6 ms·

You know when I'll believe it? When the un-screw up their app store which vastly incentivizes the development of free-to-use ad-driven apps that prey on user tr

You know when I'll believe it? When the un-screw up their app store which vastly incentivizes the development of free-to-use ad-driven apps that prey on user tracking data over premium alternatives. Ad-based revenue has a higher value proposition to developers because it dodges the inane anachronistic 30% tax. "Privacy" first is an utter illusion when the majority of apps approved in this closed ecosystem that ostensibly supports privacy does just the opposite.

braythwayt 7y ago
It’s not a dichotomy, so I will just say that in addition to circumventing the app store’s take, developers have users to “blame” for the race-to-the-bottom of the surveillance capitalism bucket. As long as users will balk at paying even 4.99 for an app, developers will make them free and then engage in dark business models like surveillance and terrible in-app purchases. To be fair and stop “blaming the victims,” this is a classic hard problem in psychology: The purchase price is an immediate, objective cost. Surveillance and the possibility of getting sucked into in-app purchases are subjective, uncertain costs with consequences in the future. In aggregate, humans are really bad at making those judgments, trebly so when other humans are rigging the game to make the judgment difficult to evaluate.
- Ntrails 7y ago
  > As long as users will balk at paying even 4.99 for an app Out of interest, what is the refund policy in the app store? I know, for example, I'm way more chilled about paying for "unknown" steam games when I can refund them after an hour of play if I don't like them.
  - WA 7y ago
    You can refund purchases for up to 14 days. I consider this a somewhat well-kept secret, because nobody seems to make use of this.
    - jannes 7y ago
      How do you make use of this? It does not seem to be an obvious part of the app store.
      - gergles 7y ago
        Click "report a problem" in the invoice link they email you after a purchase. It isn't very obvious.
      - WA 7y ago
        It is indeed not very obvious: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204088 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204088 I heard you even get to keep stuff you wanted to get a refund for. But I haven’t tried this.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - new299 7y ago
    I think they will refund almost automatically (seems like up to 14 days based on another comment). In my experience you need to wait a while (maybe a week?) until the charge registers. After that you can get a refund.
- new299 7y ago
  The problem is that app developers often just do both. They charge, but still use adverts. You see this in games in particular. Paying removes /most/ adverts. However it does not remove the “watch an advert to get an extra life” style adverts. I assume it also does not remove any ad tracking.
  - dunnevens 7y ago
    I can't speak to all games, but the pay-once games I've seen have been free of this. No advertising at all, beyond the little ads for their DLC (if they have any.)
- jclardy 7y ago
  The solution I believe still lies in Apple's court. Say you have an app that is a niche app with a 7 day free trial and a one-time purchase. How does this look to the user? Exactly like every other freemium/ad riddled/subscription/pay-to-play app. The download button says "Get" and underneath it you see "In-App Purchases Available." User expectations are destroyed at the download page. One part of the solution is to allow developers to actually define an app as a time limited free trial. Make the download button say "START FREE TRIAL" and underneath "$4.99 to Purchase". Let the user buy or take the free trial from the App Store...but most importantly let them know that it isn't yet another subscription app, or something riddled with ads (Even going so far as to add an app review check that will look for ad network connections to ensure compliance.) Apple has created a system where user's are now afraid of in-app purchases, because they allowed kids games to be riddled with them and other apps to setup up predatory free trial structures with weekly renewals (And until recently, buried the subscriptions page in a few levels of settings menus.)
  - gbear605 7y ago
    The app store already works like this. They clearly mark subscription apps like this, including free trials.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      But free trials are never really free: after 14 days when you've probably already forgotten about the app, your card gets charged. There needs to be a proper way to try stuff without slyly charging them. Maybe ask them outright at the end of the trial if they want to carry on?
      - gbear605 7y ago
        That’s also already built in by Apple. Free trials don’t automatically turn into paid subscription unless you tell them to.
- ben509 7y ago
  Psychology definitely plays a role in biasing how people interpret things they see and their priorities, but I think much of this is better understood through an economic lens. If you consider the actions you take to preserve your privacy, it's a strategy you developed over time. And no one can claim to have a formula for devising the perfect strategy when there are non-trivial unknowns. This isn't just common, but normal in economics. An economic actor can a. estimate the potential costs and benefits, b. observe other actors' strategy and outcomes but must ultimately c. execute their own strategy. None of these are fully rational, and you have scarce resources (time & money, ability to survey the problem, limited exposure to the actions and consequences of other actors) to allocate to A and B. If everything works, you stick to your strategy. If you get burned, you adjust your strategy in response. (Though a strategy may be "eat a cost less than $X.") And if you observe it working for others or others getting burned, you might also adjust your strategy. This does lead to a natural selection of successful strategies; actors are "eventually optimal."
omnifischer 7y ago
In addition, please note that Apple's motto is 'Privacy for the rich'. Please do a Privacy for all - iPhone. Sorry HN-users, there are another 5 billion people that cant afford your > $ 200 products. Mind you even in ebay/second hand in the poor markets iPhones are expensive. Edit: Why down votes? Please remember there are other too in the world that deserve technology + privacy.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  Unfortunately, that's one of the things that tends to be true of all new product offerings. Mostly-screen multi-touch smartphones? They were only for the rich when they first launched too. As demand grows, scale enables other businesses to build cheaper options. Given how quickly competitors copy anything vaguely new or novel coming out of Apple, it seems reasonable that someone will come up with a similar competing service before long. If they don't, maybe it's also worth focusing some attention on those who directly try to exploit the poor and/or less knowledgeable?
- gbear605 7y ago
  You can get a decent used iPhone for under $200. I don’t fault Apple for not making an iPhone cheaper than that.
  - omnifischer 7y ago
    Try to use it as daily driver. Very difficult.
    - jasonlotito 7y ago
      How is it compared to other phones at the same price level though?
    - gbear605 7y ago
      I’ve done it. It’s not.
    - bwbw223 7y ago
scarface74 7y ago
Developers aren’t doing ad supported apps because of the 30% “tax”. Did software sell with ads when they had to pay physical retail stores 60% for distribution? They do ads because people are too cheap to buy apps.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 7y ago
  There might be a more subtle issue at work here. Sales provide one-time revenue, heavily taxed. Ads provide recurring revenue.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And would reducing the “tax” - what normal businesses call distribution expenses - to 10% change the equation?
    - Kalium 7y ago
      There are doubtless cases where that extra slice of one-off revenue per customer would make all the difference in the world to the business model. At the same time, I suspect that in most cases it would not change the business decisions being made. Recurring revenue matches the financial needs of a business better in most cases.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Which ones? Can you think of one category of apps that would not do recurring revenue ad sales and go to one time purchases? Honestly I can’t think of one non game app that is ad supported without the option of turning off ads with an in app purchase or subscription.
        Kalium 7y ago
        I am not able to point concretely to any. As I am not possessed of sufficient internal fincancial information to evaluate the question, I am also not equipped to evaluate the question. I do feel safe in suggesting that across all the apps of the world, there is a greater than 50% chance of there being at least one such application.
CivilianZero 7y ago
Apple isn't doing anything to drive development of "free-to-use ad-driven apps that prey on user tracking data...", that would be people being unwilling to pay more than 99 cents for anything and believing subscriptions are a rip off.

braythwayt 7y ago

It’s not a dichotomy, so I will just say that in addition to circumventing the app store’s take, developers have users to “blame” for the race-to-the-bottom of the surveillance capitalism bucket. As long as users will balk at paying even 4.99 for an app, developers will make them free and then engage in dark business models like surveillance and terrible in-app purchases. To be fair and stop “blaming the victims,” this is a classic hard problem in psychology: The purchase price is an immediate, objective cost. Surveillance and the possibility of getting sucked into in-app purchases are subjective, uncertain costs with consequences in the future. In aggregate, humans are really bad at making those judgments, trebly so when other humans are rigging the game to make the judgment difficult to evaluate.

Ntrails 7y ago
> As long as users will balk at paying even 4.99 for an app Out of interest, what is the refund policy in the app store? I know, for example, I'm way more chilled about paying for "unknown" steam games when I can refund them after an hour of play if I don't like them.
- WA 7y ago
  You can refund purchases for up to 14 days. I consider this a somewhat well-kept secret, because nobody seems to make use of this.
  - jannes 7y ago
    How do you make use of this? It does not seem to be an obvious part of the app store.
    - gergles 7y ago
      Click "report a problem" in the invoice link they email you after a purchase. It isn't very obvious.
    - WA 7y ago
      It is indeed not very obvious: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204088 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204088 I heard you even get to keep stuff you wanted to get a refund for. But I haven’t tried this.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- new299 7y ago
  I think they will refund almost automatically (seems like up to 14 days based on another comment). In my experience you need to wait a while (maybe a week?) until the charge registers. After that you can get a refund.
new299 7y ago
The problem is that app developers often just do both. They charge, but still use adverts. You see this in games in particular. Paying removes /most/ adverts. However it does not remove the “watch an advert to get an extra life” style adverts. I assume it also does not remove any ad tracking.
- dunnevens 7y ago
  I can't speak to all games, but the pay-once games I've seen have been free of this. No advertising at all, beyond the little ads for their DLC (if they have any.)
jclardy 7y ago
The solution I believe still lies in Apple's court. Say you have an app that is a niche app with a 7 day free trial and a one-time purchase. How does this look to the user? Exactly like every other freemium/ad riddled/subscription/pay-to-play app. The download button says "Get" and underneath it you see "In-App Purchases Available." User expectations are destroyed at the download page. One part of the solution is to allow developers to actually define an app as a time limited free trial. Make the download button say "START FREE TRIAL" and underneath "$4.99 to Purchase". Let the user buy or take the free trial from the App Store...but most importantly let them know that it isn't yet another subscription app, or something riddled with ads (Even going so far as to add an app review check that will look for ad network connections to ensure compliance.) Apple has created a system where user's are now afraid of in-app purchases, because they allowed kids games to be riddled with them and other apps to setup up predatory free trial structures with weekly renewals (And until recently, buried the subscriptions page in a few levels of settings menus.)
- gbear605 7y ago
  The app store already works like this. They clearly mark subscription apps like this, including free trials.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    But free trials are never really free: after 14 days when you've probably already forgotten about the app, your card gets charged. There needs to be a proper way to try stuff without slyly charging them. Maybe ask them outright at the end of the trial if they want to carry on?
    - gbear605 7y ago
      That’s also already built in by Apple. Free trials don’t automatically turn into paid subscription unless you tell them to.
ben509 7y ago
Psychology definitely plays a role in biasing how people interpret things they see and their priorities, but I think much of this is better understood through an economic lens. If you consider the actions you take to preserve your privacy, it's a strategy you developed over time. And no one can claim to have a formula for devising the perfect strategy when there are non-trivial unknowns. This isn't just common, but normal in economics. An economic actor can a. estimate the potential costs and benefits, b. observe other actors' strategy and outcomes but must ultimately c. execute their own strategy. None of these are fully rational, and you have scarce resources (time & money, ability to survey the problem, limited exposure to the actions and consequences of other actors) to allocate to A and B. If everything works, you stick to your strategy. If you get burned, you adjust your strategy in response. (Though a strategy may be "eat a cost less than $X.") And if you observe it working for others or others getting burned, you might also adjust your strategy. This does lead to a natural selection of successful strategies; actors are "eventually optimal."

omnifischer 7y ago

In addition, please note that Apple's motto is 'Privacy for the rich'. Please do a Privacy for all - iPhone. Sorry HN-users, there are another 5 billion people that cant afford your > $ 200 products. Mind you even in ebay/second hand in the poor markets iPhones are expensive. Edit: Why down votes? Please remember there are other too in the world that deserve technology + privacy.

oarsinsync 7y ago
Unfortunately, that's one of the things that tends to be true of all new product offerings. Mostly-screen multi-touch smartphones? They were only for the rich when they first launched too. As demand grows, scale enables other businesses to build cheaper options. Given how quickly competitors copy anything vaguely new or novel coming out of Apple, it seems reasonable that someone will come up with a similar competing service before long. If they don't, maybe it's also worth focusing some attention on those who directly try to exploit the poor and/or less knowledgeable?
gbear605 7y ago
You can get a decent used iPhone for under $200. I don’t fault Apple for not making an iPhone cheaper than that.
- omnifischer 7y ago
  Try to use it as daily driver. Very difficult.
  - jasonlotito 7y ago
    How is it compared to other phones at the same price level though?
  - gbear605 7y ago
    I’ve done it. It’s not.
  - bwbw223 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

Developers aren’t doing ad supported apps because of the 30% “tax”. Did software sell with ads when they had to pay physical retail stores 60% for distribution? They do ads because people are too cheap to buy apps.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Kalium 7y ago
There might be a more subtle issue at work here. Sales provide one-time revenue, heavily taxed. Ads provide recurring revenue.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And would reducing the “tax” - what normal businesses call distribution expenses - to 10% change the equation?
  - Kalium 7y ago
    There are doubtless cases where that extra slice of one-off revenue per customer would make all the difference in the world to the business model. At the same time, I suspect that in most cases it would not change the business decisions being made. Recurring revenue matches the financial needs of a business better in most cases.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Which ones? Can you think of one category of apps that would not do recurring revenue ad sales and go to one time purchases? Honestly I can’t think of one non game app that is ad supported without the option of turning off ads with an in app purchase or subscription.
      - Kalium 7y ago
        I am not able to point concretely to any. As I am not possessed of sufficient internal fincancial information to evaluate the question, I am also not equipped to evaluate the question. I do feel safe in suggesting that across all the apps of the world, there is a greater than 50% chance of there being at least one such application.

CivilianZero 7y ago

Apple isn't doing anything to drive development of "free-to-use ad-driven apps that prey on user tracking data...", that would be people being unwilling to pay more than 99 cents for anything and believing subscriptions are a rip off.