14 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
        cgriswald 6y ago
        The assertion was that there is a group that values the lack of side-loading, which your post doesn't really address, so I'm not sure why you've responded to me. In any case: > the people who really cared about side-loading > 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device. This is not a useful model. If I choose feature X over feature Y, all you can really tell from that is that value(X) > value(Y). It doesn't tell you whether value(Y) <<< value(X). It's also important to note that this is vastly simplified, because there are many features and issues that people must combine and weigh against each other. To illustrate, if a product offers side-loading but kills your mother on first use, if you choose a different product it doesn't mean you don't "really" care about side-loading. You might genuinely care a tremendous amount, but sacrificing your mother isn't an option for you. I differentiate between products that I buy because they are a good option for me and products I buy because they are the least bad product for me. Phones are currently in the second group. It's not that I don't care about side-loading. It's that all issues combined, IOS is less bad for my purposes and preferences than Android.
    - Razengan 6y ago
      > 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.
      - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
        https://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?th=1 https://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?... I can buy fortnite for Xbox right here.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - toast0 6y ago
    Using the Microsoft Store is totally optional. Selling software for Windows has rarely required any coordination with Microsoft other than maybe code signing with a cert from an approved CA. Exceptions include drivers, and Windows Phone/Windows Mobile 10
    - syspec 6y ago
      Using Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.
      - johnjj257 6y ago
        Cool but there's tons of game outlets on pc, not on iphone
      - damnyou 6y ago
        I'm really bothered by the whole notion of games as less important and "[more] optional". Playing games is a fundamental part of being human, and it is certainly more important than capitalism.
        ryanbrunner 6y ago
        I don't think that's the point that was being made - Steam is optional not because the content on it is games, but because the content is PC games - i.e. content where there's no obstacles to distributing it yourself, or through other stores. Any game developer could at any point opt out of using Steam and accept payments on their own site, or go through another store. Most developers don't bother because Steam provides enough value to make it worthwhile. It's impossible to determine if this is the case with the App Store since competitors don't (and can't) exist.
- Bud 6y ago
  If this is absurd, then Google taking 30% and Sony taking 30% for Playstation and Microsoft taking 30% for Xbox is also absurd, right? So why aren't you complaining about that?
  - matsemann 6y ago
    That's whataboutism. In this post it's about Apple. That others do it doesn't excuse it. And a big difference with Google is that you can sideload or use other stores on Android. And same on Windows, you don't have to use the store.
    - Bud 6y ago
      That's not a big difference, with Android, because nobody is making any money doing that. It doesn't work. I didn't mention Windows. I was discussing platforms where everyone takes a 30% cut. You may say this is mere whataboutism, but anyone who reads Hacker News knows that 99% of the anger and attacks on this practice are directed at Apple. Nobody bitches at Google and Sony and Microsoft for doing the exact same thing.
      - ksk 6y ago
        Google gets hit on the privacy front pretty regularly. I guess it depends on the issue. But not to worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of time and opportunity to complain against injustices from all corporations in the future. A significant chunk of early adopters for Apple/MS/Google products were nerds who spread the good word. Its no surprise that issues like privacy, developer freedom and hacker-ethics will drive the conversation against these companies.
      - matsemann 6y ago
        Because it's not the exact same thing. Context matters.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.
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?

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.
        cgriswald 6y ago
        The assertion was that there is a group that values the lack of side-loading, which your post doesn't really address, so I'm not sure why you've responded to me. In any case: > the people who really cared about side-loading > 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device. This is not a useful model. If I choose feature X over feature Y, all you can really tell from that is that value(X) > value(Y). It doesn't tell you whether value(Y) <<< value(X). It's also important to note that this is vastly simplified, because there are many features and issues that people must combine and weigh against each other. To illustrate, if a product offers side-loading but kills your mother on first use, if you choose a different product it doesn't mean you don't "really" care about side-loading. You might genuinely care a tremendous amount, but sacrificing your mother isn't an option for you. I differentiate between products that I buy because they are a good option for me and products I buy because they are the least bad product for me. Phones are currently in the second group. It's not that I don't care about side-loading. It's that all issues combined, IOS is less bad for my purposes and preferences than Android.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    > 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.
    - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
      https://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?th=1 https://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?... I can buy fortnite for Xbox right here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toast0 6y ago
  Using the Microsoft Store is totally optional. Selling software for Windows has rarely required any coordination with Microsoft other than maybe code signing with a cert from an approved CA. Exceptions include drivers, and Windows Phone/Windows Mobile 10
  - syspec 6y ago
    Using Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.
    - johnjj257 6y ago
      Cool but there's tons of game outlets on pc, not on iphone
    - damnyou 6y ago
      I'm really bothered by the whole notion of games as less important and "[more] optional". Playing games is a fundamental part of being human, and it is certainly more important than capitalism.
      - ryanbrunner 6y ago
        I don't think that's the point that was being made - Steam is optional not because the content on it is games, but because the content is PC games - i.e. content where there's no obstacles to distributing it yourself, or through other stores. Any game developer could at any point opt out of using Steam and accept payments on their own site, or go through another store. Most developers don't bother because Steam provides enough value to make it worthwhile. It's impossible to determine if this is the case with the App Store since competitors don't (and can't) exist.
Bud 6y ago
If this is absurd, then Google taking 30% and Sony taking 30% for Playstation and Microsoft taking 30% for Xbox is also absurd, right? So why aren't you complaining about that?
- matsemann 6y ago
  That's whataboutism. In this post it's about Apple. That others do it doesn't excuse it. And a big difference with Google is that you can sideload or use other stores on Android. And same on Windows, you don't have to use the store.
  - Bud 6y ago
    That's not a big difference, with Android, because nobody is making any money doing that. It doesn't work. I didn't mention Windows. I was discussing platforms where everyone takes a 30% cut. You may say this is mere whataboutism, but anyone who reads Hacker News knows that 99% of the anger and attacks on this practice are directed at Apple. Nobody bitches at Google and Sony and Microsoft for doing the exact same thing.
    - ksk 6y ago
      Google gets hit on the privacy front pretty regularly. I guess it depends on the issue. But not to worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of time and opportunity to complain against injustices from all corporations in the future. A significant chunk of early adopters for Apple/MS/Google products were nerds who spread the good word. Its no surprise that issues like privacy, developer freedom and hacker-ethics will drive the conversation against these companies.
    - matsemann 6y ago
      Because it's not the exact same thing. Context matters.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.

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?