Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Minnesota and Arizona Bills Aim to Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bury? You mean physically go to the website and navigate through ten menus to cancel? Ability to cancel from the app is not even an option for most of these third parties.
Silliness. Good that Apple dropped some of its fees, but they do actually have a right to charge for access. Sony does it, Microsoft does it, Google does it, and Steam does it. What makes Apple so different that idiot politicians need to target them?
Oh, wait. It's the idiot politicians. Nevermind.
Oh, wait. It's the idiot politicians. Nevermind.
Sometimes I wonder if people like you realize that apple’s 30% only applies to IAP if the developer offers IAPs. They’re still able to go the Spotify route. So this really isn’t going to cause what you’re saying it’s gonna cause. It’s just pure FUD and nothing more
As consumer I don't think I would trust any third party payment systems in apps. I trust Apple to make theirs secure and the fewer companies I have to hand my credit card out to the better.
Struggling to see the logic here. I don't see anything in these proposed bills where you don't need to pay for apps.
Apple's track record of doing the morally correct thing of recent is terrible, and embarassing. Apple of cause does not care and are proud of acting like this. However this specific case relating to the article, I am on Apple's side. Accept the 30% cut or go choose a different platform for your app that does not take a 30% cut.
Also in relation to this the one thing Apple does well is keeps your data safe and doesn't sell it to 3rd parties for revenue. Using another platform and another payment system will not provide the developers with that same level of data security.
Also in relation to this the one thing Apple does well is keeps your data safe and doesn't sell it to 3rd parties for revenue. Using another platform and another payment system will not provide the developers with that same level of data security.
Poor analogy and understanding of what they're trying to accomplish.
It's like how Microsoft can sell their Office products for the Macintosh directly on their own site or through other channels (online through Amazon or through brick and mortar stores like Best Buy, Staples, etc.) and still offer it on the Apple app store.
I assume the bill is written by and sponsored be Epic or Tencent, just like the one in North Dakota? Why do I get the impression that some representatives in more backward states are up for sale?
Do you mean the open source repositories that depend on *GASP* corporate oversight and financial contributions to exist?
Nothing in life is free.
Let me repeat that, since it sounded vaguely important.
Nothing in life is free.
Should the corporate money dry up, most of the "free" hosting you perceive would instantly disappear. Most of the "projects" in open source would cease to exist. Virtually all Linux development would cease, for example.
Those "open source" repositories?
Exactly, 15% is worth it for "all the back office" as you say. I believe I thats what I said in my original post.
Not just dealing with refunds, payment issues, disputes, credit card companies and their charge backs etc but the marketing of Apps and enjoying the "halo effect" of Apple's brand endorsement of my software.
15% is a bargain.
EDIT: I should also mention that Apple handles the "local tax" in each country/region/county etc. Too much for an independent like me to deal with. That alone is worth 10%.
Last edited:
The difference is you didn't drink the Kool-Aid and like free competition.
Knock it off. This is what they’re focused on with everything going on right now? Are you kidding me?
Tell me how Windows is perfect and why we should turn our phones into desktop OS?
kotaku.com
Report: Hack Locked Cyberpunk 2077 Developers Out Of Their Computers For Two Weeks
Earlier this month, you may have read about a major cyber attack against Cyberpunk 2077 developer CD Projekt Red. According to a new report from Bloomberg’s Jason Schreier, that hack all but halted work at the Polish game studio for two weeks.
kotaku.com
I have to admit I have less of a problem with this than I do with the whole idea of independent app stores. I own Nook books, and read them on my iPad. I wish I could have a seamless shopping experience by being able to shop for new books in the Nook app. I can't because B&N is unwilling to share its very slim margins. Perhaps Apple could find a way to charge developers a hosting fee that covers their cost of hosting and promoting the app, while still allowing developers to use their own payment systems, or even better giving them access to the payment infrastructure on iDevices.
Developers can't choose to sell their app directly themselves on a site that they're paying to operate because Apple won't allow them to do so.
Apple has already done so - it's called the developer agreement.
That's not what was asked of you. Nice attempted dodge. Definite points for effort.
If this succeeds, and then spreads to other states, then it might lead to Apple increasing the Apple Developer membership fees, or introducing some other related cost(s) to developers, to try to compensate.
I personally hope that over the long term it leads to removal of in-app purchases, and by extension, a lot of the “freemium” apps that are present in the Google and Apple app stores. The majority of those are garbage anyway, IMO.
I personally hope that over the long term it leads to removal of in-app purchases, and by extension, a lot of the “freemium” apps that are present in the Google and Apple app stores. The majority of those are garbage anyway, IMO.
Yeah. I hope Epic is eating through millions with these. Would be poetic justice.
I think for once these proposed bills in Minnesota and Arizon are a good thing. They will open up the market, possibly get rid of those crazy 30 or 15% fees anf force Apple to innovate.
Apple allow that just fine; what Apple doesn't allow is people circumventing the security process of having apps vetted before the public has the ability to install them.
Everyone pays Apple through developer fees.
Do you consider Amazon, Netflix, Robinhood, Twitter, American Express, etc. freeloaders since Apple doesn't get a cut from any of the transactions made through the respective apps or ad revenue yet the apps are available for free on the App store?
Apple allows developers to sell their iOS apps outside of Apple's app store? Since when?