3 ms·

> Apple’s policies remained the same. No… they didn’t stay the same. Apple has changed their policies, numerous times. In this specific case, it is easy to poi

> Apple’s policies remained the same. No… they didn’t stay the same. Apple has changed their policies, numerous times. In this specific case, it is easy to point to the changelog that added person to person classes as something that owes Apple 30% commission.[0] Many large companies' lawyers clearly interpreted the guidelines to not include such events until Apple updated the guidelines, or else Apple would not have updated the guidelines and talked to the press about it. I don't think you have much ground to stand on here. Also, whether an activity is physical or virtual should be entirely irrelevant. It was never communicated to me when I moved into the iOS ecosystem, nor was it in the App Store guidelines. Yet... you think it is unreasonable that customers should be given the same freedom from monopolies that they have when it comes to other physical and online retailers? Apple continues to move the goal posts on what people owe them money for, both by expansion of what the App Store is intended to contain and expansion of their rules, and it is detrimental to both consumers and businesses, who are both locked into Apple's ecosystem and have little to no choice in the matter at this point. If you like monopolies, then cool, but... I believe Apple needs to make some serious changes, and it is clear that I'm not alone in these thoughts. On a related note, if Apple will properly support PWAs (including push notifications, which have been rumored to finally be making an appearance 6 or 7 years after Android did it), then that will dramatically change the balance of the equation. Very few companies offer PWAs because they lack push notification support, which they consider to be essential. Many HNers like to act as if push notifications are just an annoyance and that they prefer not to have them... but that's an irrelevant opinion outside of HN. I don't think lowering the App Store commission or allowing unrestricted, revenue-free sideloading are the only options... I think properly supported PWAs are a perfectly valid third option for most use cases, and I would care a lot less about this issue when that happens. PWAs already do not need to report any of their revenue to Apple, and that should remain the case forever, unless Apple is planning to start charging for the privilege of using websites. (To head off one obvious digression, no, Apple absolutely doesn't deserve to charge for providing push notifications... it's an essential feature of literally any smartphone, and they were paid for that service when the consumer bought the phone. Apple also doesn't let anyone else run a competing notification service on the phone using a background process to hold open a network connection. If Apple doesn't like offering notifications for free, they should feel free to raise the prices of the phones they sell, but they should have been pricing that in from the beginning. Chrome and Firefox don't charge money to provide push notifications either, and they weren't even paid a single cent by either the user or the developer. But, if Apple were to charge less than a cent per notification the way that developers have to pay for SMS messages, it wouldn't be the end of the world. 30% of all transactions just to use notifications? No, that's not reasonable under any circumstance.) [0]: "3.1.3(d): Person-to-Person Experiences" https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=xqk627qu https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=xqk627qu

Grustaf 5y ago
Clarifying the rules is not the same as changing them, ask any hermeneutic. > Also, whether an activity is physical or virtual should be entirely irrelevant You can hold any belief you want, but there's nothing illegal or immoral about a phone charging fees for one but not the other. It's up to them obviously, and to me personally it makes a ton of sense to make that distinction. A virtual class provided through an app vs something happening in the real world. I don't know what PWA is so I'm not sure how crucial it is, but if Android has it, that seems like yet another reason for people like you not to have iphones. If you are talking about push notifications in web apps, that's something I have never ever missed.
- coder543 5y ago
  PWA means "progressive web app". You know, the vision Steve Jobs and Apple had for iPhone apps before they released the App Store.[0] What about virtual experiences that are sold through an app that a customer uses, but are held on a different virtual platform? We’re not talking just about virtual events held through the app or FaceTime, we’re also talking about virtual events held through Zoom calls, it’s just that the app maker (for example, Airbnb) used their existing customer relationship to market virtual experiences, and Apple somehow decided that was different from the exception to selling (physical) goods and experiences that are also used outside the app. If they aren’t using the app itself or FaceTime, how is it any different from an in-person event? What if that in-person event includes teleconferencing equipment that links two locations together, do you suddenly need to give Apple 30%? Apple's rules have an exception for 1:1 virtual events. So, if you suddenly bring your significant other to a virtual event that was classified as 1:1, will the app maker need to implement facial recognition DRM to ensure that there is only one participant on each side of the virtual event, or else they are in violation of Apple's rules and deserve to be banned because two people showed up instead of one? The rules are deeply tedious, and often have no obvious rhyme or reason. Regardless, Apple changed the rules, and I don’t have an option to opt out without giving up everything I’ve already bought. I could not have known they would change the rules in the ways they have, so to your earlier point, I could not have made a more informed decision. Would you like to offer the refunds on Apple’s behalf? Doubtful. This is clearly different from other retail relationships in ways that would benefit from being regulated. That’s the core discussion here. Apple is not just another retailer, and the App Store is not just another store. > Clarifying the rules is not the same as changing them, ask any hermeneutic. They did not clarify the rules. They absolutely changed the rules, and this is not the first time either. Your whole argument is invalid if they changed the rules, so of course you're holding on dearly to that incorrect point. Apple argues that some apps were accidentally paying them revenue for that already, therefore it would be "unfair" for them not to take that revenue from everyone... but it wasn't in the rules before, period. Apple added the rule so that they could add more revenue. You may think my opinion is irrelevant, and that’s fine, but my opinion is as logically self-consistent as I can make it. Apple’s rules are the ones that hold very little self-consistency right now, and are just overreaching in any way they think they can get away with, which is getting tiresome. [0]: https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/03/remembering-apples-sweet-solution-for-iphone-apps-before-the-app-store/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/03/remembering-apples-sweet-solu...

Grustaf 5y ago

Clarifying the rules is not the same as changing them, ask any hermeneutic. > Also, whether an activity is physical or virtual should be entirely irrelevant You can hold any belief you want, but there's nothing illegal or immoral about a phone charging fees for one but not the other. It's up to them obviously, and to me personally it makes a ton of sense to make that distinction. A virtual class provided through an app vs something happening in the real world. I don't know what PWA is so I'm not sure how crucial it is, but if Android has it, that seems like yet another reason for people like you not to have iphones. If you are talking about push notifications in web apps, that's something I have never ever missed.

coder543 5y ago
PWA means "progressive web app". You know, the vision Steve Jobs and Apple had for iPhone apps before they released the App Store.[0] What about virtual experiences that are sold through an app that a customer uses, but are held on a different virtual platform? We’re not talking just about virtual events held through the app or FaceTime, we’re also talking about virtual events held through Zoom calls, it’s just that the app maker (for example, Airbnb) used their existing customer relationship to market virtual experiences, and Apple somehow decided that was different from the exception to selling (physical) goods and experiences that are also used outside the app. If they aren’t using the app itself or FaceTime, how is it any different from an in-person event? What if that in-person event includes teleconferencing equipment that links two locations together, do you suddenly need to give Apple 30%? Apple's rules have an exception for 1:1 virtual events. So, if you suddenly bring your significant other to a virtual event that was classified as 1:1, will the app maker need to implement facial recognition DRM to ensure that there is only one participant on each side of the virtual event, or else they are in violation of Apple's rules and deserve to be banned because two people showed up instead of one? The rules are deeply tedious, and often have no obvious rhyme or reason. Regardless, Apple changed the rules, and I don’t have an option to opt out without giving up everything I’ve already bought. I could not have known they would change the rules in the ways they have, so to your earlier point, I could not have made a more informed decision. Would you like to offer the refunds on Apple’s behalf? Doubtful. This is clearly different from other retail relationships in ways that would benefit from being regulated. That’s the core discussion here. Apple is not just another retailer, and the App Store is not just another store. > Clarifying the rules is not the same as changing them, ask any hermeneutic. They did not clarify the rules. They absolutely changed the rules, and this is not the first time either. Your whole argument is invalid if they changed the rules, so of course you're holding on dearly to that incorrect point. Apple argues that some apps were accidentally paying them revenue for that already, therefore it would be "unfair" for them not to take that revenue from everyone... but it wasn't in the rules before, period. Apple added the rule so that they could add more revenue. You may think my opinion is irrelevant, and that’s fine, but my opinion is as logically self-consistent as I can make it. Apple’s rules are the ones that hold very little self-consistency right now, and are just overreaching in any way they think they can get away with, which is getting tiresome. [0]: https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/03/remembering-apples-sweet-solution-for-iphone-apps-before-the-app-store/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/03/remembering-apples-sweet-solu...