5 ms·
So this must be why last week's updated "App Store Review Guidelines" explicitly excluded "one-to-many realtime experiences". Third party fitness apps need to f
by antimatter15 6y ago
So this must be why last week's updated "App Store Review Guidelines" explicitly excluded "one-to-many realtime experiences". Third party fitness apps need to fork over 30% to Apple, while they launch their own first party competitor.
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.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- mike_d 6y agoIn the age of COVID, this also includes plenty of far more profitable things like concerts, trade shows, online classes, etc.
- teejmya 6y agoThis was my first thought as well... Learning from hindsight, perhaps we can guess Apple's next move based on what they want 30% of.
- mmcconnell1618 6y agoI'm not sure this applies. If the workouts are recorded, they are not realtime person-to-person experiences.
- CydeWeys 6y agoA lot of their competitors (like Peloton) do have actual real-time experiences though, and this is increasingly becoming more of a thing as the pandemic drags on and people want to do real-time classes with their favorite instructors back from the before-times.
- mcintyre1994 6y agoThere's no way to distinguish them though because it's all one subscription with Peloton - you can take the classes live or watch it on demand afterward. It's not like you're paying per live class.
- hu3 6y agoWell now Peloton doesn't even have the option.
- rgovostes 6y agoThe 30% cut always applied to one-to-many experiences. They removed it for one-to-one, but did not change it for other models.
- freewilly1040 6y agoSure, but now them adding this product means we have yet another vertical where Apple has given itself an anticompetitive advantage over competitors.
- yreg 6y agoThe parent comment suggested that the conditions tightened, when in fact they loosened.
- freewilly1040 6y agoThe parent comment doesn't suggest that the conditions tightened. They are merely calling out that the loosening does not cover this new first party product, and suggests this might not be a coincidence. As this thread demonstrates, the maneuver was quite successful, if the idea was to give the impression they are becoming less anticompetitive rather than more so!
- bredren 6y ago>rather than more so! This is a very unusual product area for Apple. This end presumes the service will be a success. There is many a slip between the cup and the sip.
- gamblor956 6y agoThe 30% cut did not artificially inflate the competitiveness of Apple's product vs its competitors. Now it does, and for antitrust purposes that makes all the difference.
- ogre_codes 6y agoThe sort of pre-recorded experiences Apple is offering here have always been subject to the 30% App Store fee. The P2P option was a loosening/ clarification of the rules.
- jjcon 6y agoIsn’t this Apple loosening the rules? That seems to make the opposite point you are
- gamblor956 6y agoIf they attempt to enforce 3.13(d), Pelton, et al, will file complaints with regulators in days. That change was clearly intended to advantage Apple (i.e., first party) products over third party competitors. At this point, it's only a matter of time before Apple gets broken up or severely sanctioned (more likely the latter), and it will be entirely their own fault.
- amelius 6y agoI can't understand why developers take these rules seriously and why they don't just abandon the platform. I guess it must be the money.