Epic v. Apple trial testimony turns to 'cross-wallet' gaming

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    Trey_LanceTrey_Lance Posts: 98member
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    For the sake of the argument, let’s say you have a clothing store and one of your providers is a well known brand that does a lot of business.

    Yours is a boutique shop, with all the amenities for higher spending customers. For that, you must have higher margins to maintain profitability.

    Now imagine that big name provider is advertising in the very labels of their products that YOUR customers—they are in your store—could get a better deal (like 5 % off) on the store next doors! How would you react to that, as the competing store owner?

    By your argument, there should be no trouble at all. You should be happy to build and maintain a higher end store, while your providers use your product placement to point out that there are better deals just around the corner.

    Now answer me: what (if any) other company is expected to do business that way? This lawsuit, like so many others, is rooted in a very simple fact: Apple is worth trillions and have hundreds of billions sitting in the bank.
    You make a great analogy but some of these people won’t get it. They think Apple should just give out things for free just because “they are rich”, no matter The years of hard work, development and money they spent building the store
    osmartormenajrBeatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 39
    InspiredCodeInspiredCode Posts: 209member
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    For the sake of the argument, let’s say you have a clothing store and one of your providers is a well known brand that does a lot of business.

    Yours is a boutique shop, with all the amenities for higher spending customers. For that, you must have higher margins to maintain profitability.

    Now imagine that big name provider is advertising in the very labels of their products that YOUR customers—they are in your store—could get a better deal (like 5 % off) on the store next doors! How would you react to that, as the competing store owner?

    By your argument, there should be no trouble at all. You should be happy to build and maintain a higher end store, while your providers use your product placement to point out that there are better deals just around the corner.

    Now answer me: what (if any) other company is expected to do business that way? This lawsuit, like so many others, is rooted in a very simple fact: Apple is worth trillions and have hundreds of billions sitting in the bank.
    This argument breaks down with in-app purchase. In-app purchase is for a store inside your own app. In this case the customer in *your* store may have become a customer somewhere outside the App Store, but the App Store still gets to be the middle man. Apple essentially gets to steal your customers in this scenario.

    This is where things get complicated. This is why there is a lot of debate over market power and this needs to be hashed out within the public and courts to make sure it is fair. I think Apple could make things less complicated on their own (and they have in some ways) to make it more obvious that they are being fair and competitive. I love Apple, but I don't think they are at an ideal place yet on the store rules.
    edited May 5
  • Reply 23 of 39
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    Sure let the kids link out to a Russian/Nigerian Prince payment service or maybe child dating service the developer prefers.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 39
    flydogflydog Posts: 968member
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    There's nothing contradictory there.  One refers to prepayment for subsequent and undefined purchases (e.g., $20.00 that a user can spend on anything at some point in the future) and the other for immediate payment of specific functionality (e..g, $20.00 worth of tokens that can be used to unlock upgrades).

    What the developer agreement prohibits is creating your own Pay Pal. It does not prohibit issuing in-game tokens that can be used to unlock specific functionality within that game. 


    foregoneconclusionkurai_kageh2pwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 39
    InspiredCode said: This argument breaks down with in-app purchase. In-app purchase is for a store inside your own app. In this case the customer in *your* store may have become a customer somewhere outside the App Store, but the App Store still gets to be the middle man. Apple essentially gets to steal your customers in this scenario.
    Apple is making the IAP function available for use within the app, not the developer. That's why Apple has specifically mentioned that the IAP function was something that developers had asked Apple to provide. You can't say Apple is a middle man when they're programming the OS and creating the tools that people work with. iOS wasn't some public resource that was handed over to Apple to exploit. They've had to develop it from the ground up the entire way. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 39
    This argument breaks down with in-app purchase. In-app purchase is for a store inside your own app. In this case the customer in *your* store may have become a customer somewhere outside the App Store, but the App Store still gets to be the middle man. Apple essentially gets to steal your customers in this scenario.

    This is where things get complicated. This is why there is a lot of debate over market power and this needs to be hashed out within the public and courts to make sure it is fair. I think Apple could make things less complicated on their own (and they have in some ways) to make it more obvious that they are being fair and competitive. I love Apple, but I don't think they are at an ideal place yet on the store rules.
    That’s because it’s just an analogy. All analogies break down if you look close enough. My only argument was at the very last sentence: this lawsuit is motivated by Apple financial success.

    I also like Apple, that’s why a frequent this forums and engage with other people that hold similar tastes—if you ignore the trolls. But that is neither here nor there.

    If not Apple, and by extension their customers, who “vote” with their wallets, who should get to make this decisions? Tech illiterate politicians, voicing the interest of lobbyists? Public servants that never have run any business whatsoever (I know, I’m a public servant myself)? Sorry to disagree, but my bet is on Apple itself. Remember the iBookStore case? That only helped consolidate Amazon monopoly.

    Finally, I agree that commissions could be lower than 30 %. I think that’s a pretty popular opinion. Trouble is finding agreement in any other percentage whatsoever. Given the reported effective commission of less than 10 %—as we came to know because of the trial—which is a healthy profit for a high volume business, I’d say that Apple’s commissions are pretty much where they should be.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 39
    Trey_LanceTrey_Lance Posts: 98member
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    Sure let the kids link out to a Russian/Nigerian Prince payment service or maybe child dating service the developer prefers.
    Hey those Nigerian Diamond offers are legit! If Epic wins, I might start a side job doing that since all the kids and some adults will be open season
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 39
    Trey_LanceTrey_Lance Posts: 98member
    This argument breaks down with in-app purchase. In-app purchase is for a store inside your own app. In this case the customer in *your* store may have become a customer somewhere outside the App Store, but the App Store still gets to be the middle man. Apple essentially gets to steal your customers in this scenario.

    This is where things get complicated. This is why there is a lot of debate over market power and this needs to be hashed out within the public and courts to make sure it is fair. I think Apple could make things less complicated on their own (and they have in some ways) to make it more obvious that they are being fair and competitive. I love Apple, but I don't think they are at an ideal place yet on the store rules.
    That’s because it’s just an analogy. All analogies break down if you look close enough. My only argument was at the very last sentence: this lawsuit is motivated by Apple financial success.

    I also like Apple, that’s why a frequent this forums and engage with other people that hold similar tastes—if you ignore the trolls. But that is neither here nor there.

    If not Apple, and by extension their customers, who “vote” with their wallets, who should get to make this decisions? Tech illiterate politicians, voicing the interest of lobbyists? Public servants that never have run any business whatsoever (I know, I’m a public servant myself)? Sorry to disagree, but my bet is on Apple itself. Remember the iBookStore case? That only helped consolidate Amazon monopoly.

    Finally, I agree that commissions could be lower than 30 %. I think that’s a pretty popular opinion. Trouble is finding agreement in any other percentage whatsoever. Given the reported effective commission of less than 10 %—as we came to know because of the trial—which is a healthy profit for a high volume business, I’d say that Apple’s commissions are pretty much where they should be.
    Why should comm be lower than 30 percent when it’s industry  standard? Is everybody willing to lower? Should not just be Apple. Also if Apple Lower commission, what assurances would we have a greedy , largely China owned company like Epic will pass on those savings? How do we know it’s not going to China? Will Epic open their accounting? I am guessing not.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 39
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 608member
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 39
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 608member
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    So if you had a store, and you let me distribute my items in your store, you'd be ok with me putting a sign or label on my items, telling the buyers that they should buy the item somewhere else because it's cheaper, and avoid paying you a commission?  Does that make any sense?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 39
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 608member
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    For the sake of the argument, let’s say you have a clothing store and one of your providers is a well known brand that does a lot of business.

    Yours is a boutique shop, with all the amenities for higher spending customers. For that, you must have higher margins to maintain profitability.

    Now imagine that big name provider is advertising in the very labels of their products that YOUR customers—they are in your store—could get a better deal (like 5 % off) on the store next doors! How would you react to that, as the competing store owner?

    By your argument, there should be no trouble at all. You should be happy to build and maintain a higher end store, while your providers use your product placement to point out that there are better deals just around the corner.

    Now answer me: what (if any) other company is expected to do business that way? This lawsuit, like so many others, is rooted in a very simple fact: Apple is worth trillions and have hundreds of billions sitting in the bank.
    This argument breaks down with in-app purchase. In-app purchase is for a store inside your own app. In this case the customer in *your* store may have become a customer somewhere outside the App Store, but the App Store still gets to be the middle man. Apple essentially gets to steal your customers in this scenario.

    This is where things get complicated. This is why there is a lot of debate over market power and this needs to be hashed out within the public and courts to make sure it is fair. I think Apple could make things less complicated on their own (and they have in some ways) to make it more obvious that they are being fair and competitive. I love Apple, but I don't think they are at an ideal place yet on the store rules.
    You keep stating Apple gets to "steal your customers" - they do not.  Apple is not preventing your customers from still buying directly from you.  Apple just won't let you advertise it in the product obtained via Apple's store.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 39
    Trey_LanceTrey_Lance Posts: 98member
    nicholfd said:
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    So if you had a store, and you let me distribute my items in your store, you'd be ok with me putting a sign or label on my items, telling the buyers that they should buy the item somewhere else because it's cheaper, and avoid paying you a commission?  Does that make any sense?
    Lol, yea it makes sense to people who has been getting handouts….
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 39
    InspiredCodeInspiredCode Posts: 209member
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    Wrong. They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    edited May 5
  • Reply 34 of 39
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 608member
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    They are not both for digital items.  The first is for a cash balance.  Read them again.  Better yet, read the parts they are in, for more context.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 39
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,284member
    zklausz said:
    Epic could start a brick and motor and the. Sell physical v-bucks cards through an app for a physical store.  Best Buy does it. 
    You can buy Fortnight Bucks gift cards from a Brick and Mortar and gift it to a Fortnight player. But in order to redeem it, they have to log into their Epic account using browser and select the device platform  (Android, iOS, X-Box, etc.) where they want those Fortnight Bucks to go. But the device platform owner still gets the commission on the value of the gift card. (And the commissions are paid in real money, not V-Bucks) 

    https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/how-redeem-fortnite-gift-card-1

    Your idea wouldn't work anyway. Apple and Google charges a commission of the sale of digital goods through their app stores. V-bucks are considered a digital goods. Just like downloaded or streamed music and movies. But I bet you can buy a Fortnight Bucks gift card at a BestBuy. 

    But all this BS from Epic about .........we just want our customers to have more choices on where and how to buy V-Bucks, when playing Fortnight using our free app on iOS and Android ........ really comes down to ...... we do not want to pay any commission (to Apple or Google) on the sale of V-Bucks to players using our free Fortnight app on their mobile devices. (But I'm sure Epic would be more than willing to pay the commission in V-Bucks.) 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 39
    InspiredCodeInspiredCode Posts: 209member
    nicholfd said:
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    They are not both for digital items.  The first is for a cash balance.  Read them again.  Better yet, read the parts they are in, for more context.
    nicholfd said:
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    They are not both for digital items.  The first is for a cash balance.  Read them again.  Better yet, read the parts they are in, for more context.
    I’m not going to paste the entire section 2 of the developer contract here, but if you were to read you would see what your saying doesn’t make sense.
  • Reply 37 of 39
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 608member
    nicholfd said:
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    They are not both for digital items.  The first is for a cash balance.  Read them again.  Better yet, read the parts they are in, for more context.
    nicholfd said:
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    They are not both for digital items.  The first is for a cash balance.  Read them again.  Better yet, read the parts they are in, for more context.
    I’m not going to paste the entire section 2 of the developer contract here, but if you were to read you would see what your saying doesn’t make sense.
    Never asked you to.  I asked you to read it yourself, so maybe you would better understand it.  1st is for a CASH balance.  2nd is for a digital goods balance that cannot be taken away, or must be restorable.  Done.  Period.

    BTW - your response to @flydog doesn't make any sense - re-read it:  "So what is the difference between a in-app credit for digital content and an in-app credit for digital content?"
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 39
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 311member
    mr lizard said:
    Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

    Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  
    I would prefer something like that, but they know they will
    need to reduce the split to probably no higher than 15-20% in that case or nobody would use IAP. Apple also considers them their customers, so they would not want you processing transactions for their customers.

    Ideally my preference would be for Apple to let developers obtain their own customers from their website or another platform. If a developer obtains a customer away from the App Store with a user account created outside the app then it is the developers customer and they can use alternate payment methods for additional purchases directly in an app, if Apple obtains the customer by the user creating the account in app then it is Apple's customer and they need to use IAP since Apple would be responsible for those transactions. This makes much more sense to me than the weird rules that try to prevent bypassing Apple's IAP by making it a poor experience for end users.

    The other problem with the current system is that Apple essentially steals a developers customer obtained elsewhere if that customer wants to use an Apple device since Apple now owns the customer in respect to IAP.

    To take it a step further, I think it would be ideal if a developer could opt-out of listing with a hidden store page. If they do that then they could also opt out of Apple's IAP. Apple could even limit the size of these apps so that a developer would need to use their own CDN to obtain non-executable content for large apps. With hidden store pages, Apple could also be more selective with what they list on the store. That way they could get rid of junk apps more easily while still giving an alternative way for those apps to list. Getting rid of the junk apps would increase the listing value to developers that create great apps and make it less likely people will find apps that don't get the same level of scrutiny by reviewers.

    So, according your theory, Apple is the only one who is free to do all the work for nothing,
    and all the rest are free to do nothing but to collect the money.
    May I remind you: Apple is not a charity organization
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 39
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,284member
    nicholfd said:
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    They are not both for digital items.  The first is for a cash balance.  Read them again.  Better yet, read the parts they are in, for more context.
    nicholfd said:
    nicholfd said:
    In reference to my other comment, the limitation that cross-wallet content has to be lower then IAP content I think was actually in attachment 2 of the developer agreement. This agreement contains additional rules above the App Store review guidelines. I couldn’t find it, so I think Apple may have removed it in the last year. I know this was present previously. 

    Apple has both the developer agreement and the store review guidelines that both apply. They conflict all over the place and there is no language as far as I’m aware to say one supersedes the other.

    Additionally, Vbucks might not be allowed by a number of rules that forbid in-app currency. For example, this one from the developer agreement:

     2.1 You may not use the In-App Purchase API to enable an end-user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end-users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time.

    The review guidelines say this which contradicts:

    • Any credits or in-game currencies purchased via in-app purchase may not expire, and you should make sure you have a restore mechanism for any restorable in-app purchases.

    This is just one example. The Apple terms are full of contradictions which is something developers complain about since nobody knows what is and isn’t allowed or might be allowed one day but not the next.
    I'm not sure I see a conflict.  2.1 states you can't let the user add funds (real $) to be used for future IAP - no $ balance credit allowed, designed for future digital purchases.  Review guidelines are for digital items purchased with real funds.  See the difference?
    They are both for this digital items. Apple expressly prohibits IAP for non-digital items and services.  Either way it is a credit that can be redeemed. If you buy vbucks, that is a credit for virtual content.
    They are not both for digital items.  The first is for a cash balance.  Read them again.  Better yet, read the parts they are in, for more context.
    I’m not going to paste the entire section 2 of the developer contract here, but if you were to read you would see what your saying doesn’t make sense.
    What section 2 is saying is that developers can not set up an account that has funds with real money, inside their app. In other words, Epic can not set up an iTunes like account for the player inside their app, where the player can use the money in that account to pay for Fortnight Bucks, from inside the app. This because Apple takes a commission on the exchange of real money between the iOS customer using an app and the developer of that app. It would be more difficult for Apple to track the exchange of real money if the exchange took place inside the developers app that used an account that the developer set up for their customers.

     Apple do not get a commission for a player spending virtual Fortnight Bucks on virtual items, inside a game in an app. They get the commission when the player buys Fortnight Bucks, with real money.   

    This would also apply to accounts linked to CC, debit card, PayPal, Amazon Pay, etc.. These type of accounts can not be set up for the users inside an app, by the developer,  to use for paying for in-app purchases, like V- Bucks or pay for their monthly subscriptions or purchasing the full version of a game from a free app.
    watto_cobraqwerty52
Sign In or Register to comment.