[HN Gopher] Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to u...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app
purchase
Author : BigBalli
Score : 195 points
Date : 2020-09-11 18:07 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (developer.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (developer.apple.com)
| zaphar wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| itake wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| iPhone users tend to buy "more" from store. Android users
| don't really care about apps.
|
| It's not Apple or Google. It's users who are paying.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Checking multiple sources, Google Play store revenue was
| a bit over half the Apple App Store last year, so around
| the 8 billion mark for GPA and 14 billion for AAS.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| 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.
| bitxbit wrote:
| But that's something Apple can quantify. In your case it
| appears paying 30% is justifiable. Why can't they just change
| it to either pro-rata or flat fee based on active install
| base?
| pier25 wrote:
| > _Why is having an App on iOS a must have?_
|
| Because iOS represents about +60% of the revenue in the global
| mobile market, probably even more in some countries where it
| has a bigger market share.
|
| It's naive to think a business with a product/service can just
| decide to not have a presence on iOS.
|
| It's not even completely about the iOS revenue either, but the
| simple expectation from users that a service has to be on as
| many platforms as possible. For example, I wouldn't be a
| Spotify user if I couldn't use it on all my devices.
| veilrap wrote:
| I'm more willing to spend money on iOS than other platforms,
| because of how Apple manages the platform. Forcing Apple to
| change their platform away from the reasons why people like
| it is absurd.
|
| Apple does not have the largest market share by OS, Android
| does. Other app stores and sideloading are already very
| widely available.
| pier25 wrote:
| > _I 'm more willing to spend money on iOS than other
| platforms, because of how Apple manages the platform._
|
| I've heard this argument from iOS users who have never
| really used Android for a significant amount of time.
|
| I have been using both Android and iOS devices for almost a
| decade now and there's not much of a difference.
|
| In fact I'd say the experience is better on Android. For
| instance, if you uninstall a paid app you just recently
| bought you get an automatic instant refund. Good luck
| getting a refund on iOS.
| Qahlel wrote:
| Apple is doing nothing. They are just limiting the
| experience. Devs are developing those apps and features not
| Apple.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _Why is having an App on iOS a must have?_
|
| This may be one possible reason:
| https://i.imgur.com/kPXs9NO.png
| zaphar wrote:
| That is the most compelling answer I've seen so far.
| Bud wrote:
| Yes. And it also _proves_ beyond a shadow of a doubt that
| Apple deserves its 30% cut and is offering substantial
| value.
| pier25 wrote:
| It doesn't prove anything.
|
| Here's another interpretation: iOS devices are more
| expensive hence people that use them can spend more money
| on apps.
| cma wrote:
| Apple controls the browser and cripples it for app use, like no
| multitouch in fullscreen pages.
| isignal wrote:
| You can't keep looking at everything through the narrow
| definition of local choice. By that count, no anti trust action
| was necessary against Microsoft - users were always free to
| install Netscape. Comcast does not stop users from laying fiber
| to their home, so what's wrong with Comcast?
|
| The issue is whether making your own hardware also allows you
| to set policies on the software that can be run on it. One
| viewpoint is that these are separate industries and a dominance
| in one (smartphones) should not allow you to dominate the other
| (software distribution). There can be a legitimate discussion
| about what the boundaries are (operating system vs browser apps
| in case of Microsoft)
| nodamage wrote:
| The anti-trust claims that succeeded against Microsoft
| involved Microsoft _forcing other companies_ to ship IE
| instead of Netscape. The coercion of third-parties is really
| where the anti-trust violations came from. Microsoft also
| held 95% of the operating system market at the time which was
| a big factor in the outcome.
| d0100 wrote:
| My product needs to be in a user's device. It has to be there
| to work.
|
| I don't care what device, it's features, security, app review,
| privacy, it just has to be a device.
|
| My users also want my product in their device. They will
| download it from the App Store or from my website
| (sideloading).
|
| Apple has no business getting 30% from a business that happens
| despite itself. Apple is just rent seeking and monopolizing
| access to people.
|
| If Apple didn't gut their browser, it'd be fine.
|
| My users want push notifications. My users want to persist data
| from my product in their device. They want to use their
| device's features with my product.
|
| And they want native performance.
| nodamage wrote:
| It's not. People attempt to justify it by claiming "you will
| make more money if you sell on iOS", but there are plenty of
| Android-only apps that are doing just fine.
|
| At any rate, just because a platform is popular and will make
| you more money doesn't mean you have a legal right to force
| that platform owner to do business with you.
|
| (Unless it is ruled as an "essential facility", which is what
| Epic claims, but I think is a huge stretch and not likely to be
| accepted by the court.)
| eadan wrote:
| 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-
| stor...
|
| Edit: In excitement, I missed the last sentence; group services
| aren't covered by the exception :(
| blueicecubes wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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%".
| rvz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| nodamage wrote:
| Hey is not a reader app, so the rule for reader apps does
| not apply.
| hu3 wrote:
| Completely arbitrary rule btw.
|
| A segment gets free pass for lower fees because it is too
| big to get kicked from iOS while others get shafted.
|
| Just because they can.
| nodamage wrote:
| I don't disagree that it's arbitrary, but the person I
| replied to implied Apple changed the rules specifically
| to block Hey's app, which is not correct.
| dmitriid wrote:
| That segment doesn't get a free pass lower fees. They get
| the same fees. The only difference: they can provide a
| log in without ability to sign up.
|
| Everything else is the same: the fees are the same, the
| prohibition to use and/or advertise payment methods
| outside AppStore is the same etc.
| hu3 wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-
| prim...
|
| > Apple on Wednesday confirmed the existence of a program
| for streaming video providers that allows those platforms
| to bypass its standard 30 percent App Store fee when
| selling individual purchases, like movie downloads and TV
| show rentals. The program first became public earlier
| today when Amazon updated its Prime Video iOS and Apple
| TV apps to allow in-app purchases for the first time. It
| is not clear how long the program has existed, but there
| are at least two other providers, Altice One and Canal+,
| currently participating, Apple confirmed.
| dmitriid wrote:
| These examples are actually a good example of Apple
| violating its own principles. Three out of a multitude of
| reader apps that don't get this preferential treatment.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > 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/#rea...
| [deleted]
| canofbars wrote:
| The double standard is Netflix is able to provide an app
| that does nothing out of the box until you register
| elsewhere. Other apps would get booted because they don't
| work without navigating elsewhere.
| dmitriid wrote:
| Other apps like Spotify, Kindle, all the music streaming
| and audiobook etc.? Oh wait, they are not booted.
|
| > Other apps would get booted because they don't work
| without navigating elsewhere.
|
| No. "Reader apps" get an exception to this.
| canofbars wrote:
| Those are all mega apps. If you try that as a small indie
| dev it won't work that way.
| dmitriid wrote:
| The vast majority of those apps aka "all the music
| streaming and audiobook etc" in my comment are not mega
| apps and work that way.
| jarjoura wrote:
| > 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?
| isatty wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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)...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| .
| mrpippy wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They created the store, how entitled are you.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| Yes, I want my store on my hardware. Thank you.
| Bud wrote:
| 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.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _This is so arbitrary and petty_
|
| It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new
| backpage.com.
| bigtones wrote:
| No, it's so that if Ticketmaster wants to do in-app
| purchases for concert tickets, Apple gets 30%
| drenvuk wrote:
| Can you please explain?
| conductr wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _Can you please explain?_
|
| It doesn't want to handle the money when you rent a
| hooker.
| mynegation wrote:
| But what if I want one-to-few or even one-to-many
| experience?
| sneak wrote:
| 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!
| artursapek wrote:
| That's just like Apple fucking its developers. One to
| many.
| drenvuk wrote:
| Thanks.
| mtgx wrote:
| 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.
| Bud wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Because it's not the exact same thing. Context matters.
| jedberg wrote:
| Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee.
| Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Sure you can avoid their fee. See how many customers you
| will get if you force them to side load - ask Epic.
| simion314 wrote:
| Funny, some Apple fanboys claim that if side-loading is
| allowed the the Apple Store will get empty and you get 10
| new App Stores and others like you claim the reverse (I
| agree with you, allowing side loading and other stores
| will not empty the main store)
| Bud wrote:
| Who claims this? Nobody with any credibility claims this.
| simion314 wrote:
| I mean people here in HN, probably most of us here have
| the same credibility , this person said
|
| "The problem with this logic is that every company is
| going to set up their own App Store. Microsoft, Epic,
| etc. Then for every app that I use right now on my iPhone
| I would have to source from several App Stores. It will
| make my experience very cumbersome. reply"
|
| And this is proven false since the Google Store is still
| very popular and I don't see people having to source 5
| apps from Google store, 5 from Microsoft, 2 from Apple, 3
| from Adobe. With the Epic the situation is clear, this
| giants are asking too much just for hosting your
| application and the small guys had no chance to fight
| this , lucky for the developers Epic started this and as
| we can see from this article Apple is backing down one
| step here, other step a month ago ...
| 1f60c wrote:
| > 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.pr
| od.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE...)
| [deleted]
| toast0 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Cool but there's tons of game outlets on pc, not on
| iphone
| damnyou wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| est31 wrote:
| 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.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| https://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-
| PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?...
|
| I can buy fortnite for Xbox right here.
| jfk13 wrote:
| > Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding
| sideloading
|
| Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a
| flaw.
| netsharc wrote:
| Hah, are you claiming people are that dumb and think
| "please protect me from my own stupidity"?
|
| The enabling of sideloading on Android phones already
| comes with warnings written in plain language, and even
| if you want to install an app from e.g. the browser it
| asks you to give the browser permission to install apps,
| so it's pretty idiot-proof...
| scarface74 wrote:
| And so is UAC....
| cgriswald wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| d0100 wrote:
| Ok, then put a premium price on that feature and see how
| many actually pay for it
| damnyou wrote:
| I would fully support Apple charging, say, $50 extra to
| lock down its devices to the current standard. That would
| be a much better world and the users who desire the
| "premium experience" still get to have it.
| chinathrow wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the
| App Store created for developers.
|
| People quickly forget that software was distributed on
| the web long before the App Store existed.
|
| >That's what has caused this flood of software purchases
| from consumers.
|
| No, that was caused by a billion people buying shiny new
| mobile computers. They would have bought a lot of
| software in any case, even without an App Store. New
| platform, new software.
| ben_w wrote:
| > People quickly forget that software was distributed on
| the web long before the App Store existed.
|
| I did that. Kagi.com was my payment... handler?
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20100303221537/http://www.kag
| i.c...
|
| $0.75 + (5...8)%
|
| So any transaction less than or equal to the $2.99 tier
| would be just as bad (as in, it costs you at least 30% of
| the list price), even if hosting was free.
|
| I'm also old enough to remember Apple getting involved in
| the fight over the In App Purchases patent:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/08/lodsys-offers-
| update-on...
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > So any transaction less than or equal to the $2.99 tier
| would be just as bad (as in, it costs you at least 30% of
| the list price), even if hosting was free.
|
| It's true that App Store has the best deal for payment
| processing for very low-priced apps.
|
| But that's not truly a win for developers when the App
| Store itself caused the "race to the bottom". Who was
| selling 99 cent apps before the crap store?
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| I remember that if I wanted to play anything other than
| Snake on my Nokia, I had to pay like $5 a game. And those
| games were even worse than the majority of 99C/ games on
| the store.
|
| You can argue lower prices lead to more crap, but it also
| encourages people to spend more. Most people would debate
| a $4.99 purchase, but think nothing of 5 99C/ purchases
| if done separately.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I think I agree with Lap Cat here. There's a place for
| cheap apps, but the problem comes for people developing
| productivity (or worse, vertical market) software that's
| going to sell "mere" thousands of copies, or tens of
| thousands at best, rather than hundreds of thousands or
| more. If you sell 10,000 copies at $50 a copy, you've
| grossed well over a quarter-million even subtracting
| Apple's 30% -- but if you're selling on a platform where
| it's hard to price anything over $5, you may have a
| problem, because one-tenth the price is probably _not_
| going to translate to ten times the sales.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Those kinds of apps today tend to be part of a SaaS
| service and listed as Free in the App Store. Provided
| it's B2B and not B2C - and you do signups and payments on
| your own website - then you're exempt from the self-
| service signup (and 30% tax) requirements.
|
| The catch is that as you get bigger and seem more B2C
| than B2B then Apple might start to take notice (see: Hey
| e-mail).
| hn_check wrote:
| "People quickly forget that software was distributed on
| the web long before the App Store existed."
|
| Independent software development was an absolute
| wasteland. It was _extremely_ hard to get a user to give
| you money outside of a few extremely fortified ghettos
| (Steam, for instance, which takes a 30% cut as well).
| Begware was the most common tactic.
|
| Even now with multiple options, while everyone piles on
| Apple, we should note that iOS was the single most
| profitable platform for Epic, across all platforms. Apple
| did more to liberate payments from a user than any other
| platform. Through trust, through standardization and
| normalization, and even through things like the wide
| availability of App Store gift cards (which are often
| heavily discounted - $85 for $100 of App Store gift cards
| at Costco many times through the year).
|
| Elsewhere people are arguing that Windows is a wonderful
| platform because look, it's so open. Okay, go and make
| money from Windows users and see how great it is. Unless
| your name is Microsoft or Adobe, you are in for a really,
| really rough time of it. You'll get 100% of nothing.
|
| As always, of _course_ this is downvoted. Anyone looking
| to HN for rational, reality-based discussion might find
| it a bit disappointing. Here apparently the Windows ISV
| market is a vibrant, lucrative market. Everyone here is
| profiting from it, right? (LOL -- close to _none_ of you
| are). This is farce.
| monadic2 wrote:
| Not sure why you're downvoted.
|
| It seems like the unavoidable conclusion is that there
| are no longer _any_ good places to make or find decent
| consumer software without having a corporate entity get
| their undeserving cut.
| pier25 wrote:
| > _we should note that iOS was the single most profitable
| platform for Epic, across all platforms_
|
| Almost 80% of Fortnite players are on console, so I very
| much doubt that's even remotely true.
|
| https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-
| royale-s...
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Independent software development was an absolute
| wasteland.
|
| I had a 10 year career in that "wasteland".
|
| > we should note that iOS was the single most profitable
| platform for Epic, across all platforms
|
| Citation? From what I've seen, that's not actually true.
|
| > Okay, go and make money from Windows users and see how
| great it is.
|
| For a time, the Windows version of our product was my
| company's biggest money-maker. It seems that in recent
| years though Microsoft as a company has pivoted away from
| Windows as their primary product. Away from desktop,
| toward "the cloud". I personally find that unfortunate,
| but I'm not a stockholder.
|
| > The whole torch mob anti-Apple angle seems entirely
| detached from actual reality.
|
| I'm not anti-Apple, I'm pro-Macintosh.
| hn_check wrote:
| "I had a 10 year career in that "wasteland"."
|
| From your CV, apparently developing for the Mac. Actually
| at a well known developer that probably had just a
| handful of employees. It isn't really a counterpoint.
|
| "Citation? From what I've seen, that's not actually
| true."
|
| Epic doesn't release these numbers, yet from third party
| analysis in the 30 days before being kicked from the
| respective stores, Fortnite made $43M on iOS, and a
| paltry $3.3M on Android, worldwide. Those iOS numbers
| would make it represent 40% of all Fortnite revenue,
| which would already significantly over-represent the
| userbase.
|
| Nonetheless, it's funny when someone demands a citation
| and then gives their own belief minus citation as a
| counterpoint.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > Epic doesn't release these numbers, yet from third
| party analysis in the 30 days before being kicked from
| the respective stores, Fortnite made $43M on iOS, and a
| paltry $3.3M on Android, worldwide.
|
| "Sensor Tower puts iOS spending in Fortnite at $1.2
| billion since it was launched on the App Store in early
| 2018." That was from a month ago.
| https://www.usgamer.net/articles/fortnite-ios-removal-
| hurt-e...
|
| Fortnite total revenue was $2.4 billion in 2018, $1.8
| billion in 2019. Not sure we have figures to date for
| 2020, but assuming it's approximately $1 billion, then
| iOS would be ~23% of total Fortnite revenue. Is that the
| largest platform? Maybe, maybe not.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > Independent software development was an absolute
| wasteland. It was extremely hard to get a user to give
| you money outside of a few extremely fortified ghettos
|
| Utter nonsense. Shrink-wrapped and downloadable software
| in the Windows world was all over the place using
| activation/serial codes either thru email or on a CD.
|
| Two examples:
|
| VueScan https://www.hamrick.com/
|
| SnagIt screen capture (which is now cloud based, I think.
| I still use an old version)
| hn_check wrote:
| Your two fringe examples hardly render that "utter
| nonsense".
|
| There have been over a billion Windows devices in play
| for 3+ decades. The average Window user has paid for at
| most anti-virus, Word/Office, and sometimes Adobe. It is
| rare to find someone who has paid a _penny_ for anything
| else.
|
| Even critical software that people used day after day
| like WinZip and WinRAR became a meme for being something
| that went unpaid for.
|
| Yes, some guy bought an activation code, but that guy was
| a serious exception. The pool of developers working on
| commercial Windows software was absolutely minuscule.
|
| And today, with 1.5 billion Windows devices, how many
| people are making commercial software for Windows,
| outside of Adobe and Microsoft? That numbers is a
| rounding error. Despite it being, conceptually, the most
| amazing, incredible, liberating platform.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > It is rare to find someone who has paid a penny for
| anything else.
|
| Citation needed. Who are all those people attending the
| Microsoft developers conference every year? Who were all
| the people in the audience for Ballmer's infamous
| "Developers, developers, developers" chant?
|
| You're claiming the nonexistence of something that
| clearly exists.
| hn_check wrote:
| "You're claiming the nonexistence of something that
| clearly exists."
|
| You have become incredibly insincere in your arguments,
| or you are seriously misunderstanding this discussion.
|
| There are ARMIES of corporate developers making internal
| apps for corporations around the globe. I, like probably
| 80% of HN, spent much of our career doing this. That
| isn't commercial software. It has zero relevance to any
| App Store, Windows Store, or getting money from users.
| Corporate developers make up the vast bulk of
| participants at those conferences (based upon first hand
| knowledge).
|
| We have MSDN subscriptions, go to conferences, and then
| we make some internal timesheet app or glue with an
| accounting system.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > You have become incredibly insincere in your arguments,
| or you are seriously misunderstanding this discussion.
|
| Please refrain from personal attacks.
|
| As you noted in another comment, I'm primarily a Mac
| developer, and in my experience, the extent of the third-
| party Mac software market has often been vastly
| underestimated. Maybe it's just because people aren't
| familiar with it.
|
| There are of course large numbers of users who never buy
| third-party software, but with any large platform, such
| as Mac or Windows, all it takes is a significant % of
| users to buy software for the market to really add up.
| Doesn't even have to be a majority of users.
|
| I haven't been a regular Windows users for many years,
| but back when I was, there was a thriving consumer
| software market on Windows. Again, it doesn't even have
| to include the majority of users, because those who do
| buy software are willing to pay good money for it.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| There's still a thriving market for Windows software.
|
| There's even a quote from Bill Gates in which he
| dismisses someone (Facebook?) as a platform, because the
| amount of revenue they skim is usurious.
|
| He specifically cites Windows as a platform model
| _because_ they could have absorbed far more rent from
| their developers, but chose not to.
| hn_check wrote:
| That wasn't a personal attack whatsoever.
|
| Saying that the market is a wasteland doesn't eliminate
| the occasional tiny oasis. But compared to the size of
| the userbase, the market was and remains tiny. People are
| postulating about some magical greener pastures when the
| evidence right in front of our eyes, and through the
| history of the platform, is that it is a fantasy.
|
| Jobs is a good proxy. Through the entirety of my career,
| internal or corporate solution development jobs have
| outnumbered commercial, end-user development jobs at
| _least_ 1000:1 if you aren 't directly beside Microsoft,
| Adobe, or a handful of anti-virus firms. It was, and
| remains, just a tiny, tiny market. Tiny, micro-boutiques
| that are a little sliver of marginal prosperity in a
| desolate wasteland of failure.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| > That wasn't a personal attack whatsoever.
|
| "You have become incredibly insincere in your arguments"
|
| > Tiny, micro-boutiques that are a little sliver of
| marginal prosperity in a desolate wasteland of failure.
|
| I would rephrase this to say you're talking about small
| businesses, which are not sexy or well known, but are
| both widespread and crucial to the entire economic
| foundation of the United States.
|
| Unfortunately, App Store revenue is very top-heavy. A few
| big players, such as Epic, do extremely well on the App
| Store, but small businesses tend to suffer in the App
| Store. The total software revenue may be higher now, but
| the distribution of revenue matters a lot. If the rich
| get richer, and the rest are stagnant or get poorer,
| that's only good for the rich, and I wouldn't call it a
| healthy market, regardless of the totals.
|
| In the App Store era, it's "easier" than before to become
| a wild success, like Epic. But it's a lot harder for
| indie developers to make a living. You can't "make it up
| in volume", and you don't have a huge marketing budget to
| get to the top of the App Store charts, so you need to
| charge sustainable prices for software. The App Store
| "race to the bottom", as well as other business and
| technical limitations, have really hurt smaller
| developers. I'm not sure we can, or want to live in a
| world with only BigCos.
| lapcatsoftware wrote:
| I would also say, since you mentioned developers making
| internal corporate apps, that the App Store doesn't
| really help them at all, and in fact makes their life
| more difficult, especially on a locked down software
| platform such as iOS, where you have to jump through all
| of Apple's hoops just to get your software from one
| computer to another.
|
| Remember how Apple temporarily shut down a lot of
| Facebook by revoking their enterprise certificate? We can
| quibble about whether Facebook "deserved" it, but why is
| internal software even subject to those restrictions in
| the first place. I certainly wouldn't call that
| "liberation".
| reaperducer wrote:
| _People quickly forget that software was distributed on
| the web long before the App Store existed._
|
| He's talking about when you used to have to pay $50 to
| $500 for software in a store, but the author was lucky to
| see $5-$10 of that.
| x0x0 wrote:
| And now Apple generously gives you up to 85% of $1 to $5!
| grumple wrote:
| What do you mean? Microsoft was certainly seeing more
| than 5-10$ per product sold.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| True, but today is mostly certainly not 1998.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Right and that's partly because online store like Apple's
| out-competed then on price by taking less than
| traditional distributors.
| ryanbrunner wrote:
| Do you think the marginal cost of distributing software
| for Apple even begins to approach the cost of housing it
| in a retail store?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge
| developers for promoting, distributing, and selling
| software.
|
| Zero %.
|
| Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk.
| Were Apple _buying_ units of software /service up front
| and the taking a risk reselling it, it would be valid to
| compare the split of end-user cost with classic retail,
| but Apple's not doing that, so it isn't.
| setpatchaddress wrote:
| That is a historically inaccurate take.
| s/retail/distributor/ if it helps. The point is that a
| software developer would have been very lucky to earn a
| significant fraction of the retail price. 70%? Not even
| close. The App Store completely reversed this model.
|
| That said, it's valid to acknowledge this history and
| still think 30% is too much for distribution overhead in
| 2020. I do not have an opinion on the latter.
| mthoms wrote:
| What the parent said is 100% accurate.
|
| They pointed out that retailers would buy the software up
| front (at wholesale price), and assume the rest of the
| risk for "promoting, distributing, and selling"
| themselves. Thus, the retailer did _not_ "charge
| developers" for those things[0].
|
| I realize this is a bit pedantic but it's not fair to say
| the parent has said something "historically inaccurate".
|
| [0] There were special marketing or buyback arrangements
| in some cases, but what's described above is the default
| retail model.
| dmitriid wrote:
| They may have meant mobile marketplaces before AppStore.
| Those charged anywhere up to 90%.
|
| And retail doesn't charge "0%" on boxed products, or they
| would go out of business. Logistics, distribution, and
| store markup all add up to the final price of the product
| on the shelf.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > And retail doesn't charge "0%" on boxed products
|
| Yes, they do, unless it's consignment model, which wasn't
| usually the case for boxed software. The retail sale
| happens after retail has made the purchase. It's
| obviously usually at a higher price than the retailer
| paid, but they don't take a cut of what the vendor is
| asking for the software. They pay whatever the vendor
| (or, often in real retail, a distributor that sits in
| between) is offering to sell the product for, in advance,
| and takes a risk that they will be able to sell the units
| they have purchased at a higher price.
|
| It's structurally not at all the same as what an app
| store does, where it pays no one, anything (indeed, often
| charges an access fee up front to the seller) before a
| sale is made, and then pockets a share of the sale at no
| risk.
| setpatchaddress wrote:
| You seem to be getting stuck on the word "retail"
| referring to point-of-sale-to-end-user, where other
| people are using it to refer to the cost of the entire
| retail model, which is the comparable thing in this
| discussion.
| dmitriid wrote:
| What a simplistic view of the world.
|
| You, the seller of the product, have to decide what the
| _final price_ is suitable for your product, among other
| things. Oh, you want to earn $60 per box? Well, good luck
| with that. After logistics, distribution, retailer (and
| /or possibly multiple resellers in between) margins your
| product will sell for, let's say $90. Good luck selling
| that to customers.
|
| So, when you distribute your goods through the retailers,
| you _will_ factor all those costs. You want to sell your
| product for $60 to customers? Subtract all the costs I
| listed, and you end up selling it to the retailer for a
| significantly lower price. Hell, if you 're new to the
| market, you may end up paying the retailer an upfront sum
| to cover potential losses.
|
| But yeah, retailers get a "0% cut" on your money.
| nodamage wrote:
| This seems like splitting hairs. At the end of the day,
| if the consumer buys an app for $10, the developer gets
| some portion of that, and the retail store gets the
| other.
|
| Whether that happens in one simultaneous transaction or
| two different ones doesn't really make a difference to
| how much the developer gets paid in the end, which is
| less with the retail store model compared to the current
| digital storefront model.
|
| Let's also not forget that Steam launched with a 30% cut
| a full 5 years before the App Store ever existed, so it's
| not like Apple dictated this price, they were following
| industry norms at the time.
| onion2k wrote:
| Stores buy products wholesale and sell them on, and
| accept the risk of the products not selling.
|
| Apple act as a middleman and and add on their fees, with
| absolutely no risk to themselves.
|
| They're very different business models.
| srtjstjsj wrote:
| That's not how IP publishing works.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaindered_book
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-
| out_(recording_industry)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It's not how the mass market book and (I assumw from your
| other link title) at least popular recording industries
| work, but it's how lots of the rest of the physical
| retail industries, including IP-based ones, work and have
| worked, and a big part of why (for instance), TSR (the
| original publishers of D&D), who sold IP-based products
| (including books) outside of the mass book trade was
| completely unprepared for the "success" of getting it's
| books into the mass book trade, where failing to
| adequately account for costs of remaindering almost drove
| them out of business before Wizards of the Coast bought
| them for the IP.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Right, but stores buy from distributors who take 50%+ of
| the amount they make. So the developer is still getting
| less than the App Store.
| pkaye wrote:
| > Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk.
|
| I though they just returned unsold boxes back to the
| vendor?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I thought they just returned unsold boxes back to the
| vendor?
|
| Even in the cases where the vendor/distributor allowed
| that (and discount bins were a thing because they often
| did not, at least at no restocking fee), the retailer
| still accepted the risk that the vendor or distributor
| would be defunct. If they had a consignment model where
| they only paid contingent on a retail sale, that was
| different, but (at least AFAIK) that was never the norm
| for boxed software.
| reaperducer wrote:
| The discount bins you mention illustrate the previous
| poster's point: That developers used to get far less
| before the App Store existed.
|
| If Electronics Boutique can dump a $50.00 game in a
| discount bin for $3.00, how much do you think it paid for
| that game in the first place? And how much of that amount
| went to the author?
| lenzm wrote:
| The amount they spent in the first place is irrelevant,
| that's the sunk cost fallacy. They sell it for three
| dollars because that's their best expected return
| (weighing in factors like opportunity cost of keeping the
| box on the shelf).
| wvenable wrote:
| Wait till you learn how much Apple charges for app
| promotion -- which the 30% cut has nothing to do with.
| App promotion is a $500 million to $2 billion dollar
| industry for Apple.
| antibuddy wrote:
| Apple does just the distribution. The promotion is still
| on the developer and you may not even promote your own
| services in your own app. It is also save to say that a
| lot of developers would like to do the selling
| themselves. Apple is not supposed to do the distribution
| for free, but 30% is really a lot, especially when they
| do unwanted stuff for you (the payment).
|
| Also the App Store really is the only way to get apps on
| an iOS-device, so the user has no real choice anyway.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _The promotion is still on the developer_
|
| Apple does plenty of app promotion, from promotions
| inside its own store to multi-million dollar television
| campaigns showcasing all the cool apps that are available
| inside the App Store.
| cgriswald wrote:
| Is it really promotion if you pay the same 30% cut as
| your competitor, but their app ends up on national TV and
| yours doesn't?
| srtjstjsj wrote:
| People are confused because promotion is a separate
| service that Apple charges separately from publishing.
| ksk wrote:
| >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.
|
| People buy way more on Amazon, and Amazon doesn't rob 30%
| of your sales.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| > Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge
| developers for promoting, distributing, and selling
| software.
|
| Well, that was before the Internet era, wasn't it.
| Personally I'm buying macOS software outside of the
| AppStore and I'm very happy with it. I also feel good
| that I support the developers directly.
| macinjosh wrote:
| 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.
| compscistd wrote:
| Do dating apps fall into this at all?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| 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.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| Are you paying the person you date or are you paying the
| dating app?
| syspec wrote:
| Only if they're paying for dates
| escapecharacter wrote:
| depends on whether they're person-to-person or person-to-
| many.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| If you are doing person to person cash transactions via a
| app, you aren't dating.
| macinjosh wrote:
| Not for throuples apparently.
| emdowling wrote:
| 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.
| igorstellar wrote:
| I think it's great idea. This way we won't get any "bloatware"
| in game launcher, promoted apps, ads or anything that is not
| needed to play the game.
| dindresto wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Yes! Will Netflix's Bandersnatch require a separate
| application?
| floatingatoll wrote:
| It's worth its own front page post, since that's popular for
| these today.
| nvrspyx wrote:
| 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.
| dindresto wrote:
| On a further note, what is preventing Stadia from running on
| Safari on iPadOS right now? I suppose it's making use of some
| non-standard Chrome only features?
| easton wrote:
| It is, the client won't launch in Firefox on Windows or
| Linux (for me).
| nvrspyx wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it's using some Chromium-specific
| functionality, but I can't say what exactly since it's not
| publicly stated as far as I can tell.
| makecheck wrote:
| While iOS 14 will help somewhat (App Library to gather
| things), I agree that one app per game is a big ask for
| streaming. Furthermore, I can just imagine a lazy Electron-
| type implementation making each "wrapper" steal much more
| phone space than it has any right to.
| Steko wrote:
| _Games offered in a streaming game service subscription must be
| downloaded directly from the App Store, must be designed to
| avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not
| disadvantage non-subscriber customers_
|
| Imagine having to download every netflix movie separately from
| itunes. Well some progress is better than none.
| thewebcount wrote:
| That would be great! I wouldn't need a Netflix account it
| sounds like. All the movies would be in a single place
| instead of spread around different apps. Honestly, I would
| love that! I'm not signing up for anything from Microsoft or
| Google, but I'd consider steaming a single game from Apple's
| AppStore.
| ranman wrote:
| 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%
| Qahlel wrote:
| 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?
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| 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.
| dozy wrote:
| 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/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd7007...
| nimish wrote:
| 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.
| Bud wrote:
| I've heard of this thing called "Android". From what I've
| heard, and I know that this sounds crazy, but it reportedly has
| _a larger market share than Apple_ does in the mobile space.
|
| So any arguments or comments here mentioning "monopolistic
| power" are, well, I want to be nice about this, but they are a
| complete fucking joke.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| So there are two choices. That's not really that much better.
| Bud wrote:
| It's not a monopoly. By definition. It's not even close.
| That's all I am saying. So we should stop with this
| absurdity of talking about Apple having a monopoly. Apple
| does not even have majority market share in _any_ of the
| markets that it participates in.
| bagacrap wrote:
| If it's not a monopoly, there needs to be some other word
| for it. It's not equivalent to retail stores, where if
| you don't like Walmart's price you can shop at Target,
| because the cost of switching from one phone to another
| is prohibitively high. Until everyone walks around with
| an iphone in one pocket and a Samsung in the other, it's
| something akin to monopoly.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Oligopoly?
| danShumway wrote:
| s/monopoly/duopoly/g
|
| Nothing about the original argument changes, people are
| just being pedantic about which word is used. Duopolies
| can be just as dangerous as monopolies, and to the
| original commenter's point, duopolies are definitely
| capable of monopolistic behaviors.
|
| I advise people to just use 'duopoly' and to avoid
| letting arguments like this distract from the main point,
| which is that Apple has an outsized control over the
| entire mobile market and uses its control to unfairly
| prop up its own software offerings like Apple Music over
| Spotify, to lock consumers into its ecosystem making it
| difficult for them to move to other platforms, to force
| third-party devs to give Apple a substantial cut of their
| own profits even when they aren't interested in
| leveraging Apple's services, and to outright shut down
| competing mobile services that don't fit into Apple's
| vision for what they want the mobile market to be (Google
| Stadia, etc).
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Depending on who you ask, Apple may or may not have a
| monopoly on their App Store. I'm of the opinion that you
| can't just redefine a "market" to be what you want that
| would make someone a monopoly. Is Target a monopoly on
| what it sells in its stores?
| Bud wrote:
| "Depending on who you ask"? Ok, sure, if you ask people
| who have no clue what a monopoly is, you can get any
| answer you want.
|
| But the idea of having "a monopoly on their App Store" is
| laughable. By that standard, every single company has a
| monopoly.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| That was my point. But I've seen many comments here
| saying some variation of "Apple has a monopoly on the App
| Store"
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| It appears you didn't hear the biggest shocker of them all;
| one does not need to have an outright monopoly to be in a
| dominant position, able to abuse its power in a market.
|
| I know, shocker.
| electriclove wrote:
| Is Apple abusing its power by keeping its fee the same as
| it has been forever?
| [deleted]
| Bud wrote:
| As my words make quite clear (despite the downvotes), I'm
| only talking about the use of the word "monopoly" in a
| context where it should not be used.
|
| You want to gripe about supposed abuse of market power,
| even though that's a weak argument that is not supported by
| the facts? Go right ahead.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| From the government itself[1]:
|
| > _Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying
| rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand
| for a firm with significant and durable market power -- that
| is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude
| competitors. That is how that term is used here: a
| "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market
| power._
|
| [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-
| guidance/guide-a...
| eplanit wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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.
| scarface74 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| scarface74 wrote:
| There is no "go to settings".
|
| Click the share button, Scroll up, click "Add to home
| screen", click OK. The title is the title of the page.
| paxys wrote:
| And how do I do it from Chrome?
| scarface74 wrote:
| So now that you were factually proven to be incorrect you
| want to move the goal posts?
|
| The initial post that we both responded to clearly stated
| Safari.
|
| > 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 wrote:
| All those little bits you stuffed onto the end of your
| pretend quote negate the "great web experience" portion.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| This has nothing to do with monopolistic power. Apple has had
| strongly opinionated/ arbitrary rules on the App Store way
| before they had anything which resembled a monopoly. The only
| difference is now that Apple has grown.
| FreakyT wrote:
| _> The only difference is now that Apple has grown._
|
| I mean, that's the whole point.
|
| Now that Apple has the power to shut you out of nearly 50% of
| the US market if you don't follow their rules, those rules
| carry a lot more weight than it if was 5% of the market.
| mthoms wrote:
| Here's a diff of the document. I'm not sure if it works on
| mobile:
|
| 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.
| summitsummit wrote:
| (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/ if anyone else also feels the same
| :)
| megablast wrote:
| It says you can not treat apple customers any different to
| other customers.
| cma wrote:
| Does that mean no discount for buying off-App Store?
| pier25 wrote:
| Is this new?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Just got an e-mail now about an App Store guidelines update.
| There's more juicy stuff in there besides this.
| scarface74 wrote:
| 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.
| adamsmark wrote:
| 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.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Cannot agree more, there's this in the guidelines:
|
| > Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated;
| the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune
| telling, dating, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will
| reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality
| experience. Spamming the store may lead to your removal from
| the Developer Program.
|
| I totally agree that there's enough of these types of apps, but
| you'll need to convince a reviewer that your "special" if you
| want to compete in that space. I'm torn between agreeing with
| Apple and being disgusted at the anti-competitive nature
| communicated. I just wonder if Apple uses this to say "oh,
| there's already enough find-my type apps" "oh, there's already
| enough music apps" "oh, there's already enough word processor
| apps" and you're left holding the bag of software you've spent
| the last year writing.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I haven't seen a good reason for needing new laws. Seems like a
| great way to carve out special rules for companies that think
| they can skirt existing anti-trust laws.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| I've had this same thought for a while now, anti-trust is
| completely tangential to the current situation; we need new
| laws. I'm just worried that the new laws are generalizable
| enough to serve their purpose without creating loopholes or
| stifling innovation.
| [deleted]
| macspoofing wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| what about forcing them to be developed in the open?
| (everybody get's to read and audit all their code and
| processess)
| clusterfish wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _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._
|
| Interestingly, in recent years such things have happened.
| In Chicago, the tolled Skyway has been leased to an
| Australian company. And all the city's parking meters have
| been sold to a Spanish company.
| newbie578 wrote:
| I love how people are completely missing your point and
| introducing Nintendo to the discussion.
|
| Trying to equal a smartphone and a fucking gaming console
| (Switch).
|
| A smartphone has become as you said an intersection, i.e. a
| bridge to the digital world and has become an absolute
| neccessity in today's world. And as such should also be
| regulated.
|
| All these people who are comparing Nintendo to Apple, try
| going a month without your Switch and then a Month without
| using your Macbook, Ipad or iPhone. Hint:Good luck
| Razengan wrote:
| > _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.
| matsemann wrote:
| > and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start
| their own platform.
|
| But in practice, are anyone capable of that? It's a
| winner-takes-it-all, and the winners are so huge it's
| virtually impossible for anyone to upset them. You cannot
| compete on price, features or anything without a hundred
| billion investment.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Barrier to entry isn't necessarily part of antitrust. I
| can't set up my own toll roads without billions of
| dollars of investment, but a toll road company isn't
| necessarily breaking the law.
| grumple wrote:
| This isn't about the iPhone, it's about iOS, which is one
| os out of two. And they have an absolute monopoly within
| iOS and on iPhones, while creating a market which can and
| will be regulated and being a publicly traded company and
| therefore subject to even more scrutiny and laws.
|
| And people care a lot less about the consoles because
| they are a lot less important to the economy. This is
| like McDonalds complaining about paying fair wages and
| pointing to a two-location mom and pop shop and saying
| "but they do it too!". Classic whataboutism.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Most people don't care about side loading apps on their
| phone either...
| electriclove wrote:
| Epic is a mom and pop? Get outta here..
| electriclove wrote:
| Their 30% has been their rule since the beginning. I could
| see your point if they increased that but that isn't the
| case.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| > _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_
| thewebcount wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Here you go:
| 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 for
| an example).
| ultrarunner wrote:
| You could jailbreak. They actively work to prevent that,
| though.
| zaroth wrote:
| 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.
| remram wrote:
| You also have to own a Mac and either an Apple Watch or
| iPhone to enable two-step verification.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Their two-step verification only works with Apple products?
| projektfu wrote:
| Oh, so they're saying that they don't need a 30% cut of items
| they neither created nor sold? How magnanimous.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| Qahlel wrote:
| If Apple was a Chinese company, US would have "liberated" App
| Store decades ago.
| smnscu wrote:
| Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to
| appear innocent in their ongoing legal feud with Epic.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Facebook's action wouldn't effect Epic and vice-versa. The
| two are unconnected outside the fact that they relate to
| the App Store.
| monadic2 wrote:
| Man I just want to have control over my phone is that too much to
| ask?
| newbie578 wrote:
| 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)
| scarface74 wrote:
| Buy an Android....
| bsaul wrote:
| don't understand why you got downvoted because ultimately it's
| what it all boils down to..
| electriclove wrote:
| You never had control with Apple. It didn't seem to matter to
| many for the longest time.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Surface Duo!
| ab_testing wrote:
| 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.
| bww wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >are for real-world services performed by people
|
| but they can be done over the app.
| dj_mc_merlin wrote:
| > 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?
| npunt wrote:
| Not sure if what you're arguing against is judgment calls, or
| against the fallout of that supreme court ruling, but to
| address the use of judgment, the nature of curation is that
| it's not always something that can be put in a set of explicit
| rules.
|
| There's always people that walk right up to and over the line
| and generally push boundaries and find loopholes, no matter how
| well written rules are. Human judgment needs to be a part of
| the process if a good experience is desired.
|
| Now it can be argued that Apple doesn't execute on this
| approach particularly well, but the idea that they want to be
| able to make some judgment calls is perfectly valid and if done
| right leads to the best experience.
| theferalrobot wrote:
| > Human judgment needs to be a part of the process if a good
| experience is desired
|
| Yeah just to second this I think that a lot of us coming from
| software backgrounds like to think of laws as being code,
| fully definable, automatable and capable of covering all edge
| cases. This isn't the case. Judgement is required.
|
| Not to ruin my own metaphor but I actually think there is a
| lesson about software as well. Software is not something
| capable of perfection. There is no perfect code, everything
| is a bodge, some bodges are more useful than others. You
| can't cover every edge case. Software evolves and has flaws
| much like the product of natural evolution.
| serf wrote:
| >Yeah just to second this I think that a lot of us coming
| from software backgrounds like to think of laws as being
| code, fully definable, automatable and capable of covering
| all edge cases. This isn't the case. Judgement is required.
|
| problem arises when the method for achieving Judgement
| isn't codified.
|
| Meaning, while laws and punishment are open to
| interpretation by the judges, the system by which we
| appoint judges, their permissions and abilities, _are_
| strictly codified, and they must be in order to subdue and
| reduce corruption.
|
| OK: Your company decides to stop producing specific
| codified rules -- what is in place to prevent judgement
| bias and fair interpretation of 'crossing the line'?
|
| The answer, in most cases, is that there is nothing to hold
| the 'judges' accountable. Nothing to insure fair unbiased
| decisions. Nothing to insure that they can't hold the
| position indefinitely without malice.
|
| In other words : The shorter your Terms of Service become,
| the longer the Employee Handbook must become to prevent
| corruption and overall unfairness.
|
| Besides that problem, there is the problem where the
| acceptable behaviors on a platform may wander with society
| -- this leads to issues where developers may be barred from
| a platform for behavior which was perfectly acceptable
| earlier that year without any real warning.
|
| How does one avoid breaking rules if they can't know the
| rules?
|
| Well, one might say "Play nice.", but the reality is that
| we all interpret it differently. That's one of the many
| nice features that comes along with codified law.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| One observation I've made about laws vs code is that the
| former allows for the use of some very... convenient
| descriptors. The best one is "reasonable". It's used all
| the time in legal agreements, and it's exactly the type of
| mushy concept you could never explain to a computer.
|
| And I think that's healthy. Laws are written for people,
| not computers, and as far as I can (I'm very much not a
| lawyer), everyone basically agrees on what "reasonable"
| means. Furthermore, I'm not sure what we'd do _without_
| that word, because you can 't realistically outline every
| possible scenario in advance.
| npunt wrote:
| Agree. Decision environments are high dimensional spaces
| that human judgment can tap into. Laws and rules are ways
| to compress that space, but the compression is lossy and
| can lead to a divergence between the letter of the rule and
| its intent.
|
| And to add more complexity to the situation, laws and rules
| are but static snapshots within a dynamic system, and may
| simply drift away from intent with the progression of time
| and people's viewpoints. Kind of like a really old keyframe
| in a compressed video that starts smearing from the
| accumulation of too many changes.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| > 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.
|
| I personally think this is the worst line that ever came out of
| a Supreme Court decision because of how simple it is. It is
| such a blatant low effort cop out that legitimizes arbitrary
| rulings. At least usually they obfuscate it with legal jargon
| and historical rulings.
| elteto wrote:
| That quote even has its own wiki page:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
| megablast wrote:
| > "I'll know it when I see it". And we think that you will also
| know it when you cross it.
|
| Which means different app reviewers will have different
| interpretations of it. A problem that exists now.
| WilTimSon wrote:
| They know this and they don't care. It's not like Apple users
| can just go "well screw this" and download apps from a
| different source easily. They'd have to switch to Android to
| do it or have to be technologically inclined.
| shaftway wrote:
| I completely agree. When rules aren't codified it invites
| biased interpretation of them.
|
| However....
|
| I've worked on an internal communications platform. For some
| reason people would forget that they were on a corporate site
| with their corporate email linked to it and spew garbage that
| any decent person would be embarrassed to say out loud.
|
| So we deliberately didn't codify our rules. We chose not to
| because we were aware that if we did then people would
| deliberately cozy up as close to the line as they could, and
| that wasn't the kind of environment we wanted to foster.
|
| We avoided bias by removing information about the flagger or
| flagee when content was flagged and judged it based on the
| content ourselves. After we judged we'd look up who was
| responsible for the content, and if we felt they were doing
| some penetration testing to see exactly where those lines were
| we would start to loop in their manager, HR, legal, and anyone
| else we felt should be aware. Our escalation procedure went up
| to banning, though nobody ever reached that point. And our
| content improved.
|
| If the story ended there I would still be against not having
| codified rules, but begrudgingly accept that it worked in that
| situation.
|
| Unfortunately the story doesn't end there. Staff was hired so
| that engineers wouldn't be responsible for this. The staff was
| less familiar with the ecosystem and they proceeded to clamp
| down more and more on acceptable content. They cozied up to HR
| and legal who were never really comfortable with the
| permissiveness of the platform, and received praise and
| additional funding to grow the team for these clampdowns.
|
| I left the project and haven't looked back.
|
| You're right, "I'll know it when I see it" is a garbage
| sentiment that at best is a cop out, but too often is used to
| withhold rules and keep people in the dark as a power play, or
| even squash dissenters with arbitrary and unbalanced
| application of force.
| sneak wrote:
| Your codified rule was "don't habitually say stuff you don't
| want to be attributed to you with your manager, HR, legal,
| and anyone else at work you don't want reading it".
|
| Seems pretty straightforward to me.
| baybal2 wrote:
| To begin with, I think they made it to accommodate Tencent,
| who once threatened to pull Wechat from App Store if they
| don't let them use their own payments.
|
| First, they used them for transfers only, but later came
| games, and etc.
| Hokusai wrote:
| Because it is not about fairness or rules. It is about
| extracting as much values as possible from app developers.
|
| That made sense when the Apple store was a small kind of
| start up enterprise. Nowadays, it should be regulated so
| all developers can use the platform in a level field where
| competition is real and it is not just a game for big
| corporations.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Regulating the app store is stupid. They should be able
| to reject bad apps for being bad without having to go to
| court over it.
|
| The problem is that they restrict the user from using any
| other app store. So then when they get it wrong there is
| nothing anybody can do. And then they have less incentive
| not to get it wrong, because it's much harder for them to
| lose users to a competitor, so they prohibit things the
| user actually wants more often.
| solidsnack9000 wrote:
| Yeah, the thing is to have codified questions. Seems weird
| but that's how the law does it. We are always asked to frame
| things in terms of what a reasonable person would find
| explicit, threatening, likely, implausible...basically, the
| law asks you: can you answer this question with a straight
| face?
| modeless wrote:
| Interesting that the film at issue in the Supreme Court case,
| in which 6/9 justices disagreed about the reasons why it should
| or shouldn't be censored, is today available on iTunes:
| https://itunes.apple.com/fr/movie/les-amants/id1112874509?l=...
| [deleted]
| ciarannolan wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Or just maybe they like making money on the mobile platform
| where people will actually spend money?
| dmonitor wrote:
| The crazy part is the people who fly into fits of rage
| when you suggest Apple could do something differently.
| Changing the web browser on iOS was one that would get
| tons of hate and responses like "you don't need that! it
| would confuse people!"
|
| Then Apple lets people do it and now they're okay with it
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Then stop whining about Apple's stupid rules. Apple also
| likes making money on their platform, and they're much
| better at it than you are.
| xnyan wrote:
| 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.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| If I remember correctly, the SCOTUS reference dates back to
| when Steve Jobs was CEO. I am, um, not at all surprised he
| put that in the guidelines.
|
| The guidelines also used to say:
|
| > If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few
| days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into
| the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for
| rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want
| their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.
|
| You can tell this was personally written by Steve.
|
| ---
|
| Taken from https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https:/
| /developer.... This is the earliest available in the Internet
| Archive as far as I can tell; circa-2012 they were kept
| behind an account login.
| crehn wrote:
| That sounds like a good guideline to be honest. Perhaps not
| the best-worded one, but gets the point across and avoids
| becoming another Google Play Store.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I've heard anecdotally that Steve Jobs helped write those
| guidelines, and the "amateur hour" line in particular sure
| sounds like him. I don't mean that in a disparaging way;
| Jobs could certainly be a jerk, but there are times I wish
| more CEOs were willing to be that blunt in official
| communication.
| _jal wrote:
| I'm really surprised. Did Apple shake up their PR or legal
| flacks? The language they've used recently (I'm thinking of
| the Epic stuff, too) feels different than their famously
| cool, considered tone; looser, more assertive, and much
| easier to argue with.
| atombender wrote:
| It's always been written in an oddly informal way. When I
| first read it, I did a double take and had to check if I
| was on the right domain, because I didn't expect it from
| Apple, of all companies. Over the years, it has been
| tightened a bit (the famous "If you run to the press and
| trash us, it never helps" line is gone), but it's still
| quite relaxed and personal, which is a tone that is
| somewhat at odds with the strictness of the rules.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| I disagree. They have always been this arrogant. You are
| just noticing it right now. Do you remember when they
| essentially said _don 't run to the press if we don't allow
| your app, it won't help you_, which I personally
| interpreted as _or else_? Or how almost every time someone
| criticizes Apple they sandwich a one-sentence criticism
| between 50 sentences of praise because they know the cost
| of not doing that could be their entire business? Since the
| launch of iPhone, Apple has been the 800lb gorilla in the
| room and has acted like it.
|
| EDIT: From App Store Review Guidelines on September 2014:
|
| > _" If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that
| you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it
| never helps."_
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://develope
| r...
| jjeaff wrote:
| Which is such a lie, because going to the press is
| exactly what gets a lot of apps re-evaluated and
| accepted.
| tpmx wrote:
| I may be a partial reason for why that clause exists.
|
| I was running the development of the Opera Mini browser.
| We started building an iOS version along all the other
| platforms that existed at the time. I suggested to our
| then brilliant PR team that we just sorta tell the world
| that we're going to release Opera Mini for iOS at time X.
| They fired on all cylinders and came up with a very
| sophisticated PR campaign involving a public count-up
| clock along with the usual stuff, showing off the browser
| in private to trusted journalists etc.
|
| Sadly that first version was kinda crappy :(. I didn't
| really really expect Apple to accept it. :) The next
| version (6.0) was pretty good though.
|
| > Time since Opera Mini for iPhone was officially
| submitted to Apple (opera.com)"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1212855
|
| > 19 days later, Apple still hasn't approved the Opera
| Mini app (opera.com)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1258137
|
| > Opera Mini approved for iPhone (opera.com)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1260748
|
| > Opera Mini takes over the App Store Charts (apple.com)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1265326
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Eh, it _can_ be a lie. This is some form of the quandary
| "if you owe the bank a million dollars, you're in
| trouble; if you owe the bank a billion dollars, the bank
| is in trouble."
|
| 99% of app devs will not benefit from "running to the
| press." Those that will will know it for certain.
| rriepe wrote:
| I think it's the power dynamic. The marketing material
| doesn't need to be as good because they're (culturally) in
| charge now at the company.
|
| It used to be that engineering/design led the company. Now
| it's marketing and legal.
| ardy42 wrote:
| > It used to be that engineering/design led the company.
| Now it's marketing and legal.
|
| Isn't that what people make fun or Oracle for?
| pier25 wrote:
| I agree. Sentences like "we think that you will also know
| it when you cross it" are extremely arrogant.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Everything is a judgment call. You can no more spell out
| everything that is considered explicit than your HR
| department can spell out everything that might constitute
| harassment.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that line's been in
| there since the review guidelines were public, years ago.
| input_sh wrote:
| I found an article from 6 years ago that quotes that line,
| so at least since then: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2
| 014/09/04/apple_new_app_s...
| Shivetya wrote:
| well at least he upheld the First Amendment when uttering that
| statement but the rest of his text basically shows he knew that
| First Amendment rights were more important than his moral code
| and asked if he could define what would cross the line he could
| not do so satisfactory.
|
| Now as to Apple, I don't have to buy their products and if I do
| I know what to expect. If it really mattered or should I say
| bothered me enough I certainly would buy a different product.
|
| Right now my Apple purchases are on hold for their virtue
| signaling and effective turning their backs on abuses in China
| and Hong Kong.
|
| Apple Human Rights Warranty, Void where prohibited by law.
| Bud wrote:
| Abuses in China? So what are you planning to purchase
| instead? Because Apple is doing better with worker rights in
| China than any competitor is.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| E.g.: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/
| scarface74 wrote:
| So are you not going to buy any electronic items?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-11 23:00 UTC)