[eadan]

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 :(

[jarjoura]

> 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?

[macinjosh]

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.

[reaperducer]

This is so arbitrary and petty

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

[bigtones]

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

[Karliss]

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?

[diebeforei485]

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

[reaperducer]

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

[drenvuk]

Can you please explain?

[conductr]

This was local news for me. Basically, as a classified platform they were a pimp and got shut down by feds (granted they helped produce the ads, which is what a digital pimp would do). Laws have been amped up as focus on reducing sex/human trafficking. It’s now similar to the money laundering laws put in place in the big narco cocaine days. If you’re any type of legit business, or prison fearing at all, you don’t want to have any relations with that type of 1:1 transaction

[reaperducer]

Can you please explain?

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

[mynegation]

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

[sneak]

If you’re throwing a seminar or training, there are witnesses that will likely reduce the chance of illegal behavior.

Unless, of course, you throw a gangbang, and Apple ends up eating 30% of the price of admission. Imagine the headline!

[artursapek]

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

[drenvuk]

Thanks.

[isatty]

> build something that is scalable?

That's probably the point - 1:1 experiences that are not scalable is a drop in the bucket even if they charge a 30% commission.

[withinboredom]

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.

[rpdillon]

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)...

[withinboredom]

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.

[rpdillon]

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.

[sheeshkebab]

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

[Dylan16807]

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

[chinathrow]

Of course it's arbitrary - the whole fee structure of the app store (stores, to be fair) is arbitrary. 5% could be more than enough for everyone, but no, it has to be 30%...

[ancorevard]

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.

[_qulr]

> People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers.

People quickly forget that software was distributed on the web long before the App Store existed.

>That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers.

No, that was caused by a billion people buying shiny new mobile computers. They would have bought a lot of software in any case, even without an App Store. New platform, new software.

[ben_w]

> 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...

[_qulr]

> 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?

[reaperducer]

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.

[ethbr0]

True, but today is mostly certainly not 1998.

[x0x0]

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

[grumple]

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

[hn_check]

"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.

[_qulr]

> 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.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> 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)

[pier25]

> 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...

[monadic2]

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.

[xtracto]

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

[dragonwriter]

> Just wait until you learn what % retail used to charge developers for promoting, distributing, and selling software.

Zero %.

Retail used to buy boxed software and sell it at risk. Were Apple buying units of software/service up front and the taking a risk reselling it, it would be valid to compare the split of end-user cost with classic retail, but Apple's not doing that, so it isn't.

[setpatchaddress]

That is a historically inaccurate take. s/retail/distributor/ if it helps. The point is that a software developer would have been very lucky to earn a significant fraction of the retail price. 70%? Not even close. The App Store completely reversed this model.

That said, it's valid to acknowledge this history and still think 30% is too much for distribution overhead in 2020. I do not have an opinion on the latter.

[mthoms]

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.

[pkaye]

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

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

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[dmitriid]

They may have meant mobile marketplaces before AppStore. Those charged anywhere up to 90%.

And retail doesn't charge "0%" on boxed products, or they would go out of business. Logistics, distribution, and store markup all add up to the final price of the product on the shelf.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[onion2k]

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.

[antibuddy]

Apple does just the distribution. The promotion is still on the developer and you may not even promote your own services in your own app. It is also save to say that a lot of developers would like to do the selling themselves. Apple is not supposed to do the distribution for free, but 30% is really a lot, especially when they do unwanted stuff for you (the payment).

Also the App Store really is the only way to get apps on an iOS-device, so the user has no real choice anyway.

[reaperducer]

The promotion is still on the developer

Apple does plenty of app promotion, from promotions inside its own store to multi-million dollar television campaigns showcasing all the cool apps that are available inside the App Store.

[cgriswald]

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?

[wvenable]

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.

[lostlogin]

> People quickly forget what a tremendous liberation the App Store created for developers.

We do, but at the same time, physical stores selling software are now rare or non-existent. Apple is not competing with them.

[thewebcount]

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

[biktor_gj]

More because the Inetrnet came and allowed every vendor to sell directly from their webpage instead of going through the distribution channel, making retail software stores obsolete

There are two platforms that drive 100% of the mobile phone industry. One (Android) allows other distributors in the platform (even if they have to go through loops like sideloading an app and then allowing that app to install other apps). The other will kick and try to destroy you if you try to do something like that. Is that legal or anti-competitive in the US & Europe? We'll find out...

[ksk]

>They trust the App Store because they trust Apple's curation/privacy/security. That's what has caused this flood of software purchases from consumers. Trust doesn't come cheap.

People buy way more on Amazon, and Amazon doesn't rob 30% of your sales.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> 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.

[ryanbrunner]

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

[simply_sam]

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?

[mtgx]

Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is.

Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right?

That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.

[Bud]

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?

[jedberg]

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

[bsql]

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.

[threeseed]

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.

[jedberg]

I assume you're making this argument to be absurd and reductionist, but just in case you aren't, no, those aren't general computing platforms.

Sure, they could be, with a lot of effort. But they are neither marketed nor capable of general compute today. They don't have the toolset or ecosystem to make general purpose apps. Nor do they actively encourage people to make general apps.

[scarface74]

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

[simion314]

Funny, some Apple fanboys claim that if side-loading is allowed the the Apple Store will get empty and you get 10 new App Stores and others like you claim the reverse (I agree with you, allowing side loading and other stores will not empty the main store)

[matsemann]

That's whataboutism. In this post it's about Apple. That others do it doesn't excuse it.

And a big difference with Google is that you can sideload or use other stores on Android. And same on Windows, you don't have to use the store.

[Bud]

That's not a big difference, with Android, because nobody is making any money doing that. It doesn't work.

I didn't mention Windows. I was discussing platforms where everyone takes a 30% cut. You may say this is mere whataboutism, but anyone who reads Hacker News knows that 99% of the anger and attacks on this practice are directed at Apple. Nobody bitches at Google and Sony and Microsoft for doing the exact same thing.

[ksk]

Google gets hit on the privacy front pretty regularly. I guess it depends on the issue. But not to worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of time and opportunity to complain against injustices from all corporations in the future. A significant chunk of early adopters for Apple/MS/Google products were nerds who spread the good word. Its no surprise that issues like privacy, developer freedom and hacker-ethics will drive the conversation against these companies.

[matsemann]

Because it's not the exact same thing. Context matters.

[1f60c]

> 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...)

[est31]

They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading. This leads to Apple capturing a much larger percentage of transactions pertaining software for their devices.

[Razengan]

> 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.

[jfk13]

> Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading

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

[cgriswald]

That's an incredibly weak claim. The statement is certainly true for some value of 'many', but then so is its opposite. Unless many means, "the vast majority", which certainly is not clear and definitely would need some support, it is a meaningless claim.

It is also difficult to see how it is a feature. In a world where additional app stores or side-loading was enabled for those that want it, it wouldn't somehow remove the ability to use a single app store for those that don't.

[d0100]

Ok, then put a premium price on that feature and see how many actually pay for it

[damnyou]

I would fully support Apple charging, say, $50 extra to lock down its devices to the current standard. That would be a much better world and the users who desire the "premium experience" still get to have it.

[netsharc]

Hah, are you claiming people are that dumb and think "please protect me from my own stupidity"?

The enabling of sideloading on Android phones already comes with warnings written in plain language, and even if you want to install an app from e.g. the browser it asks you to give the browser permission to install apps, so it's pretty idiot-proof...

[toast0]

Using the Microsoft Store is totally optional. Selling software for Windows has rarely required any coordination with Microsoft other than maybe code signing with a cert from an approved CA. Exceptions include drivers, and Windows Phone/Windows Mobile 10

[syspec]

Using Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.

[johnjj257]

Cool but there's tons of game outlets on pc, not on iphone

[damnyou]

I'm really bothered by the whole notion of games as less important and "[more] optional". Playing games is a fundamental part of being human, and it is certainly more important than capitalism.

[AnthonyMouse]

.

[mrpippy]

Uber (and any other "real-world" service) does not (and I believe are not even allowed to) use in-app purchases. This rule only applies to "virtually-provided" services.

[scarface74]

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.

[Bud]

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.

[rvz]

Once again Netflix is crowned as the biggest of the Les Incorruptibles on the App Store by Apple since they can get away from not only the 30% charge as it is a reader app but is able to roll their own payments on the web and still scale to many users without in app purchases.

There are probably more apps / companies who belong to this group due to secret deals by Apple, but now Apple says: No 30% charge for apps who's customers are 1-1. That's it.

Charging at scale without the app store tax is disqualified. But not for the Les Incorruptibles.

[dmitriid]

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.

[canofbars]

The double standard is Netflix is able to provide an app that does nothing out of the box until you register elsewhere. Other apps would get booted because they don't work without navigating elsewhere.

[dmitriid]

Other apps like Spotify, Kindle, all the music streaming and audiobook etc.? Oh wait, they are not booted.

> Other apps would get booted because they don't work without navigating elsewhere.

No. "Reader apps" get an exception to this.

[canofbars]

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

[dmitriid]

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.

[ffpip]

Everybody can't. The Hey.com email guys did the same thing. They allowed only signing into the up. No sign up.

Then Apple made up another rule saying ''You download the app and it does not work. Therefore it has to be removed'' .

Lets keep adding more rules and exclusions as time passes. That's the Apple way of doing things.

[nodamage]

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

[hu3]

Completely arbitrary rule btw.

A segment gets free pass for lower fees because it is too big to get kicked from iOS while others get shafted.

Just because they can.

[nodamage]

I don't disagree that it's arbitrary, but the person I replied to implied Apple changed the rules specifically to block Hey's app, which is not correct.

[dmitriid]

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.

[dmitriid]

> 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...

[compscistd]

Do dating apps fall into this at all?

[dragonwriter]

On the face of the policy viewed in isolation, if they facilitate paid one-on-one encounters, yes, if they facilitate paid one-to-few or one-to-many encounters, no.

But I'm pretty sure pay-per-date apps of either type have bigger legal and App Store policy issues than whether the payment must be made via IAP with the Apple Tax.

[pantalaimon]

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

[syspec]

Only if they're paying for dates

[macinjosh]

Not for throuples apparently.

[ogre_codes]

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

[escapecharacter]

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

[nickjj]

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.

[blueicecubes]

Is there a (business, legal, etc.) reason for the distinction between one-to-few and one-to-many? Both are one to "more than one".

[matt_kantor]

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.

[matt_kantor]

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%".

[Thorrez]

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

[matt_kantor]

> 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.

So you can avoid the Apple tax if you're a private tutor.

However it looks like I misread blueicecubes' comment. They were asking about one-to-few vs one-to-many, but I talked about one-to-one.