4 ms·

> Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to already sign up for the service on their website. The only reason for this is that App

> Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to already sign up for the service on their website. The only reason for this is that Apple explicitly disallows apps from linking to or even mentioning subscription options that do not go through Apple's payment ecosystem and pay Apple's tax. Blaming the ensuing bad user experience on app developers is a case of "why are you hitting yourself?" > As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut? That 30% is, ultimately, coming from our pockets. Apple wants it because it prefers our money in their pockets. We, as the consumers, should fight back and demand it be lowered because we prefer our money in our own pockets. I don't understand why I should advocate that Apple should make apps more expensive and should take more of my money.

alberth 6y ago
But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data better than anyone. Everyone loves Apple for their unwavering stance in user Privacy. How is this not just another example of that? (I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be)
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  >But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data better than anyone. Compared to what? If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, issue a chargeback. If I had two options: 1) Once every couple of years I may get a credit card's details stolen and I have to spend perhaps an hour on the phone with the bank to get thing sorted out, 2) the credit card issuer gives me a card with some futuristic technology that makes fraud literally impossible; so I don't have to spend that one hour every couple of years sorting out a fraudulent transaction; however, the credit card adds a 30% surcharge to every transaction—I would choose option 1, no questions. Wouldn't you?
  - veilrap 6y ago
    It seems like a lot of consumers would, and do choose 2) by choosing to buy into Apple's ecosystem.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      Most consumers have no idea they are paying this 30%. I wish there was a law forcing the amount of Apple tax to be disclosed on a separate line in any purchase price and receipt, like it is the case with sales taxes. If people know, many would be outraged that the company they have paid over $1000 for a device is also nickel-and-diming them for using the device.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Should we also force every other retailer to display their wholesale cost?
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  Sure. That's fair, if the user believes the 30% is worth the extra safety that Apple provides, they should be able to pay that. But why the restriction that developers cannot even hint that less expensive options are available through other means?
antoniuschan99 6y ago
It's definitely not preferable, but if 37Signals adds an in-app purchase and charges $130 instead of $99, would Apple approve the App? Maybe as a protest they should charge $200 in-App :P
- alberth 6y ago
  Again, just playing devils advocate and using the brick and mortar store example. If I sold my widget online direct to consumer for $99 and got to pocket all of that. Why wouldn’t I assume that if I tried to sell my widget inside of the brick and mortar store for the same $99, that they wouldn’t want to make margin on selling my widget for me - which would reduce my take home profit
  - Jasper_ 6y ago
    Margins on brick and mortar are extremely thin -- 3-4% overhead is considered excellent.
  - quantummkv 6y ago
    The meat of the issue here is that you cannot sell your widget directly online to consumers. Apple does not allow that. You have to always sell through the Apple store and always pay that margin whether you want to or not. To use the brick and mortar store analogy, would you be happy if you were forced to sell only through Walmart (and thus paying their margin) and not directly to customers, even when you are completely capable of doing it?
    - alberth 6y ago
      Devils advocate. Why can’t they sell this direct to consumer in iOS via safari? And make it a web app on mobile just like how it’s a web app on desktop.
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        For your analogy to hold, we should be able to run a PWA in the same sandbox as iOS apps with the same access to hardware as a native iOS app. Why doesn’t iOS Safari have these capabilities? Why can’t we download apps and sideload them in the same type of sandbox that App Store sourced apps do? There’s already an interoperability exemption for jailbreaking. I hope that this precedent is reinforced and expanded through lawsuits and legislation if Apple won’t implement first-party sideloading support willingly. It’s a matter of equal access to technology and accessibility of tools. To own a thing is to be able to adapt it and make it work the way you need, as well as the way you want. The first sale doctrine applies to software too. Clickwrap EULAs are not always legally binding, and you cannot arbitrate away certain unalienable rights. If I own a thing, I can modify or disassemble it, as well as sell it or otherwise transfer it. These concepts need to be enforced more specifically for digital assets such as apps and mobile operating systems.

alberth 6y ago

But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data better than anyone. Everyone loves Apple for their unwavering stance in user Privacy. How is this not just another example of that? (I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be)

smnrchrds 6y ago
>But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data better than anyone. Compared to what? If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, issue a chargeback. If I had two options: 1) Once every couple of years I may get a credit card's details stolen and I have to spend perhaps an hour on the phone with the bank to get thing sorted out, 2) the credit card issuer gives me a card with some futuristic technology that makes fraud literally impossible; so I don't have to spend that one hour every couple of years sorting out a fraudulent transaction; however, the credit card adds a 30% surcharge to every transaction—I would choose option 1, no questions. Wouldn't you?
- veilrap 6y ago
  It seems like a lot of consumers would, and do choose 2) by choosing to buy into Apple's ecosystem.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    Most consumers have no idea they are paying this 30%. I wish there was a law forcing the amount of Apple tax to be disclosed on a separate line in any purchase price and receipt, like it is the case with sales taxes. If people know, many would be outraged that the company they have paid over $1000 for a device is also nickel-and-diming them for using the device.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Should we also force every other retailer to display their wholesale cost?
Jasper_ 6y ago
Sure. That's fair, if the user believes the 30% is worth the extra safety that Apple provides, they should be able to pay that. But why the restriction that developers cannot even hint that less expensive options are available through other means?

antoniuschan99 6y ago

It's definitely not preferable, but if 37Signals adds an in-app purchase and charges $130 instead of $99, would Apple approve the App? Maybe as a protest they should charge $200 in-App :P

alberth 6y ago
Again, just playing devils advocate and using the brick and mortar store example. If I sold my widget online direct to consumer for $99 and got to pocket all of that. Why wouldn’t I assume that if I tried to sell my widget inside of the brick and mortar store for the same $99, that they wouldn’t want to make margin on selling my widget for me - which would reduce my take home profit
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  Margins on brick and mortar are extremely thin -- 3-4% overhead is considered excellent.
- quantummkv 6y ago
  The meat of the issue here is that you cannot sell your widget directly online to consumers. Apple does not allow that. You have to always sell through the Apple store and always pay that margin whether you want to or not. To use the brick and mortar store analogy, would you be happy if you were forced to sell only through Walmart (and thus paying their margin) and not directly to customers, even when you are completely capable of doing it?
  - alberth 6y ago
    Devils advocate. Why can’t they sell this direct to consumer in iOS via safari? And make it a web app on mobile just like how it’s a web app on desktop.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      For your analogy to hold, we should be able to run a PWA in the same sandbox as iOS apps with the same access to hardware as a native iOS app. Why doesn’t iOS Safari have these capabilities? Why can’t we download apps and sideload them in the same type of sandbox that App Store sourced apps do? There’s already an interoperability exemption for jailbreaking. I hope that this precedent is reinforced and expanded through lawsuits and legislation if Apple won’t implement first-party sideloading support willingly. It’s a matter of equal access to technology and accessibility of tools. To own a thing is to be able to adapt it and make it work the way you need, as well as the way you want. The first sale doctrine applies to software too. Clickwrap EULAs are not always legally binding, and you cannot arbitrate away certain unalienable rights. If I own a thing, I can modify or disassemble it, as well as sell it or otherwise transfer it. These concepts need to be enforced more specifically for digital assets such as apps and mobile operating systems.