6 ms·

What? I am in love with Apple's way of handling subscriptions. I know that whenever I want, I can cancel it, no strings attached. If the app does not deliver w

What? I am in love with Apple's way of handling subscriptions. I know that whenever I want, I can cancel it, no strings attached. If the app does not deliver what it claims with the subscription, I can trust Apple to dispute it. For example, there are a couple of apps that offer subscription and amazing deals out of in-app purchases, but I simply refuse to subscribe that kind of applications, because there are a lot of shady companies want to take your money.

wtetzner 6y ago
> What? I am in love with Apple's way of handling subscriptions. I know that whenever I want, I can cancel it, no strings attached. Sure, and that's great. But why can't subscriptions be opt-in after a free trial, instead of opt-out? They can still send an email with a "Subscribe" button instead of a "Cancel" button. I would argue that's much more user-friendly.
- zepto 6y ago
  It would be, but Apple’s way is also way more user friendly than almost anyone else’s. Also, the opt-in vs opt-out could be configurable.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Opt-out is by definition not more user friendly than a default opt-in process. It is in fact quite user-hostile and is used by a number of scam companies.
    - zepto 6y ago
      It sounds like you haven’t been reading along. Opt-out is only user hostile when it is used as a scam. Whether it is hostile depends on the implementation. Apple’s implementation is a friendly one. Firstly there is an email confirmation with a link to cancel, and secondly there is a single screen with all of the subscriptions aggregated and cancellable. If you are someone who generally purchases subscriptions to things you actually want, then opt-out is clearly more friendly. If you are someone who likes to try a bunch of stuff but isn’t likely to want to keep much of it, then you would likely prefer opt-in. Whether a given implementation of opt-out is a scam or not is orthogonal to whether it matches your personal style.
      - dang 6y ago
        This comment breaks the site guidelines which asks Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment would be just fine if shortened in the way the guidelines recommend; it's a fine comment otherwise.
        zepto 6y ago
        I didn’t make any comment on whether the person read the article. By ‘reading along’ I was referring to earlier places in this thread where the issue is already addressed, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705338 If you have counted this as a violation of the site guidelines, please decrement the counter. What shortening is recommended in this case?
        dang 6y ago
        Well, that's a distinction without a difference. That guideline isn't technically just about reading an article vs. something else. HN is a spirit-of-the-law, not letter-of-the-law place. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20spirit%20letter&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... I would recommend just leaving out the first sentence. It's not clear that the comment loses anything by it. Alternatively, you could say "This issue is already addressed upthread, for example <link>". That would be the equivalent of "the article mentions that". Yes, that's not shorter, but the intention here is to make one's points without personal swipes. And linking to the other explanation also adds information. By the way, once I read your explanation of what you meant, it seemed like a much lesser violation than it did when I read it without that. The trouble, though, is that other readers encounter such a comment without knowing what you meant either.
        zepto 6y ago
        Ok, I’ll err on the side of not saying this kind of thing, however I note that simply ignoring the conversation so far and making an assertion that is clearly contradicted by an earlier commenter’s personal experience is at least as much of a violation of the spirit of decent conversational standards as expressing mild frustration at such behavior.

wtetzner 6y ago

> What? I am in love with Apple's way of handling subscriptions. I know that whenever I want, I can cancel it, no strings attached. Sure, and that's great. But why can't subscriptions be opt-in after a free trial, instead of opt-out? They can still send an email with a "Subscribe" button instead of a "Cancel" button. I would argue that's much more user-friendly.

zepto 6y ago
It would be, but Apple’s way is also way more user friendly than almost anyone else’s. Also, the opt-in vs opt-out could be configurable.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Opt-out is by definition not more user friendly than a default opt-in process. It is in fact quite user-hostile and is used by a number of scam companies.
  - zepto 6y ago
    It sounds like you haven’t been reading along. Opt-out is only user hostile when it is used as a scam. Whether it is hostile depends on the implementation. Apple’s implementation is a friendly one. Firstly there is an email confirmation with a link to cancel, and secondly there is a single screen with all of the subscriptions aggregated and cancellable. If you are someone who generally purchases subscriptions to things you actually want, then opt-out is clearly more friendly. If you are someone who likes to try a bunch of stuff but isn’t likely to want to keep much of it, then you would likely prefer opt-in. Whether a given implementation of opt-out is a scam or not is orthogonal to whether it matches your personal style.
    - dang 6y ago
      This comment breaks the site guidelines which asks Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment would be just fine if shortened in the way the guidelines recommend; it's a fine comment otherwise.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I didn’t make any comment on whether the person read the article. By ‘reading along’ I was referring to earlier places in this thread where the issue is already addressed, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705338 If you have counted this as a violation of the site guidelines, please decrement the counter. What shortening is recommended in this case?
        dang 6y ago
        Well, that's a distinction without a difference. That guideline isn't technically just about reading an article vs. something else. HN is a spirit-of-the-law, not letter-of-the-law place. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20spirit%20letter&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... I would recommend just leaving out the first sentence. It's not clear that the comment loses anything by it. Alternatively, you could say "This issue is already addressed upthread, for example <link>". That would be the equivalent of "the article mentions that". Yes, that's not shorter, but the intention here is to make one's points without personal swipes. And linking to the other explanation also adds information. By the way, once I read your explanation of what you meant, it seemed like a much lesser violation than it did when I read it without that. The trouble, though, is that other readers encounter such a comment without knowing what you meant either.
        zepto 6y ago
        Ok, I’ll err on the side of not saying this kind of thing, however I note that simply ignoring the conversation so far and making an assertion that is clearly contradicted by an earlier commenter’s personal experience is at least as much of a violation of the spirit of decent conversational standards as expressing mild frustration at such behavior.