Hacker News Reader

Comment by traceroute66 | Hacker News Reader

I don't get the anti-Apple here. The email from Apple posted on Twitter says quite clearly that people can acquire content and subscriptions elsewhere as long as the app continues to offer an in-app purchase option. I don't see the problem here, give people the choice.

View on HN

The anti-apple thing here is, you can't link out to your website for payment.

You literally cannot even inform the user that there is another way for them to pay.

This is shitty. Apple benefits from developers making great apps on their platform, just as developers benefit from being on their platform. It's a symbiotic relationship, but Apple takes up to 30% of your profit which does not feel respectful of what developers are bringing to the table, which is often Apple first, quality apps.

This is not totally true.

If you're using, say, Stripe for your payment processing then you can offer the user a choice if they'd pay through Stripe or Apple pay. If you do not have your own payment processor for mobile payments, then you use only Apple pay. If you do, then you have to include Apple as an option.

I've been releasing apps with this in the past few years, it's been a requirement all along.

You don’t see the problem with that?

Oh, I do. I don't like it at all as any payment through Apple costs way too much.

I was just opposing the statement that you cannot offer another way of payment in an iOS app, that part is just not true.

That's not totally true, either. You can only use Stripe as an option if the service being paid for is delivered outside of the app (I.e. Uber, Ecommerce, etc). Any purely digital content must be paid for via in-app purchase and take the 30% revenue cut. That's why you can't get an Audible or Spotify subscription from within the app.

That was the case in all the apps I've been involved with ("the service being paid for is delivered outside of the app"), so I probably did not pay much attention to the small letters.

It is totally true for the context of this conversation... Which is, software subscriptions.

No, you cannot use Stripe for software subscriptions. Stripe (non-Apple pay) can only be used for physical goods, or sale of services rendered outside of iOS/MacOS.

In other words, can only be used for non-digital sales. The context of this conversation is the Hey app, which is a software subscription, so no... there is no other way to pay.

Yes, I have just figured that out. My experience was for the goods/services delivered outside the app.

It's worse. Hey doesn't take payment and only allows users to log in from the app, not sign up. Many apps already do this, including Netflix, Fastmail, and many more.

Apple is saying that because Hey offers a subscription elsewhere, Hey should provide an in-app purchase as well, despite other apps not being forced to do this.

I mean yes, that's been the case since in-app purchases on the Apple store. What's new? You can complain, tweet and seek regulatory relief but at the end of the day you built that app knowing perfectly well Apple will ask for 30% of your iOS revenue.

I don't get this argument. Apple built the platform, so they can set a price. Any price. Their platform, their decision. Companies like Basecamp can decide to distribute on that platform or not. It's Apple's prerogative to find the optimal fee, to pair with what companies are willing and able to pay.

Letting apps link out to websites for paywalls circumvents all of this. If I was in Apple's position I'd limit that as well.

>Apple takes up to 30% of your profit

They take 30% of your gross revenue. If you spent $x on development and marketing of your app, and generated $1.5x from iOS, they take away $0.45x and you're left with $1.05x which is actually a lot worse than if they only took 30% of your profit, which would be $0.15x.

This is inconsistent with Apple's past policy. There was never a requirement (and still isn't, by my reading) that you must offer any paid services / subscriptions within the app. Only that if you do offer them in the app, you must use Apple's payment service and give Apple their cut.

Spotify and Netflix have never offered subscriptions within their app - you can use the app to access those services, but you must subscribe on the web first.

Netflix accepted in-app subscriptions until December 2018.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Presumably, they were just taking the hit and giving Apple their 30% ?

I think there would be much less of an issue if the consumer could be informed of that choice in the app.

No, it doesn't.

https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080

"We noticed that your app allows customers to access content, subscriptions, or features they have purchased elsewhere, but those items were not available as in-app purchases within the app."

"Since the email services offered in your app are not the type listed under guideline 3.1.3(a) for 'Reader' apps, customers must be able to purchase access to features or functionality in your app using in-app purchase."

This would ban Gmail, Netflix, and many others that handle payment entirely off-app. I can't pay for my GSuite via IAP, but I'm still allowed to use the Gmail app for it.

>Netflix, and many others that handle payment entirely off-app

nope. you can buy netflix subscriptions as an IAP https://apps.apple.com/us/app/netflix/id363590051

As far as I can tell, you can't. Those IAPs listed don't appear to be purchasable any more; they're likely still listed because some existing subscriptions are still grandfathered in.

They turned these off in 2018 (https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/28/18159373/netflix-in-app-...) and my "account" page in the Netflix app just tells me to go to Netflix.com to adjust everything.

But Gmail, Netflix, and others have enough weight to “convince” Apple to give them a free pass. I would not be surprised if legal threats are common in these conversations.

Recently I was looking at iOS hacks that turn the volume buttons into application controls, you know how both Snapchat and the native Camera app work. This is explicitly prohibited, but I would bet that Snapchat has threatened to sue over it, which is why it still works for them.

> I would bet that Snapchat has threatened to sue over it

I'd gladly take that bet. Just preferential treatment for a large customer and is very common.

You would bet that no threat has ever been implied, even? Maybe Snapchat’s reviews pass through someone on the legal team proactively?

Yes, because there is no legal ground from which Snapchat can sue on this issue. And what are they going to threaten with? Pulling their app from the Apple App store only to hurt their own business?

Apps like Facebook, Netflix, and Snapchat are going to be on a first-name basis with their peers at Apple/Google and are going to have relationships and cards to pull that most others do not. Same is true for any b2b relationship, whether it's auto manufacturers/dealers or advertisers/publishers. Big customers get perks.

> And what are they going to threaten with?

A lawsuit! That’s the theory, there is at least enough legal ground to cause damage (even if they can’t win in court). But maybe you are right and most cases like this are handled smoothly without conflict.

>I would not be surprised if legal threats are common in these conversations.

Is that even needed? Imagine iOS without Gmail (or perhaps all Google apps) and Netflix. That would significantly affect the value of an iPhone to an individual consumer. And in Netflix's case, it's not like Apple can just roll their own version and push that to users (since Apple TV+ is quite sad).

Sure, but imagine Snapchat without an iOS app...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com