% cut.
- cma 6y ago
  Facebook joined in after Epic and talked about how it made their one on one feature for tutoring/guitar lessons/etc. infeasible. This seems targeted at allowing that, with the one to many restriction still asking for 30% of school tuitions if they have a remote classroom app and offer payments through the app, or refuse to offer in app purchases of tuition for a free app.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Facebook's action wouldn't effect Epic and vice-versa. The two are unconnected outside the fact that they relate to the App Store.
    - cma 6y ago
      It was connected in that they were together in time: > Facebook’s complaints come a day after Epic Games Inc., the creator of Fortnite, sued Apple and Google after both companies removed Fortnite from their respective app stores over a payment dispute. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/facebook-says-apple-in-app-fees-hurt-businesses-during-covid/2020/08/14/2ce1cd80-de6f-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/fa... Both were obviously also timed to go near the antitrust scrutiny.

emdowling 6y ago

The bigger story here is for game streaming apps (section 4.9). Previously Xbox game streaming and Stadia had been rejected as they were a single app that provided access to multiple apps. tl;dr the new rules allow For games to be streamed, but each title must be a separate app and run all in-game purchases through in-app purchase. They’ve also explicitly allowed for game streaming services to have catalogue apps that link to the individual App Store listings. This is massive and strikes me as a great compromise solution. It separates the technical implementation (streaming) from the actual value proposition to users (the game itself). Essentially, each individual game needs be a separate app in the store and be reviewed individually. I think the xCloud team at Microsoft is about to pull a few late nights to get this launched on iOS in the next few weeks.

dindresto 6y ago
I still wonder why games are often treated so much differently than movies or shows today. They should've reached the same cultural acceptance by now and are often as much art as their non-interactive counterparts.
- caleb-allen 6y ago
  Yes! Will Netflix's Bandersnatch require a separate application?
- arvinsim 6y ago
  The stereotype of it being juvenile and for "nerds" is alive and well. It will take one generation who grew up playing video games to normalise it.
nvrspyx 6y ago
I disagree. This is an annoying compromise for something that doesn't need compromising. My phone's home screen is cluttered enough as it is and now I'll need separate apps for all the games in my Xbox library and those on Game Pass? I'll also need to download a redundant amount of code for each game and may not be able to play certain games due to Apple's arbitrary rulings? I'll have to dig through hundreds of games on Microsoft's developer page just to peruse through Microsoft's non-gaming apps to stumble upon something like Family Safety or Math Solver? This sounds like a huge pain in the butt for users and kind of loses some of the value proposition of game streaming: trying games instantly, not needing to download anything, and not taking up a bunch of space for your whole library.

nimish 6y ago

This sort of arbitrary judgments-from-heaven is a sign of monopolistic power. You only have a Hobson's choice when it comes to the app store.

eplanit 6y ago
Yes. This kindly-worded "Our way or the highway" is a hallmark: "If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too."
- paxys 6y ago
  "We provide Safari for a great web experience too, but don't implement any standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, add to homescreen prompt, icons, launch screen, themes that would actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they should have said.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    All those little bits you stuffed onto the end of your pretend quote negate the "great web experience" portion.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    There has been the ability add to the home screen since day 1. There were plenty of website that calculated where the “share” button was in the browser app and had a pop up to add to the home screen.
    - paxys 6y ago
      There is no option to do so from any other browser other than Safari. And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok flow.

adamsmark 6y ago

Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed. We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way. We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressure. Because you get things like this - rules on Apple's platform that won't be applied to significant platforms, just the developers who are too small to have any influence.

macspoofing 6y ago
>Platforms need to be regulated No. God no. Regulation has its place. But regulation is also a slooow bureaucratic process. Regulators have no incentive to change with market conditions and in a fast moving industry will be a hindrance in no time. They also increase the cost of development benefiting the big guys that can afford an army of HR, Regulatory and Legal people to handle compliance.
- naringas 6y ago
  what about forcing them to be developed in the open? (everybody get's to read and audit all their code and processess)
- clusterfish 6y ago
  We do need regulation that will protect developers and consumers from the huge monopolistic power of platform owners like Apple, Facebook, and Google. The regulation would be targeted specifically at those behemoths and not at small fry developers, since those don't have significant market power. Today you don't need an army of legal people to deal with existing anticompetitive regulations if you're not a behemoth yourself. To argue that regulation designed to protect from monopolists will actually help those monopolists by its mere existence is ridiculous.
michaelmarion 6y ago
Ben Thompson has argued for this, but more in the abstract: government is focusing too much on using preexisting legal frameworks to handle these issues. In reality, the right framework doesn't exist yet! In the States, this is on Congress: we need new laws and a new process to sort out this flavor of antitrust issue. The current stuff on the books doesn't cut it. Also of note: I'm also not saying we need more laws. It's not a question of to what degree we do regulate this sort of thing: my point is that we don't even have a process to think about the issues! It's totally archaic.

konschubert 6y ago

Apple should just be forced to allow alternative app stores. Yes, they will loose out on money and yes, this will dilute the iPhone experience. But come on - That company is worth 2 trillion and it’s holding a whole economy hostage.

Razengan 6y ago
> a whole economy hostage. iOS is not even near to the "whole economy" of mobile software. Companies should just stop being based in the US. With what’s happening to TikTok and this ridiculous push for a Communist-style reappropriation of Apple’s platform, it seems that the US may no longer be a safe place for businesses to become too big in (except of course, the ancient titans of oil, guns, pharmaceuticals etc. that have been happily screwing the planet since forever..) None of this indignation is really about protecting the people, is it, but rather about taking a slice of the billion user pie, which Apple has historically denied other companies ever since they refused to put AT&T bloatware on the first iPhone.
- konschubert 6y ago
  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.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    > 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 entire mobile industry, it is one phone among hundreds. Will you move for a forced break up of their exclusive stores too if MS/Sony/Nintendo started allowing general-purpose apps on those consoles? (They already have YouTube, Netflix, etc.) iPads on the other hand may be a different story, given how Apple likes to market them as general purpose computers, and the reason why they forked iOS into iPadOS I think.

bww 6y ago

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 section explains: “If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app […] you must use in-app purchase.” Apple Pay is the Apple-provided payment mechanism that has always been used for real world goods and services on the App Store, for which all of the above examples would qualify.

BillinghamJ 6y ago
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.
megablast 6y ago
>are for real-world services performed by people but they can be done over the app.

dj_mc_merlin 6y ago

> 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 "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Do they not know from which ruling that quote comes from?

ciarannolan 6y ago
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.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  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.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    Apple owns the platform. I'm still going to try and change how they do business because that would be better for me. Everyone is allowed to do that and there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to give up your power as a person to try to affect change, that's cool but I'm not giving up any non-immoral tool I have.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Or just maybe they like making money on the mobile platform where people will actually spend money?
    - dmonitor 6y ago

zaphar 6y ago

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 to be made regarding if they distort the market unfairly.

itake 6y ago
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.
- zaphar 6y ago
  Do you also have an android app? What I'm asking I guess is not why do you need the AppStore when you are on iOS. But more why do you have to be on iOS in the first place?
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    Do they have to be or want to be? If they want access to the market then it's a "Want to be" not a "have to be" because of the opportunities apparent.
  - itake 6y ago
    I have a react native app and it runs in both stores. The iOS users drive most of my revenue. My app could not survive without the organic search traffic from Apple. I guess I was a bit misleading in my original comment. 98% of my users come from iOS and Android organic search results. I haven't been able to find any profitable non-store marketing channels.
    - Qahlel 6y ago

thewebcount 6y ago

They say: > Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc distribution available to Apple Developer Program members. Can anyone explain this to me? I have some AppleTV apps I’ve written for myself. I can run them on my AppleTV but I have to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days to continue using them. It’s a pain in the butt. How can I install these apps without a dev account and without having to reconnect to Xcode every 7 days?

andreasley 6y ago
Here you go: https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c Ad Hoc provisioning profiles are usually only used for testing, since all of the target devices have to be registered in your developer account before signing the app. Also, Ad Hoc profiles expire after 12 months and the app needs to be re-signed and installed again. You can install the signed app by using Xcode or Apple Configurator or "over the air" (see https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-ios-1524 https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-ios-1524 for an example).
- thewebcount 6y ago
  Oh, I see. The wording made it sound like there was a way to do it for free. They mention installing onto a friend's device, but apparently that won't work for free. Bummer. I can't justify the cost right now just for these few home projects. What a pain.
ultrarunner 6y ago
You could jailbreak. They actively work to prevent that, though.
zaroth 6y ago
You have a get a paid Developer account. It costs $99/year for the Developer account which gets provisioning profiles that are valid for a year at a time.
- 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

monadic2 6y ago

Man I just want to have control over my phone is that too much to ask?

bsaul 6y ago
don't understand why you got downvoted because ultimately it's what it all boils down to..
- electriclove 6y ago
  You never had control with Apple. It didn't seem to matter to many for the longest time.
scarface74 6y ago
Buy an Android....
fortran77 6y ago
Surface Duo!
newbie578 6y ago
But you don't understand, Apple hAs aLwAyS bEeN tHiS wAy and don't forget my wAlLeD gArDeN. ( /s for the Apple cultists on HN)

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

> 3.1.3(b): Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. This is worded so broadly, that it can perfectly be applied to browsers and email clients. User plays a browser or PBEM game that has subscriptions? Ka-ching

perlgeek 6y ago
So could a game developer offer the items for 30% more with in-app purchases, and provide a link to the browser where they can be purchased for regular price?

dozy 6y ago

In case it's useful to any - here's a diff of what Apple changed since the last update in March: https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd70072dd1f/revisions https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd7007...

mthoms 6y ago

Here's a diff of the document. I'm not sure if it works on mobile: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/20200901190956/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/202009011909... What catches my eye, other than the "person to person experiences" and game streaming changes is the complete removal of the following clause in section 3.1.3(b) "Multiplatform Services": >You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase. To me, this was the most draconian rule in the entire agreement since it governed how you could communicate with your customers outside of your app (such as on your own website). IANAL, but this change seems to allow mentioning the 30% Apple cut to your users and nudging them towards alternatives.

megablast 6y ago
It says you can not treat apple customers any different to other customers.
- cma 6y ago
  Does that mean no discount for buying off-App Store?
- mthoms 6y ago
  Apple has used that clause to muzzle any mention of the 30% fee... even outside of Apple's ecosystem (eg. on your own mailing list).
  - xsmasher 6y ago
    Citation? I have heard about rejection for in-app mentions but not for out-of-band messages.
summitsummit 6y ago
(tangent) the diff feature looks awesome, and is definitely a massive under-leveraged tool for us. respect for wmbs just went up. https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/ if anyone else also feels the same :)

ranman 6y ago

Apple should make a profit for providing the platform. That profit shouldn’t be 30%... as a business operator I wouldn’t mind paying ~3%

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
I wouldn't mind paying $100 for an iPhone either. Unfortunately, you and I don't get to set the prices on the products we buy. And if you don't find the price reasonable, don't buy the product. Apple has no obligation to let you reach all of its customers just because they are successful.
Qahlel 6y ago
iPhones are not free. There are paid apps. Apple does not allow others to have a store in their platform, so why doesn't Apple pay extra tax to keep others out rather than taxing devs to be in Apple's store?
Terretta 6y ago
3%? What percentage do you think it costs simply to process the credit card for a $10 app? What about for a $1 app? Why do you think so many bricks and mortar shops have a “minimum purchase” requirement to pay with a card? If the swipe costs 3%, what should all the rest of the app store’s value cost? You could compare to competitors, such as Xbox store, for an answer.

Qahlel 6y ago

If Apple was a Chinese company, US would have "liberated" App Store decades ago.

ab_testing 6y ago

Just as a data point, Wechat exists in the Chinese App store and has its own payment system. So people and businesses can buy and sell using Wechat in China on the iPhone while being in the Apple App store and avoiding the 30% Apple cut.

branon 6y ago

> For example, apps should not encourage placing the device under a mattress or pillow while charging Is this rule referring to anything in particular? Was there an issue with a pillow-warming app that I missed out on hearing about?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jonny383 6y ago

Apple is really waiting to be toppled over. If only Microsoft could up their hardware game and start producing good computers.

santoshalper 6y ago

"Offline experiences not involving as phone do not have to use in-app purchases." "Family interactions do not have to use in-app purchases." "Your hopes and dreams do not have to use in-app purchases." Thank you Apple. I for one, appreciate your generosity.

tsycho 6y ago

I am genuinely sad to write this: Apple has become the most arrogant asshole company of all the tech giants. They have forgotten the role that we developers played in making them the largest company in the world. But in their moment of financial victory, they have lost their soul. :(

summerlight 6y ago

I'm personally not okay with Apple to take a full control on the App Store, but let's admit the reality and think about feasible options; then what would be remedies that Apple doesn't have a good justification against? I think one of the issue is information asymmetricity between Apple and customers. * For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST explicitly highlights how much commission they're taking. * For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST allow app developers to show alternative payment options available. * Apple may review the alternative payment options and reject the app if it is implemented in an obviously unfair way against Apple IAP, but no other reasons. If it is violated, Apple MUST give a clear reason and actionable items to app developers within a reasonable time frame. This doesn't require any technically complex changes but just gives strictly more information to their customers. If the customers think it's justifiable, then they will continue to use Apple's IAP. If not, they will go to the developer's site. If the alternative is designed to be unfair against Apple, at least they can have a chance to raise an objection. For the rest, let the market decide.

olliej 6y ago
For the last one you mean offering an alternative to IAP but it must be <= iap price-commission?

elif 6y ago

so, in theory epic could add an option for a $5 coaching session, where a coach watches you play and coaches you over voice, and the student receives a skin upon completion. Can a yoga instructor add personalized text to each individual stream to have 5 simultaneous 1-1 sessions? etc. this is so rife for double standards, in practice it basically boils down to "what we say goes"

trzeci 6y ago

> 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchas In Sweden, via-app medical consultancy gets a standard way for this services as a first - line support. Payment for this is fixed and goes to the registry, where after certain amount of payments, you're getting free consultancy (It's by the health care system). How they are going to handle that? Too me this new guideline is like a wide net - most of top application will have to violate some rules there, but in case of miss subordination (like Epic) then having that rule is a simple case in court.