Hacker News Reader

Comment by alxlaz | Hacker News Reader

It's not my comparison. It's yours, and just as meaningless as your previous one about McDonald's.

This one's no better, either, as Costco's terms for its wholesale suppliers aren't anywhere close to Apple's, even though the agreement is structured more or less similarly -- but sure, let's entertain it: Costco's terms for its suppliers aren't public, but at least the ones that are on public record (via the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1940372/000149315222... ) make no restrictions on the choice of payment processors for digital products, which is what Apple got fined for.

There is a restriction on promotional material enclosed with the product (as in it needs prior written approval from Costco, not as in it's completely banned) and an explicit mention that it applies to digital products as well. But there is no requirement that digital products sold by Costco as merchant of sale for the supplier enable purchases only via Costco.

View on HN

The root of your confusion is you think when you've installed and run the app you are no longer in "Costco", but you never left.

You can buy any number of in game items on iOS and then go and use those same items in the Play Store version of the games, and vice versa.

The root of yours is that you keep trying to make this about McDonalds, Amazon, Ebay, Costco or some other contraption instead of the App Store, which is what this is actually is about. Not that the argument matters, because the exact moment when you leave Costco has no bearing on the fact that Costco doesn't restrict what payment processor are used in the digital goods that it sells.

But even if it did, Apple's ToS clearly distinguish between the App Store and the licensed application, and between interactions in the App Store and interactions from within the application. You may not want to make the same distinction in order to be right about some imaginary system that you're thinking about, but this is about the actual App Store, not whatever iMcCostco-Amazon marketplace you've dreamed up.

You're the Ivan the Terrible of bad metaphors and similies. They clearly anger you to an almost amusing degree.

As I pointed out:

> You can buy any number of in game items on iOS and then go and use those same items in the Play Store version of the games, and vice versa.

To be precise you can:

1. Install a game on an iPhone

2. Sign into the game with account for that developer, or even using Facebook

3. Buy in game currency in the game, using the Apple payment processing

4. Install the game on an Android phone

5. Sign into the game with that same account

6. Use the in game currency you bought on the iPhone when playing on the Android phone

7. Buy more in game currency in the Play Store using the Google payment processing

8. Go back to the iPhone and see you have the in game currency there

What is your mental model of how all that works and why?

All the metaphors I've used are yours, Ivan. Why would they anger me? I'm not the one who came up with them :-).

What you've pointed out has no bearing whatsoever on what's being discussed here. This isn't about some stretched out definition of "payment system" that applies to those services that happen to have both iOS and Android client applications. It's strictly about what works in applications available on Apple's App Store. For many of them your point 4 doesn't even apply because they don't have an Android variant in the first place.

Let me know when you'd like to go back to discussing the actual issue from the linked article. Bye!

You're making a lot of noise to distract from the fact it is entirely possible to use other payment mechanisms for digital goods to consume in apps, and that from comparison to stores for physical goods we established that promoting other means for purchasing from the app on a given platform is an unreasonable expectation, exactly like expecting Coca Cola served in McDonalds to be allowed to be labelled "available for 1 euro less at Burger King!"

Arguably their entire position with Meta is even more unreasonable than your positions here. No wonder the EU struggles in business.

I see we're back to Coca Cola, McDonalds and Burger King. Oh, and Meta, somehow? This is about Apple, I think you're in the wrong thread.

Ivan the Terrible of metaphor goes for the deflection!

Having accidentally argued against his own point with inadequate metaphors time and time again, OP returns to namecalling!

And with that miss Ivan has forgotten that it was he himself that brought up his own disastrous Coca Cola metaphor, cause of so much angst and frustration.

In a confused daze he goes to a store, buys a bottle of Coca Cola, and heads to a nearby McDonalds where he opens it and drinks it, wondering why all these suckers in McDonalds do not think to buy their soda elsewhere. If only Coca Cola could label the soda in McDonalds to let people know of their options! As the staff approach him to ask him to leave he wonders why the world does so consistently fail to match his preconceptions, and if only that evil Apple had not insisted on using their payments system then he would have been able to scam thousands of those foolish American idiots and go to live on Cyprus far away from such concerns as a metaphorical demon in the form of "Costco".

Thrown out on to the street he resorts to the tried and tested European strategy of claiming victimhood "Why are you persecuting me? It is the same soda! Why can I not drink it here?" but it is to no avail. Clearly the world, immune to reason, has not finished with his punishment, but OP has; he's done.

Oh, wow, have we come full circle -- from Apple breaking the law in a jurisdiction where they do business to, err, Cyprus, and Europe, and... Ivan the Terrible having somehow become a woman for half a sentence?

Touch some grass, mate, Apple isn't worth your energy. No company their size is, whether on this side of the Atlantic or the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com