Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
In-App Purchase Rules (marco.org)
241 points by 0xQSL on Sept 11, 2020 | hide | past | favorite | 82 comments



I don't have a problem with the app store rules, for apps that are in the app store. What i do have a major problem with is the inability to use a third party app store with different rules. Marco is opposed to this - primarily because it offsets the immediate advantage he would get if Apple was forced to abandon IAP, while also making him have to possibly go with multiple app stores - but legally I don't think the government can force Apple to set a given rate (they appear to be in line with what Sony and Microsoft get for their hardware, and what Google gets on the app store) or legal terms.

The security in iOS is tied to the sandboxing model - not the app store. The app store is there to protect Apple's interests. If a customer wants to load a separate app store, thats on them.

Apple doesn't own the hardware. We do. It should be our choice to open it up to apps and ecosystems (native app stores) that are competitive.


> The security in iOS is tied to the sandboxing model - not the app store.

I disagree. Sandboxing is designed to prevent your phone from being compromised but it doesn't prevent bad actors from using legitimate APIs in malicious ways.

As an example, the App Store review guidelines enforce certain privacy restrictions such as not allowing third-party analytics or advertising in apps designed for children. This is not something that is intended to be enforced via sandboxing.

Edit: As another example, consider an app that might request access to your contacts for a legitimate purpose (like messaging), but then secretly transmits and stores that data for an alternative purpose (like selling your contacts to third parties). Also possible within the sandbox but forbidden by the review guidelines. Now, I'm not saying the review process is going to catch all abuses of legitimate APIs ahead of time, but at least there is an enforcement mechanism if the bad actor gets caught.


That's all right and all fine. It's my user choice to install any crappy third party app store on the hardware I bought. I would like to not being protected. The same on windows, I'm warned than executing an unknown program is a risk for me and if I don't know what I do, then I should not do it. That is perfectly fine. Small fences with warning signs instead of 10 meters walls.


User choice works the other direction as well: that consumers can choose to knowingly purchase a device that is locked down, for reasons of safety, trust, experience, etc.

I happen to broadly favor anti-trust intervention against Apple in this instance; but it's not as though Apple ever deceived users about what their devices can and can't do. They sell appliances, not "computers". Freedom (arguably) includes the freedom to take one's own freedoms away, at least up to a point.


I agree with this. I pay for the experience Apple delivers. I don’t want an open mobile device, or a free (as in software) mobile device. It’s my hardware but I agree that Apple dictates the terms and delegate them the authority necessary. I want a curated experience and pay a premium for it, after tolerating the rough edges of Android for years.


I’m generally fine with the general lockdown on iOS, but at the same time there really are only two smartphone players. It’s either the free-for-all Android or the rigid-reviewed apps on iOS. Given the market realities having at least the ability to side load apps should be allowed. Apple can still offer their curated experience, but I should also be able to add my own open source (or whatever) App Store without Apple’s blessing. Just because I generally like Apple’s approach on the App Store doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to “mod” my own hardware. It’s like if I buy a BMW because I like their quality, integration and security that’s fine, but I still want to be able to replace the stereo if I choose. Actually I think it’s my right since I own the hardware, no? Or better, if I install a Sirius XM radio in my car why in the world should Sirius be forced to pay BMW for that “privilege”? If they want to integrate into their pre-made BMW stereo system sure, but I want to be able replace that with my own stereo.


Then don't use non-Apple App Stores. You don't get to decide whether other people have a choice or not.


The problem with such a „soft“ system as opposed to a hard sandbox is that rules may change after you purchased the phone and rules get applied inconsistently. Both happens regularly.


Doesn't apple own the operating system?

They licensed the OS to you with a specific set of permissions to enable a specific business model. I understand how you would want them to not get paid but I don't see how that's fair.

If a customer wants a different app store, the customer can buy a non-apple device. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in mobile devices or app stores.


But there's only one competitor. That's far from being a healthy market which offers much choice.


So, install AltStore?


I totally would if it didn’t involve hacking mail on my Mac, and having apps that are only good for a week.


I hope Apple takes notice of the path their walking down right now. When people like Marco are calling them out on their bullshit it's a clear indicator that they've pushed the envelope too far. Alienating 3rd party developers is the same mistake that nearly cost Microsoft everything.


Lets be relaistic and note that Marco has a very lucrative podcasting career hosting a apple podcast - which requires content and something to speak of.

Not saying he is wrong - but let's not pretend that he is not usually at the forefront of every pitchfork carrying moment in the Apple ecosystem.


> but let's not pretend that he is not usually at the forefront of every pitchfork carrying moment in the Apple ecosystem.

I think that’s the point. Marco usually isn’t someone who rushes to pitchforks against Apple.

The fact that Marco, of all people, has had consistently very negative things to say about Apple during this whole saga shows how far their behavior has pushed developers.


Marco doesn’t represent most devs, He is just another guy who’s like some more money, so he complaints


At this point I think I’d like to see Apple allow a form of third-party payment. It works well enough on the web without tons of scams, it could be done on the iPhone.

Let developers choose between any “certified“ payment provider. Apple would be one, and then you could add Square, PayPal, and other big companies that could jump through Apple’s hoops. Like making sure the refund experience is easy so no one can make really convoluted anti-user workflows.

Maybe app purchase still has to go through Apple, it’s only IAPs that can go through anyone.

Apple, naturally, would be forced to lower their cut because otherwise why would anyone choose them?

I’d be happy to choose them as a user over other payment providers if given a choice. I like the current payment experience on iOS.

Apple can even keep all their crazy rules like Marco is talking about. It’s just the other payment providers wouldn’t have to follow them. Let Apple see how well that goes.

Anyone can take payments, using any big provider, for anything on iOS. Seems easy enough.

I don’t think it’ll ever happen without government intervention though.


> It works well enough on the web without tons of scams

What web have you been using?


The one where I can charge back any fraudulent charge with ease. I know how to do that without thinking about it. I've logged into Apple twice now and neither account areas provide a place for me to cancel subscriptions.


> I've logged into Apple twice now and neither account areas provide a place for me to cancel subscriptions.

You mean like so?

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039

I agree that it is weirdly convoluted, but I don’t see what you mean about there being no place to cancel subscriptions.

But perhaps you were talking about something else and I misunderstood?


This is only true in the United States if you are paying with a credit card.


It doesn’t need to be that complicated. Scrap IAP entirely and just consolidate everything with Apple Pay in the countries where it is available. Apple Pay has standard credit card processing fees that aren’t much higher than any other credit card processor. Then force every company to offer Apple Pay without these crazy rules.

Most companies already have the facilities to accept credit cards. For those that don’t, Apple could also be the merchant account.


Apple does not charge the fees just for the payment processing.

Ultimately, Apple would like to earn money from the products they make. There are a variety of models to do so:

* You can sell the hardware, sell OS upgrades, and let third parties sell apps without taking a cut. This was the original Mac model.

* You can sell the hardware, give away OS upgrades, and privilege third party developers who give you a cut, while preserving a way to side load. This is the current Mac model.

* You can sell the hardware, give away OS upgrades, and take a cut from third party apps. This is the current iOS model.

* You largely let others build and sell the hardware, give away OS upgrades, take a voluntary cut from developers, and sell or monetize the user's data. This is the Android model.

* You give away the hardware and OS upgrades and live off venture capital. This is a popular startup model.

Each of these is viable to some extent. None is 100% popular with customers.

But what some people seem to be asking for is "Gilette, but give away razors and adopt an open standard for the razor blades".


I didn’t say that Apple does just make money from payment processing I said they could. There are dozens of payment processors that make money just by being credit card processors. It would make things a lot simpler and they could get a cut of payments that they can’t get right now from companies that won’t do in app purchases through the App Store. Netflix and Spotify were consistently two of the “top paid” apps when they had in app subscriptions. Now Apple doesn’t get anything from them.

They could even charge slightly higher fees than most credit card companies just like AmEx does. They have the infrastructure in place via Apple Pay.

Since Apple Pay already supports the industry standard Web Payments API. They could convince more companies to accept Apple Pay on the web without being “locked in” to Apple Pay since if you implemented the payments API, it would also work on Android with Android Pay.

Apple Pay is an open standard that integrates with your standard credit card processing flow.


This has to do with Apple using Mafia style tactics to demand 30% of all economic activity. It has nothing to do with payment processors as such.


But what percentage would developers consider appropriate? Apple works partially as a consumer advocate in this space preventing many shady practices through their draconian rules. There is definitely value preventing developers from innovating over customer expectations.


Fair point.

I would be okay with a graduate app fee.

Tier 1: Hobbyists, you can have a “self signed” cert that allows you to have any app tied to your own device. You could also freely share source code for other people to compile themselves and put on their own device using their “self signed certificate”. This could be free. Of course you would still have to have a Mac.

Tier 2: a really cheap fee where you could sign apps that were distributed outside of the App Store for Macs. Signing apps that are distributed outside of the Mac App Store don’t require any manual approval or sandboxing.

Tier 3: the current App Store model. But the difference is that the first $x amount is charged at 30% and then it gradually goes down at larger volumes. Say the first $10K? Where eventually it is basically barely above payment processing fees. I’m sure the Epic’s of the world would be okay with this.


Your tier 3 is effectively regressive taxation. The “Epics of the world” who benefit most from Apple/iPhones/iOS/AppStore existing, end up paying the smallest percentage of their profits back to the org that built all that for them.

The Chardonnay Socialist in me reckons that should be completely the opposite. Let apps that make less than $10k a year (or perhaps apps from companies/brands with less than $1mil turnover per year) be free. As your revenue goes up, your percentage “tax” for using the AppStore goes up.

In my opinion, Epic needs a free ride way way less than a couple of high school kids or college grads with an innovative idea.


That’s how the real world works. Big companies get the best deals when you buy in bulk. You have more negotiating leverage. The days of the indy developer making it big on the App Store are long dead. The best chance you have is selling a service surfaced by an app. In that case, you won’t be paying any in app fees.

But with the limit being $10K. The difference between Apple taking a $3000 cut and a $500 cut is not going to make or break your business.


What is your point? Didn’t I just say that Apple should scrap IAP and just become a payment processor by using Apple Pay?


The problem with this line of thinking is that Apple doesn't take a 30% cut to be your payment processor but to sell on the iPhone at all. Being the sole payment processor just happens to be convenient collection mechanism. Would you still migrate to a 3rd-party payment processor if you still had to pay the 30% fee to apple and pay the 3rd party payment processing fees?


Notice I never said the 30% processing fee still existed. That’s APPLES processing fee. The other payment providers would charge whatever THEIR processing fee is.

I assume the market would quickly drive Apple‘s fee down to a reasonable number.

But if Apple wants to keep charging 30%, why not? There are alternatives in my plan, so it’s not hostile.


No I mean regardless of which processor you use Apple still takes a 30% cut of all digital sales on iOS. So if you use PayPal you pay Apple 30% and PayPals fees too. Because Apple isn't charging 30% to be your payment processor, they're charging 30% for the ability to sell your goods on iOS at all.


It's not just the ability to sell goods on iOS. It's the reviewing of the app, the upgrades, any App Store curation, any developer support, the iOS itself, etc. That said, I think 30% is too high as an industry standard for software.

The one thing I think that might be the most costly for Apple are all the free apps on the App Store. I know you need to pay $99 a year but as they are free Apple sees nothing in return from those apps.


But Apple does get a value out of free apps. They make the iPhone a more attractive platform for end-users.

How many people do you think would buy an iPhone if you couldn’t use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or some of the other really big free apps? They NEED those apps.

Apple could easily afford to pay for all the costs of the App Store from purchases of hardware. The $99 is just gravy.

The argument that they NEED the 30% to make up for the “freeloaders” that don’t charge for apps (as Apple seems to suggest) is ridiculous.

Apple gets a tremendous value out of the entire app ecosystem, i’d be willing to bet it’s quite a bit more than 30% they end up collecting.


I understand what you said. That was not how my plan was designed to work.


But your plan was essentially that Apple stops taking a 30% cut of digital sales because… they’re nice? Or someone forces them?

What does it have to do with payment processors?


> I don't think it'll ever happen without government intervention though

I think they are preparing for that moment already! Saw this job posting for partner payment systems: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/1995030919/


To me the smoking gun is that Apple forbids informing consumers about IAP fees and alternative payment options that developers may offer elsewhere.

If IAP was so great and in consumers' best interest, surely consumers would still choose it even if they knew it's 10x more expensive than card processing.


The rules are complex but the principle is simple.

Apps are required to use in-app purchase if:

(1) The customer relationship originated in the app; and

(2) The primary nexus of the purchased item is to improve the purchaser's personal in-app experience.

Rules get complex around edge cases even when the principles are simple. Sometimes Apple makes the wrong call on those edge cases based on those principles (Hey, WordPress, in-app fitness training calls), and today's rule changes feel like Apple's acknowledgement of that.

Apple has also signaled that they don't feel the simple principles need any adjustment.


> The customer relationship originated in the app

Why does that matter if the one who brought the customer to download the app in the first place it was you, through your own promotion, and not Apple? Apple should take their cut only if they promoted the app to the user that would have not installed it otherwise.


I think the actual principle at play is: Apple will charge what the market will bear. If Apple could successfully collect 80% of every transaction in the world, it would. Why not? Apple is not your priest, it's just a corporation trying to extract maximum value from its assets.


I for one don't understand why Section 3.3.1 wasn't the end of it. Google it if you don't remember that in 2010 Apple tried to mandate which programming languages could be used to develop apps on the iPhone. To this day, your app can be blocked for having a link to your own website or a mention that your app is also available on Android.

I don't believe all software has to be free software, in the GPL sense, but I will not use a computing device as personal as the modern phone if the vendor gets to control what software I can run.


The thing no one talks about, because Apple has kept full control of its platform, it can/has easily changed directions and drop entire sections of its API with minimal issues. They even do this on their CPUs.

Imagine all these other 3rd party App-Stores, they need to flag and request updates from their developers. All this causing a sh*tstorm on the iOS device and the customer will expect Apple to fix it at the Genius Bar. Proof of this already happening is the Microsoft Stores. People bringing in their OEM laptops for repair and workers providing them with phone numbers to call Sony, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc.


At this point, the answer may be to regulate in-app purchase services as banks. Regulate them like credit card processors.


What kind of regulations? My understanding is that credit card processors have significant power to pick and choose which merchants they do business with. Mostly famous American Express rejected all adult websites: https://www.zdnet.com/article/amex-just-says-no-to-porn-site...

Regulating Apple like credit card processors will continue to allow Apple to set detailed rules on what payment processing Apple wants to do, which is the subject of this article.

The real issue is that in the real world the merchant can also choose not to do business with American Express and just accept say Visa and MasterCard. That's not currently a possibility on Apple's platforms.


Let's say Apple allows everything that Epic etc. is asking for. Would it really be better for everyone?

---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems:

• Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system.

• Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app.

• Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak).

• Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems.

• Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems.

---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:

• How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple?

• Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?

• Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG).

• Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store.

You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store.

• Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it.

For example, take porn: Should any third-party store be allowed to serve apps with "adult" content, or will they still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters?

• iOS Parental Control settings may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers if third-party engines were allowed too).

• If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't already using, they would have to create a new account and download an additional app just to access that one exclusive.

• Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand resources.


"Store apps would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?" Thats the thing. Epic doesn't want Apple to have access/approval to anything. They want OS level access! It's in the court filings. So at that point Parental Control, agreements made with carriers, everything is out the door aka it's like buying an Android phone from some unknown company on AliExpress.

You get all these people screaming about how unjust Apple is! Everyone has been doing this for decades in different markets.


It’s not just off brand AliExpress Android devices that already show all those problems, it’s top line Samsung devices as well. As well as GooglePlay, I need to deal with Samsung’s shitty App Store, and the Oculus one if I want to use the GearVR.


> The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems:

I don't think this list is very compelling because external payment systems are already permitted for physical goods and it doesn't seem to be a huge problem that you give your credit card to Uber and Grubhub and Amazon separately.

> The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:

On the other hand I largely agree with this, mandating third-party app installs would lead to a malware and privacy disaster and should not be forced, except perhaps as some kind of developer mode where you are thoroughly warned that you're going out of bounds of normal app distribution.


> as some kind of developer mode where you are thoroughly warned that you're going out of bounds of normal app distribution.

Yes, but enabling that mode would need to be a very deliberate process that nobody could possibly get “tricked” into. Think of the people who are not so tech-savvy at all.

Something like a sandboxed developer/hacker environment that requires a computer to enable and gets disabled on every restart (to help with panics where shit behaves unexpectedly) would be ideal, and should satisfy everyone.


If any company wants your payment details, they can still have them by promising services outside the app.


And you would have to do this on a web browser, which provides the separation from the App Store and giving the parent, who is purchasing $20 worth of vbucks for their kid, "Pause" because they usually get the "Apple" Payment prompt instead of the enter your credit card. This alone is worth it.


I don't see why a browser has to come in? Uber does in-app payments on its own because they are for services outside the app.

That's what I meant.


> developer relations are significantly repaired, and Apple can go back to spending its time, resources, PR, and political capital on making their products better and customers happier.

Your first mistake was assuming that they care about those more than maximizing shareholder value


And the second mistake was assuming Apple’s customers care at all about app developers fights over transaction fees or commissions.

It’s no surprise a lot on HN readers/posters care here, because there’s “free money” on the table for them if Epic win. Money they knew Apple was gonna take if they’d looked at AppStore guidelines any time in the last 12 years or so, since the AppStore first debuted. Nobody has _ever_ developed an iPhone app, without knowing the rules to get into the AppStore include a 30% cut to Apple. IAP is newer, but it’s still the same deal, in my opinion.

Non HN reading iPhone owners, largely, don’t give a fuck about developers feeling hard done by paying a 30% cut to Apple. A non technical friend of mine explained to her son why he can’t install Fortnite on a new phone right now, saying “They’re fighting with Apple over the rules to be allowed to have apps on iPhones.”

This is totally not customer or customer PR problem for Apple, and they know it. Epic haven’t worked that out yet.


This is true, generally speaking if the fee is invisible then people don't care.

I could see developers simply adding a 2nd line item "Apple Fee 30%" and gross up the price by that amount. Then let Apple answer the questions why there is a 30% fee added in their products, but not others (if that's the case).


sounds like any other contract. it simoly legal-ese.


I'm glad Marco finally stepped up to set the HN groupthink tone because you guys have been salivating to defend Apple the past month in every goddamn thread about Epic Games.


Obviously some HN users have defending Apple while others have been denouncing Apple. So much so that I've had to pin moderation comments to the top asking for better discussion than Glory-to-$BigCo vs. Death-to-$BigCo flamewars [1].

But everyone notices and remembers the comments they dislike the most [2], so each side thinks that "HN" is slavishly and perversely on the other side [3]. It would be good to get a little more awareness into this process.

[1] Like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310804 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24249613.

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...


It's really a universal human flaw: to perceive a huge group of people as an entity that can be dealt with as if it were an individual.

Would be cool to see a UI that added friction to that.


> It would be good to get a little more awareness into this process.

Make upvotes and downvotes public, and do something to reduce the constant flood of throwaway accounts who do nothing more than constant trolling on contentious topics.


Downvotes and upvotes being hidden is the only thing keeping HN from devolving into reddit. Otherwise, people would just agree with whatever had the biggest number instead of (hopefully) applying some critical thinking.


I'm not talking about the quantity, I'm talking about a list of who upvoted and downvoted a specific comment/post.

Also what you've described happens anyway. The fact that a number isn't displayed doesn't really matter when comments are ultimately ordered by score. When someone writes a comment that doesn't adhere to the current groupthink, they get downvoted. When people are downvoted too much they delete their comments, stop commenting, or through pavlovian reinforcement change their opinions until they get positive points.


Wouldn’t knowing who upvoted and downvoted be even worse as retaliation would become a thing?


Those things wouldn't increase the kind of awareness I'm talking about.

We're not going to disclose how users vote. That's some of the most private data HN has.


There's a difference between defending Apple vs Epic, and defending Apple vs itself - Epic acted horribly. It was much easier to defend Apple's position than Epic's, even though I hope that Epic's revolt will push Apple to change their App Store policies.


It's funny; coming from the other side, I mostly see people opining confidently that Obviously the Supreme Court Will Cap Apple's Fees at 1.5% or the EU Will Most Certainly Break Apple Up etc.


how do the presumably low paid hourly workers that perform app reviews keep track of all the details and complexity of the ever-growing rules and regulations regarding app development?

do they have an infinitely long checklist?


They don't have to. For big enough players (think NFLX), these things are beyond their pay grade and are duked out by lawyers who craft these intricate sequences of laws and bylaws so that these apps make their way through. For small players, well what are they gonna do? Stay hungry?


Marco's proposal fails to incorporate the fact that the fees collected help pay for the App Store... It's not free to create and maintain.


The costs to run the App Store are probably something like 0.1% of the fees collected on apps.

Apple collected $15 billion from the app store in 2019. I'd wager that $15 million would cover the operating costs, which I'd guess are largely the salaries of app reviewers. Even if I'm off by 2 orders of magnitude, that still leaves 90% of Apple's cut as profit.

The app store is a huge driver toward selling the hardware. If Apple were banned from charging any fee at all, they'd still run the app store. They're not dependent on the 30% cut.

EDIT: I'm not saying that, therefore the fee is wrong, or too high, or whatever. Just that the cost of operating the App Store is not a justification for their current level.


Apple claims to have "hundreds"[0] of reviewers (which was notable to me because they didn't say "thousands"). So, we know it's somewhere between 200 and 1999. Just for fun, let's say it's 1500. Again, just for fun let's calculate: 1500 reviewers x $50,000 = $75 million.

So, their (likely) largest expense is 0.5% of their total revenue. Even if I'm off by a factor of 10, the numbers are absolutely mind-blowing.


I'm not sure why total revenue would be what to compare to the costs against.

Apple is profitable precisely because they don't, as a company, have many/any "loss leaders". Each unit within the company is expected to financially contribute to its margins.

That was one of the (many) changes Jobs brought to Apple when he returned.

I'm also not sure how a reviewers salary would be $50,000. Where'd you get that number?


>I'm not sure why total revenue would be what to compare to the costs against.

Why not? I was just trying to do some back-of-the-napkin math to ballpark the profitability of the app store "for fun".

>Apple is profitable precisely because they don't...

Cool. That has nothing to do with this particular comment chain.

>Where'd you get that number?

The 50k was totally made up. Do you have a better guesstimate? Lower or higher? Keep in mind this would be the average among their global reviewer workforce, not just US.

But... it doesn't matter though, does it? Whether their reviewer costs are 0.5% or 1.0% of their revenue doesn't really move the needle. At all.


"Total revenue" is probably a bad choice of words by parent. We're looking at just the revenue from the App Store. It does not include revenue from phones, computers, wearables, or anything else. Just the sum total they collected from their 30% cut.


> Marco's proposal fails to incorporate the fact that the fees collected help pay for the App Store... It's not free to create and maintain.

"help pay for" is cute phrasing. The app store made Apple 15 billion dollars in revenue last year. It's a veritable fountain of money.


Developers already pay a fee for the privilege of publishing in the AppStore.

2 trillion dollar company doesn't get to tell sob stories how they're struggling to serve these apps while reporting that their services are hugely profitable and growing.


Marco is purposely being dense, and wildly sarcastic about the rules. Not sure what his problem is these days about Apple


Lol, I might've woken up my neighbors with my laugh. It's 5 AM, and reading this. Jesus I just realized that Apple is the same as Microsoft in 90's. Do all companies when become behemoths start to "do you are have the stupid?". Because it seems so.


I really wish Apple would allow third-party payment processing. All their rules around in-app purchases are overly complex and oppressive. I really believe that Apple is stifling innovation with these insane rules and monopolistic practices.


As a user the last thing I want is to start wondering whether I can trust each different app with my credit card details. If this happened I would almost certainly spend less on software.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: