Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase | Hacker News Reader

Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase

developer.apple.com

338 pointsBigBalli468 comments

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

Regulating the app store isn't beneficial. 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 then they prohibit things the user actually wants more often.

The reason why developers want to make apps for iOS is because there's a large market. That market exists because Apple has done a great job prioritizing the protection of their customers' privacy and payment information.

If third party App Stores are ever forced onto iOS devices, that market vanishes completely. Crashes, slowdowns, battery drain, malware, and information theft will become the norm. Go no further than your gaming PC to witness the nightmare that is multiple app stores all competing for CPU and control/surveillance of your system, all needing to bring their own flavors of information-harvesting/exposing DRM.

This new round of digital YIMBYism is profoundly anti-consumer and stands to destroy the trust that Apple has built with its customers. I sincerely hope that those of us who have trusted Apple with our data will start to speak out before Google-backed lobbyists tranform iOS into a malware-ridden hellscape.

I don't see that at all. The value Apple supposedly provides is safety. If consumers want the safety that Apple offers, they can continue to limit themselves to Apple's App Store offerings, while those who don't value safety as highly can use a different app store. Just because you value something in a certain way does not mean everyone else should be forced to adhere to those same values.

> The reason why developers want to make apps for iOS is because there's a large market. That market exists because Apple has done a great job prioritizing the protection of their customers' privacy and payment information.

You vastly overestimate the number of figs the average user gives about most of the privacy problems that HN grapples with. The average user, after all, uses Facebook. What the average user wants is for shit to just work.

The reason that iOS is a huge market has less to do with that, and more to do with all the other aspects of what makes a good phone.

You argument is also somewhat undermined by the existence of... A rather large amount of crap on the App Store. Somehow, the iPhone has managed to survive.

... Also, cutting side-deals with apps created by billion-dollar players, and telling all other app developers to pound sand (Regardless of the quality of the apps in question) is the main problem we're talking about. Whether or not Apple does this has no bearing on the current quality of the iPhone (But has a lot of bearing on their bottom line), but has a large bearing on the future quality of the iPhone (A vibrant app ecosystem is healthier then one where a few hand-picked winners are rewarded, and their competitors can never compete on an even playing field. At least, that's what advocates of open markets tell me.)

> I sincerely hope that those of us who have trusted Apple with our data will start to speak out before Google-backed lobbyists tranform iOS into a malware-ridden hellscape

Ive had iPhone for the past year, but before that I had many years of Android. I really don’t see my years on Android as hellscape. I never had any malware, I mostly used google play store but also sideloaded some “grey” software (a mobile hearthstone client before the game had a real mobile client). I think at some point I installed amazon App Store but not sure why.

I also can’t say that my recent Apple experience is smoother than my android experience. On my iPhone 11 Pro I’ve had multiple experiences where some app after a while started to crash on startup and clearing data didn’t help. They had to be explicitly removed then reinstalled. My previous phones (Samsung S8 was my last Android) didnt have this or really any issue.

If consumer trust were the foundation of Apple's growth, they wouldn't have to worry about folks defecting to another app store if it was available.

The reality is that, having created a great market, they are now extracting rents by using their ability to exclude apps to enforce things that don't benefit users but expand their margins (like forcing use of their identity and payment systems).

> If third party App Stores are ever forced onto iOS devices, that market vanishes completely. Crashes, slowdowns, battery drain, malware, and information theft will become the norm.

This is a wild projection. Having alternative app stores on iOS, especially if gated behind a hard-to-find switch with a scary warning sign, will be totally different than any PC experience, partially because iOS has a sandboxed architecture (and incredibly solid engineering in general) that is far more secure than Windows, and partially because Windows allows you to install stuff incredibly easily with no signing or app store required. It's really obvious that iOS will have a fraction of the security issues that Windows has had over its lifetime.

> If third party App Stores are ever forced onto iOS devices, that market vanishes completely. Crashes, slowdowns, battery drain, malware, and information theft will become the norm. Go no further than your gaming PC to witness the nightmare that is multiple app stores all competing for CPU and control/surveillance of your system, all needing to bring their own flavors of information-harvesting/exposing DRM.

I am sorry but this is just FUD.

I own both a Macbook Pro and PC that I built and I have yet have these supposed "multiple app stores nightmare" that you are talking about.

Do you own a Windows machine yourself? Because the above comment doesn't seem to be done in good faith.

I don’t know if you have seen the trash heap of bad apps that is on the App Store. It gives the distinction impression that Apple does not reject bad apps, only apps they don’t like for arbitrary reasons.

I do agree that the best solution would be allowing third party stores.

Just because bad apps may make it onto the app store doesn’t mean Apple’s implementation is failing. Security holes are not discovered in a vacuum. It’s like playing wack a mole. For obvious points just like at how Epic got banned from the App Store. They snuck in a direct payment option and got approved for release, only later did Apple find out. It’s possible that those bad apps snuck in malicious codes and the app reviewer missed it. It happens. However without Apples review and ability to act as goal keeper there would be much more of those kind of apps,.

I’m not sure how third party stores are the best solution to this. That means users would have to trust another gate keeper for security and validation. 3rd party app stores will just increase the possible of malicious apps

Or just charge a flat review fee.

The only loophole I can see is to have web app stores because you can’t ban browsers. Web apps may improve greatly as lower level browser APIs like Houdini become available but I don’t think that will be enough. I think that html should be replaced by cross-platform native apps distributed over http.

Unfortunately, Apple controls the browser channel by mandating the use of their engine, WebKit, which is suspiciously limited on the features that make web apps close to native, Store-distributed apps.

The fact they need rules to enforce use of their inferior payment system shows how inherently anti-competitive IAP is. If it were optional and you could freely roll your own purchase mechanism, most (not all) developers would remove Apple IAP with the current 30% fees.

...and I would go from spending one or two hundred a month on IAPs, and spend zero instead. There is no way I’m giving an app my payment info.

How do you make online purchases? Do you just... not? Is the use of independent payment systems on the Web somehow different from in iOS apps?

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?

I think there is a difference in kind over rules that govern paid employees, and rules that govern developers who are paying to be on the platform, and told to design and innovate, but if you step over a line we're not going to write down, we'll kick you off the platform and damage your business.

Doesn’t sound like a platform I’d want to bet my business on.

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.

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.

> 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.

>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.

In theory, the law should be written such that reasonable, disinterested people can reach consensus on the outcome of cases.

It can't be as unambiguous as code and usefully describe the world, but it shouldn't require judgment based on individual opinion - that's why the pornography ruling is such a dodge.

Judges should be disinterested and appealable; they are not in Apple's case.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And to be honest it make sense in the early days. Jobs wanted the absolute best Apps in the Apps Store.

Situation now is different though. Jobs would likely have some human touch in the current situation. Where as Tim Cook feels less so.

Given how much amateur hour there is on the app store, I think they might as well remove that rule...

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.

I think it would be in excellent guideline if iOS allowed side-loading (without ridiculous restrictions). But it doesn't.

Everyone was an amateur once. How should they distribute their apps?

I do not want these apps and average Joe doesn't want them either.

Why is it so difficult for people to imagine how insanely powerful and datapacked your phone is?

Allowing sideloading to average people means they will get hacked and ransomwared left and right. Your entire life is on the iPhone.

While I agree with you about sideloading apps for enthusiasts and hackers, but the world is far different than you and me. I really don't understand why these arguments are presented on HN time and again. Jailbreaking your iPhone is a terrible idea. Horrifying even.

I am glad Apple is gate keeping. Privacy > Hackability. You can't have both. The world is full of vultures that will shred your privacy in no time. Just look at what the ad-tech is doing within these sandboxes (browsers). Microsoft got into ad-tech game because they realized "Holyshit, we are actually in a unique position...develop operating system and sell data for millions of users?".

Apple is probably the only company looking after users and yet we've got completely deluded developers on HN complaining about sideloading apps. Sigh.

For amateurs, let them develop stuff on browsers. I don't want these amateurs widely distributing apps to billions of users with system level access with a quick approval popups for billions of idiots that don't care about their privacy and would give access to anything that asks for it.

> Jailbreaking your iPhone is a terrible idea. Horrifying even.

And the fact that I can Jailbreak my phone has not caused your iPhone to to become safer or less private. All I want is for Apple to offer an escape hatch, completely optional. It would not affect your experience in the slightest.

Android allows sideloading and I’ve literally never heard of anyone even doing that, much less getting hacked by it.

I think you massively overestimate how many people would use that functionality.

If you're an amateur, you have to put in extra time to get your app into shape.

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.

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://developer...

Which is such a lie, because going to the press is exactly what gets a lot of apps re-evaluated and accepted.

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.

I've seen apps get their decisions reversed simply due to a post becoming popular on HN or Reddit. You don't have to be a major player for public shaming to work against apple.

I agree. Sentences like "we think that you will also know it when you cross it" are extremely arrogant.

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.

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.

> 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?

Oracle: Sales and legal.

I think that bit has been in there for years.

edit: Here it is, from 2016, probably goes back a lot longer than that

https://web.archive.org/web/20160706210122/https://developer...

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that line's been in there since the review guidelines were public, years ago.

I found an article from 6 years ago that quotes that line, so at least since then: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2014/09/04/apple_new_app_s...

Its been there for years

https://web.archive.org/web/20160706210122/https://developer...

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.

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.

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.

Or just maybe they like making money on the mobile platform where people will actually spend money?

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

You still can't change the browser on iOS. All the other "browsers" are heavily restricted skins over a webview, not a proper other browser.

And that's OK; if it wasn't for Apple then Google would essentially own the current and future direction of the web by now

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.

> 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.

The quote is infamous for being a terribly useless statement. Not sure why they would want to use something like that to defend themselves

I think of it as the legal version of the observation from psychology that some tasks (e.g. recognition of images) are performed by the brain without conscious understanding of the process.

> In 1981 Justice Stewart commented about his second thoughts about coining the phrase. "In a way I regret having said what I said about obscenity—that's going to be on my tombstone. When I remember all of the other solid words I've written," he said, "I regret a little bit that if I'll be remembered at all I'll be remembered for that particular phrase."

Good. Considering how much damage he did to the right to free speech (and less importantly the legitimacy of the supreme court), he deserves to not be remembered for anything else.

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=...

Why would court opinions matter here? Seriously, private stores have always had the choice of what products they sell, the alternative is being able to force people to sell your product against their will.

No, anything here has to be purely a question of whether Apple or Google are acting unfairly, and everything I’ve seen says that the commissions involved match other hardware manufacturers.

That quote even has its own wiki page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

For more context, it ruled out a false positive and pushed the boundary further, not vice versa:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the conviction by ruling that the film was not obscene and so was constitutionally protected.

Absurdly, apple opponents itt use its completely opposite meaning in their arguments.

I think it’s okay for Apple to remain vague here. The internet can be a weird and terrible place. By phrasing it like this, Apple can prevent all kinds of creative forms of harassment and discrimination. Instead of allowing bad actors to try to play the game of finding terrible loopholes to jump through.

> “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.

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.

And that's fine - Apple users knew that was the deal when they decided to get an iPhone over Android (for many that was why they made that decision)

I see this a lot, but do they really? I'm sure the technical Apple users knew what they were getting themselves into but most average Joe users I've run into that have iPhones for other reasons like: needing iMessage to talk with family, liking the UI, wanting to sync with their Mac, etc.

None of which require Apple to have a monopoly on app distribution.

Saying Apple users knew what they were getting into is kinda like saying Apple users agreed to the ToS, so they shouldn't complain.

You don't expect from average Joe to formulate the exact value of their phone on demand. There may be much more behind these phrases, but they are simply not used to articulating the full difference, cause they do not discuss it often, and they have less vocabulary for that kind of thing.

What we should not do, is treating average Joes as idiots with no knowledge. They are non-tech, but not clueless. If you ask one of them about installing apps from the internet, they will likely remember that guy who told them it may be unsafe and it's better to stick with official store. PC users will definitely know about viruses and other "in the wild" hazards. Even my life-long non-tech grandma asked me about dangers and banking app practices when I brought her a tablet.

Personally I even bet that many of android users want/pretend apple safety or think that these two platforms are probably as safe as apple. They do not know what they are getting info, they assume that, because why wouldn't you.

A page out of the constitution - "high crimes and misdemeanors" - deliberately overtly vague.

> inaccurate or misleading quotations of religious texts

I find it fascinating that they included ^this^ one.

So they block Safari right, because I can definitely see sexual content in Safari.

The exception for web browsers also extends to Firefox, Chrome, etc on the App Store so that exception is applied consistently.

“Yes the web is the bad place, with porn and such: you should use apps instead”. After all, in the apps “look better”.

Why? Because they didn’t tell you the “algorithm”?

> defined ... as “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to ...

wait, is this going to be a basis for pixelated/black bar’d porn on App Store

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.

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.

> So what are you planning to purchase instead?

E.g.: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/

But the issue wasn't about manufacturing to begin with. The trouble is that Apple have significant operations in China, which makes them subject to influence by China, while at the same time maintaining control over what their users see and what they see about their users.

A less vertically integrated company wouldn't have that problem.

As an Apple user I'd like to believe this but it would be good to get some citation on that.

So are you not going to buy any electronic items?

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 :(

> 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?

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.

This is so arbitrary and petty

It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

No, it's so that if Ticketmaster wants to do in-app purchases for concert tickets, Apple gets 30%

Aren't concert tickets "Goods and Services Outside of the App:"? Thinking about it more, aren't most person-to-person experiences outside the app?

Not if they are virtual concerts, which have exploded in popularity in 2020.

So Apple is going to pull a Ticketmaster on Ticketmaster. Delicious!

Can you please explain?

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

Can you please explain?

It doesn't want to handle the money when you rent a hooker.

But what if I want one-to-few or even one-to-many experience?

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!

That's just like Apple fucking its developers. One to many.

Thanks.

> 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.

I beg to differ. I use a website to schedule our baby sitter, but with this rule, it's possible to be an app.

The baby sitter is a service delivered outside the platform, so just like Uber and the like, they already didn't have to use IAP. There are tons of similar apps on the App Store that already don't use IAP.

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)...

How would it not? It’s no different than tutoring. I pay the website a monthly fee (which probably needs to be an IAP) but the payment to the babysitter could continue as-is via bank transfer/ideal.

Ah, I see. I was intersecting "real-time experience" with Apple's previous "digital goods" and thinking "real-time experience that happens digitally" (which tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training all can support), and I quickly wrote off babysitting as something that can't happen digitally. I'm much less confident now based on how you're reading it.

I think baby sitter type services are already allowed without iap - similar to Uber, etc

As long as you don't have two kids...

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%...

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.

> 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.

> 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.kagi.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...

> 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?

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.

True, but today is mostly certainly not 1998.

And now Apple generously gives you up to 85% of $1 to $5!

What do you mean? Microsoft was certainly seeing more than 5-10$ per product sold.

"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.

> 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.

> 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)

> 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...

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.

Tell that to John Carmack or Lord British or even Microsoft. The wasteland of the 80s / 90s surely ended up their careers.

> 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.

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.

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.

> Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk.

I though they just returned unsold boxes back to the vendor?

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

> 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.

Right and that’s partly because online store like Apple's out-competed then on price by taking less than traditional distributors.

>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.

> 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.

Do you think the marginal cost of distributing software for Apple even begins to approach the cost of housing it in a retail store?

I’m in the process of building an app for massage services to the home. There are formulas like 1 on 1, 1 on 2 and 2 on 2. This change would mean that I could make all of this happen without any in app purchases as long as the purchases are independent and Then linked together. Am I getting this right?

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.

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?

Google provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.

So because they aren’t a general computing device it’s okay? Also isn’t it bit disingenuous to suggest that side loading is an option to avoid the fee? I believe that’s why Epic also sued Google. Even when end users are given the option to download from an alternative store, most people won’t because it’s still not as convenient as downloading from the play store. Your app would have to be worthwhile enough to convince users to download from a 3rd party store.

Playstation/Xbox are general computing devices. So is my Sony TV, Tesla car and Samsung fridge.

All have an App Store and are fully capable of facilitating payments, running Microsoft Office, using SaaS apps, doing "work".

Users are prevented from doing so by artificial restrictions on their App Stores which could be lifted at any time by a simple business decision. Apple allows more freedom to developers than these platforms yet somehow should be treated differently. Seems arbitrary and capricious.

Sure you can avoid their fee. See how many customers you will get if you force them to side load - ask Epic.

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.

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.

> Pretty ridiculous thought, right?

Yeah, because Apple isn't doing that at all.

What's more, it seems like the fee Microsoft charges for every sale in their Microsoft Store is also either 15% or 30%. (Source: the App Developer Agreement, https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE...)

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.

> 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.

> Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading

Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Those are all mega apps. If you try that as a small indie dev it won't work that way.

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.

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.

Hey is not a reader app, so the rule for reader apps does not apply.

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.

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.

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.

> 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...

Do dating apps fall into this at all?

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.

Are you paying the person you date or are you paying the dating app?

Only if they're paying for dates

Not for throuples apparently.

If you are doing person to person cash transactions via a app, you aren't dating.

depends on whether they're person-to-person or person-to-many.

I'm not a part of Apple's eco-system (I don't have a smartphone) but isn't this a matter of Apple knowing it's impossible to enforce what happens during a person to person experience -- so they might as well come off as being "nice"?

What would stop someone from meeting up with another person and then agree to pay in cash or Zelle or any other way to transfer funds? There's no way for Apple to track that.

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".

Looks like I misread your comment when posting my other reply (I was talking about one-to-one). Sorry about that.

I'm not sure what the few/many distinction is about, but I can guess: if they only said "one-to-many" it could be unclear whether "many" means "more than one" or "some sufficiently large number", so they include "few" to remove ambiguity. Said another way: "one-to-few and one-to-many" is just a different way to say "one to more than one". As far as I can tell the new guidelines don't use the few/many distinction anywhere and only mention both in this one sentence.

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%".

I don't understand. I think Apple is taking 30% from both of those.

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.

(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 :)

"3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps: Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or calls to action for purchase outside of the app."

This seems to imply the original Hey app would have been legal now?

It says you can not treat apple customers any different to other customers.

Apple has used that clause to muzzle any mention of the 30% fee... even outside of Apple's ecosystem (eg. on your own mailing list).

Citation? I have heard about rejection for in-app mentions but not for out-of-band messages.

Does that mean no discount for buying off-App Store?

This is literally racketeering. Apple uses their market influence to create a completely unnecessary 'store' for their apps to demand a % of your business.

This needs to end...

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

what about forcing them to be developed in the open? (everybody get's to read and audit all their code and processess)

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.

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.

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.

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."

"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.

And the only alternatives to it are also using Safari under the covers because we require them to

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.

All those little bits you stuffed onto the end of your pretend quote negate the "great web experience" portion.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

>are for real-world services performed by people

but they can be done over the app.

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.

This is the correct answer. If the bits aren't coming from Apple's servers (so no 'it costs bandwidth and storage to store these apps) and if the payment isn't being processed through Apple, they deserve no money from it - or a bare minimum for being allowed on the platform in the first place.

> 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.

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.

Their 30% has been their rule since the beginning. I could see your point if they increased that but that isn't the case.

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.

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

> 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.

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?

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).

Oh, I see. The wording made it sound like there was a way to do it for free. They mention installing onto a friend's device, but apparently that won't work for free. Bummer. I can't justify the cost right now just for these few home projects. What a pain.

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.

You also have to own a Mac and either an Apple Watch or iPhone to enable two-step verification.

Their two-step verification only works with Apple products?

You could jailbreak. They actively work to prevent that, though.

I am genuinely sad to write this:

Apple has become the most arrogant asshole company of all the tech giants. They have forgotten the role that we developers played in making them the largest company in the world. But in their moment of financial victory, they have lost their soul.

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.

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)

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.

> 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.

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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?

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.

> Why is having an App on iOS a must have?

This may be one possible reason: https://i.imgur.com/kPXs9NO.png

That is the most compelling answer I've seen so far.

Apple controls the browser and cripples it for app use, like no multitouch in fullscreen pages.

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...

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.

Oh, so they're saying that they don't need a 30% cut of items they neither created nor sold? How magnanimous.

I'm personally not okay with Apple to take a full control on the App Store, but let's admit the reality and think about feasible options; then what would be remedies that Apple doesn't have a good justification against? I think one of the issue is information asymmetricity between Apple and customers.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST explicitly highlights how much commission they're taking.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST allow app developers to show alternative payment options available.

* Apple may review the alternative payment options and reject the app if it is implemented in an obviously unfair way against Apple IAP, but no other reasons. If it is violated, Apple MUST give a clear reason and actionable items to app developers within a reasonable time frame.

This doesn't require any technically complex changes but just gives strictly more information to their customers. If the customers think it's justifiable, then they will continue to use Apple's IAP. If not, they will go to the developer's site. If the alternative is designed to be unfair against Apple, at least they can have a chance to raise an objection. For the rest, let the market decide.

For the last one you mean offering an alternative to IAP but it must be <= iap price-commission?

> 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 purchas

In Sweden, via-app medical consultancy gets a standard way for this services as a first - line support. Payment for this is fixed and goes to the registry, where after certain amount of payments, you're getting free consultancy (It's by the health care system). How they are going to handle that?

Too me this new guideline is like a wide net - most of top application will have to violate some rules there, but in case of miss subordination (like Epic) then having that rule is a simple case in court.

Man I just want to have control over my phone is that too much to ask?

don't understand why you got downvoted because ultimately it's what it all boils down to..

You never had control with Apple. It didn't seem to matter to many for the longest time.

Surface Duo!

Buy an Android....

Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to appear innocent in their ongoing legal feud with Epic.

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.

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.

Facebook's action wouldn't effect Epic and vice-versa. The two are unconnected outside the fact that they relate to the App Store.

If Apple was a Chinese company, US would have "liberated" App Store decades ago.

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.

> For example, apps should not encourage placing the device under a mattress or pillow while charging

Is this rule referring to anything in particular? Was there an issue with a pillow-warming app that I missed out on hearing about?

> 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

So could a game developer offer the items for 30% more with in-app purchases, and provide a link to the browser where they can be purchased for regular price?

so, in theory epic could add an option for a $5 coaching session, where a coach watches you play and coaches you over voice, and the student receives a skin upon completion.

Can a yoga instructor add personalized text to each individual stream to have 5 simultaneous 1-1 sessions?

etc.

this is so rife for double standards, in practice it basically boils down to "what we say goes"

"Offline experiences not involving as phone do not have to use in-app purchases."

"Family interactions do not have to use in-app purchases."

"Your hopes and dreams do not have to use in-app purchases."

Thank you Apple. I for one, appreciate your generosity.

Apple is really waiting to be toppled over. If only Microsoft could up their hardware game and start producing good computers.

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%

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.

3%?

What percentage do you think it costs simply to process the credit card for a $10 app? What about for a $1 app?

Why do you think so many bricks and mortar shops have a “minimum purchase” requirement to pay with a card?

If the swipe costs 3%, what should all the rest of the app store’s value cost?

You could compare to competitors, such as Xbox store, for an answer.

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?

Is this new?

Just got an e-mail now about an App Store guidelines update. There's more juicy stuff in there besides this.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

It is, the client won't launch in Firefox on Windows or Linux (for me).

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.

The stereotype of it being juvenile and for "nerds" is alive and well.

It will take one generation who grew up playing video games to normalise it.

Yes! Will Netflix's Bandersnatch require a separate application?

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.

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.

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.

It’s worth its own front page post, since that’s popular for these today.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com