5 ms·

They would have recourse; it’s called a chargeback. If you pay with a credit card and a merchant rips you off or does something devious with your payments, you

They would have recourse; it’s called a chargeback. If you pay with a credit card and a merchant rips you off or does something devious with your payments, you dispute the charge with your bank. It’s a huge pain for a merchant to deal with chargebacks, so this really wouldn’t be a real problem. That overhead costs the business and the consumer about 2% in fees compared to Apple’s 30%. I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases. Businesses will just mark up the price of their product and pass the costs on to the consumer. The only party that wins is Apple, so I guess if you own $AAPL you’d defend the cut.

nodamage 6y ago
If you pay with a credit card. And the merchant can dispute your dispute. And it would be pretty annoying to have to file a chargeback every time you needed a refund. Last time I did it, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork and send it to my credit card company. > I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases. I'm not. I think 30% is overly high. But simultaneously I don't find the original complaint all that convincing.
- bradgessler 6y ago
  At least disputing it is an option. Apple’s terms don’t really allow for disputing; “ALL SALES ARE FINAL”. I bank with Chase, who makes disputing a charge take a few minutes from their website.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    As I said in my other comment, disputes are meant for unauthorized charges. If you actually purchased and received a product and you wanted a refund just because you didn't like it, you might not actually win a dispute under those circumstances. > Apple’s terms don’t really allow for disputing; “ALL SALES ARE FINAL”. Disputing would be unnecessary under the scenario Apple suggested because there would be a free trial.
    - bradgessler 6y ago
      It’s easy to dispute in earnest that the app didn’t deliver the functionality it claimed to deliver on the description. Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        > It’s easy to dispute in earnest that the app didn’t deliver the functionality it claimed to deliver on the description. Now you're no longer talking about a money back guarantee. Come on, the idea that a credit card chargeback is a valid alternative to having a free trial is ridiculous. > Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases. Wrong. Non-subscription apps may offer a free time-based trial period before presenting a full unlock option by setting up a Non-Consumable IAP item at Price Tier 0 that follows the naming convention: “XX-day Trial.”
em-bee 6y ago
and if apple is handling the payments, they could handle the payback offer too. there is no reason that apple could not support different kinds of payment models if they wanted to
nodamage 6y ago
Also, the dispute process is intended for fraudulent/unauthorized charges. You might not actually win a dispute if you purchased a product, it was delivered to you, and you wanted a refund just because you ended up not liking it.
oauea 6y ago
> I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut Stockholm syndrome by Apple developers and users.

nodamage 6y ago

If you pay with a credit card. And the merchant can dispute your dispute. And it would be pretty annoying to have to file a chargeback every time you needed a refund. Last time I did it, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork and send it to my credit card company. > I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases. I'm not. I think 30% is overly high. But simultaneously I don't find the original complaint all that convincing.

bradgessler 6y ago
At least disputing it is an option. Apple’s terms don’t really allow for disputing; “ALL SALES ARE FINAL”. I bank with Chase, who makes disputing a charge take a few minutes from their website.
- nodamage 6y ago
  As I said in my other comment, disputes are meant for unauthorized charges. If you actually purchased and received a product and you wanted a refund just because you didn't like it, you might not actually win a dispute under those circumstances. > Apple’s terms don’t really allow for disputing; “ALL SALES ARE FINAL”. Disputing would be unnecessary under the scenario Apple suggested because there would be a free trial.
  - bradgessler 6y ago
    It’s easy to dispute in earnest that the app didn’t deliver the functionality it claimed to deliver on the description. Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      > It’s easy to dispute in earnest that the app didn’t deliver the functionality it claimed to deliver on the description. Now you're no longer talking about a money back guarantee. Come on, the idea that a credit card chargeback is a valid alternative to having a free trial is ridiculous. > Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases. Wrong. Non-subscription apps may offer a free time-based trial period before presenting a full unlock option by setting up a Non-Consumable IAP item at Price Tier 0 that follows the naming convention: “XX-day Trial.”

em-bee 6y ago

and if apple is handling the payments, they could handle the payback offer too. there is no reason that apple could not support different kinds of payment models if they wanted to

nodamage 6y ago

Also, the dispute process is intended for fraudulent/unauthorized charges. You might not actually win a dispute if you purchased a product, it was delivered to you, and you wanted a refund just because you ended up not liking it.

oauea 6y ago

> I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut Stockholm syndrome by Apple developers and users.