The whole point of blocking 3d party in app purchases is to protect people. If Apple didn't block it, every developer would do their own IAP so they can only pay the credit card fees instead of Apple's 30%. Stupid people (and there are LOTS of them) would punch in their credit card info in lots of these apps to buy stuff. It would be highly likely that lots of these smaller developers wouldn't have the correct security in place and stories of people's credit cards being compromised would be on this site daily. The end result would be a perception that the iPhone is a dangerous item that you should not get if you want to keep your credit card secure...
Apple is securing this for developers and customers and the cost is 30%. For this reality to hold though, they need to be hard on their rule. There is no exceptions (not even a big "trusted" store like Amazon or HMV) since that would open it up to others too. Afterall, it wouldn't be fair to let one developer role their own IAP but not the next guy; in fact, would it be illegal?
How is it inconsistent? Pandora, for example, sells the Pandora One subscription IAP through the App Store not through a third party mechanism and thus do not run afoul of the rules. Spotify and Netflix do not sell their subscriptions through their iOS apps so also do not run afoul of the rules. There is zero inconsistency since all those apps you mention follow Apple's rules about IAP.
Also, it's pretty bizarre that only Apple gets flak for this when Google Play has the same guidelines that all IAP use Google Wallet instead of a third party.
Only Apple gets flak? I think there are constant assumptions here that Apple is the underdog that everyone picks on. But Google gets plenty of flak for the same issues and for different issues.
Only Apple gets flak? I think there are constant assumptions here that Apple is the underdog that everyone picks on. But Google gets plenty of flak for the same issues and for different issues.
I've never seen a single person who whines about Apple's forcing people to use their IAP system ever say anything bad about the fact that Google does the exact same thing. The Fandroids pretty much wave it away by saying "but you can distribute outside of Google Play". Which is a non-answer since to get visibility for your app you need to be in Google Play since that is where the vast majority of users will only ever get apps.
I bet I can find magnitudes more examples of people whining about Apple's IAP policy than you can point out those doing it about the policy for Google Play.
I know some people cry foul with this rule, but if you think about it - Apple supplies the storefront, and more importantly, the purchasing service that links all those credit cards to other vendors. Apple pays to bill those credit cards, so I think it's practice is reasonable. Linking to outside forms of purchase avoids the payment fees.
Most of these services have their own fufilment mechanism.
Apple is saying that the iPad is - like the Kindle Fire or the Nook - a dedicated device for consumption where they will by and large decide what is consumed.
I don't like it as a consumer or dev but it is what it is.
I've never seen a single person who whines about Apple's forcing people to use their IAP system ever say anything bad about the fact that Google does the exact same thing. The Fandroids pretty much wave it away by saying "but you can distribute outside of Google Play". Which is a non-answer since to get visibility for your app you need to be in Google Play since that is where the vast majority of users will only ever get apps.
I bet I can find magnitudes more examples of people whining about Apple's IAP policy than you can point out those doing it about the policy for Google Play.
Google don't ban apps that sell their own content digitally from Google Play.
It is up to the consumer how or where they buy their music. Apple does not require anyone to buy from iTunes. But if you use the Apple App Store then you pay Apple.
"Essentially", "albeit with a different business model", I think that if you are different then that changes the rules.
The whole point of blocking 3d party in app purchases is to protect people. If Apple didn't block it, every developer would do their own IAP so they can only pay the credit card fees instead of Apple's 30%. Stupid people (and there are LOTS of them) would punch in their credit card info in lots of these apps to buy stuff. It would be highly likely that lots of these smaller developers wouldn't have the correct security in place and stories of people's credit cards being compromised would be on this site daily. The end result would be a perception that the iPhone is a dangerous item that you should not get if you want to keep your credit card secure...
Apple is securing this for developers and customers and the cost is 30%. For this reality to hold though, they need to be hard on their rule. There is no exceptions (not even a big "trusted" store like Amazon or HMV) since that would open it up to others too. Afterall, it wouldn't be fair to let one developer role their own IAP but not the next guy; in fact, would it be illegal?
So would you be in favour of the same restrictions on OS X?
The same restrictions are on OS X. The app store apps must use Apple's IAP system. Other apps can use whatever they want. Just like on iOS where non-AppStore apps can use whatever they want (they just have to be written in HTML5 there).
Wouldn't you be pissed if you installed an app on your iPad and it started asking for credit card numbers for additional features? Or if you bought a gift card but found you couldn't use it for the feature you wanted since it only accepted paypal (as an example)? Or if you updated an app to find that they changed their payment service and so you could no longer use the money on your iTunes account like you planned anymore?
Don't know why there's a guideline that prohibits music stores.
It's not about it being a music store so much as they were selling content that can't be used in the app. Ie, a store with no player. IAP are to be used for content for the app the purchase was made in.
You also can't use IAP to buy physical items like CDs and DVDs which apparently they were also doing.
Apple's license for the IAP patents may not include these functions and thus they could rightly be sued by Lodsys over it. Thus they yank the app
pull it and leave it. Apple created their ecosystem to make money. NO developer should develop an app on Apple's system that avoids paying apple or competes with their music sales. Apple is in a business to make money, not let other people use their network to avoid apple. That's ridiculous.
How is it inconsistent? Pandora, for example, sells the Pandora One subscription IAP through the App Store not through a third party mechanism and thus do not run afoul of the rules. Spotify and Netflix do not sell their subscriptions through their iOS apps so also do not run afoul of the rules. There is zero inconsistency since all those apps you mention follow Apple's rules about IAP.
I'm not saying the rules are being applied inconsistently, I'm saying that Apple's rules about IAP present an inconsistent framework from a certain perspective when you've got different sets of competitors being either excluded from the App Store, or being perfectly fine, based on whether their business model is subscription-based or direct-sale-based, and/or whether their model fits into a system where you purchase through other means (i.e. a website), and then the app merely authenticates and allows access to the content.
Not implying that Apple are in any way in the wrong, they can do whatever they want in their own store (bar the illegal, obv), but if I was one of the unfortunates seeing my business bleeding away because Apple seems to have a problem with my model then I'd be a bit naffed off.
Thanks for the info about Pandora though, I didn't know that (no Pandora in the UK)
Comments
The whole point of blocking 3d party in app purchases is to protect people. If Apple didn't block it, every developer would do their own IAP so they can only pay the credit card fees instead of Apple's 30%. Stupid people (and there are LOTS of them) would punch in their credit card info in lots of these apps to buy stuff. It would be highly likely that lots of these smaller developers wouldn't have the correct security in place and stories of people's credit cards being compromised would be on this site daily. The end result would be a perception that the iPhone is a dangerous item that you should not get if you want to keep your credit card secure...
Apple is securing this for developers and customers and the cost is 30%. For this reality to hold though, they need to be hard on their rule. There is no exceptions (not even a big "trusted" store like Amazon or HMV) since that would open it up to others too. Afterall, it wouldn't be fair to let one developer role their own IAP but not the next guy; in fact, would it be illegal?
In other news, McDonalds asked a guy to remove his hot dogs stand from inside their restaurant.
How is it inconsistent? Pandora, for example, sells the Pandora One subscription IAP through the App Store not through a third party mechanism and thus do not run afoul of the rules. Spotify and Netflix do not sell their subscriptions through their iOS apps so also do not run afoul of the rules. There is zero inconsistency since all those apps you mention follow Apple's rules about IAP.
Also, it's pretty bizarre that only Apple gets flak for this when Google Play has the same guidelines that all IAP use Google Wallet instead of a third party.
Only Apple gets flak? I think there are constant assumptions here that Apple is the underdog that everyone picks on. But Google gets plenty of flak for the same issues and for different issues.
Only Apple gets flak? I think there are constant assumptions here that Apple is the underdog that everyone picks on. But Google gets plenty of flak for the same issues and for different issues.
I've never seen a single person who whines about Apple's forcing people to use their IAP system ever say anything bad about the fact that Google does the exact same thing. The Fandroids pretty much wave it away by saying "but you can distribute outside of Google Play". Which is a non-answer since to get visibility for your app you need to be in Google Play since that is where the vast majority of users will only ever get apps.
I bet I can find magnitudes more examples of people whining about Apple's IAP policy than you can point out those doing it about the policy for Google Play.
Most of these services have their own fufilment mechanism.
Apple is saying that the iPad is - like the Kindle Fire or the Nook - a dedicated device for consumption where they will by and large decide what is consumed.
I don't like it as a consumer or dev but it is what it is.
Google don't ban apps that sell their own content digitally from Google Play.
How do people buy music on an iOS machine then?
So would you be in favour of the same restrictions on OS X?
The same restrictions are on OS X. The app store apps must use Apple's IAP system. Other apps can use whatever they want. Just like on iOS where non-AppStore apps can use whatever they want (they just have to be written in HTML5 there).
Wouldn't you be pissed if you installed an app on your iPad and it started asking for credit card numbers for additional features? Or if you bought a gift card but found you couldn't use it for the feature you wanted since it only accepted paypal (as an example)? Or if you updated an app to find that they changed their payment service and so you could no longer use the money on your iTunes account like you planned anymore?
It's not about it being a music store so much as they were selling content that can't be used in the app. Ie, a store with no player. IAP are to be used for content for the app the purchase was made in.
You also can't use IAP to buy physical items like CDs and DVDs which apparently they were also doing.
Apple's license for the IAP patents may not include these functions and thus they could rightly be sued by Lodsys over it. Thus they yank the app
How is it inconsistent? Pandora, for example, sells the Pandora One subscription IAP through the App Store not through a third party mechanism and thus do not run afoul of the rules. Spotify and Netflix do not sell their subscriptions through their iOS apps so also do not run afoul of the rules. There is zero inconsistency since all those apps you mention follow Apple's rules about IAP.
I'm not saying the rules are being applied inconsistently, I'm saying that Apple's rules about IAP present an inconsistent framework from a certain perspective when you've got different sets of competitors being either excluded from the App Store, or being perfectly fine, based on whether their business model is subscription-based or direct-sale-based, and/or whether their model fits into a system where you purchase through other means (i.e. a website), and then the app merely authenticates and allows access to the content.
Not implying that Apple are in any way in the wrong, they can do whatever they want in their own store (bar the illegal, obv), but if I was one of the unfortunates seeing my business bleeding away because Apple seems to have a problem with my model then I'd be a bit naffed off.
Thanks for the info about Pandora though, I didn't know that (no Pandora in the UK)