5 ms·
As a user I'm quite happy with Apple intermediating my relationship with companies that seek to do business with me over the phone, and I'd actually be happier
by threatofrain 6y ago
As a user I'm quite happy with Apple intermediating my relationship with companies that seek to do business with me over the phone, and I'd actually be happier if Apple took over more of my relationships.
I don't want a situation where 10 apps means 10 different privacy agreements. I also don't want to deal with app companies directly for returns or their custom payment solutions — an "Amazon" is way better.
- kevingadd 6y agoEach app already has its own terms of service
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shajznnckfke 6y ago> and I'd actually be happier if Apple took over more of my relationships. I’m really curious what you mean by this. Which additional transactions do you wish Apple would take a 30% cut on? You DoorDash orders, your rent, your salary?
- throwaway413 6y agoIf it meant my work processes were as streamlined and organized as Apple's operating standard? Political antics gone? Safety and security with no negotiation? Tempting... (Just experimenting with the idea, not that I actually agree with this line of thought.)
- shajznnckfke 6y agoIf what I hear from people who work for Apple is true, I wouldn’t be so optimistic.
- throwaway413 6y agoHah, touché. I meant more mac/iOS UX, less Apple employee experience.
- xmprt 6y agoWould you be willing to pay a 30% "Apple" fee on all transactions because what Apple is doing prevents companies from passing on saving to consumers.
- throwaway413 6y agoCompanies pay 30% of an employee's salary to strealine their hiring efforts - doesn't seem far fetch to me to expand that payment pattern to a consumer level where one is paying 30% on transactions and in return receiving a streamlined process for discovering, managing and reversing them through a centralized gateway. Again, not that I agree with this...just playing devil's advocate here. I don't want to pay 30% on any transactions!
- dayjobpork 6y agoSo Apple, who illegally colluded with other tech companies to keep engineering salaries down, should be put in control of hiring processes? There isn't a lol big enough
- chrisshroba 6y ago> Which additional transactions do you wish Apple would take a 30% cut on? That's not what they said. Apple already handles payment processing via Apple Pay for real world goods (Amazon, Food delivery, Wish), and does not take a cut of the transaction. Some people see Apple controlling payments for many companies as monopolistic and overreaching, but some (like the parent poster and myself to a degree) see it as a safer alternative to having trust dozens of different companies.
- akmarinov 6y agoApple takes 0.15% of every transaction that used Apple Pay, though- https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/12/more-apple-pay-details/ https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/12/more-apple-pay-details/ They haven’t developed it to not make money off of it.
- akjssdk 6y agoDoesn't every single payment provider do this though?
- threeseed 6y agoMastercard, Visa etc all take a fee for transactions. There are serious costs involved in running an international payments system. But that's very different from a proper 30% style cut.
- brummm 6y agoApple pay uses the Visa and Mastercard network though. It's on top of the V/MC cut. Apple only adds that you can use your card on the phone. You end up using your credit card anyways.
- sabellito 6y agoExactly. Apple has none of the risk and somehow thinks it is appropriate to charge per transaction AND customer. Yes, they charge the companies who wish to integrate with apple pay a quarterly fee per card. Apple customers are footing this bill, of course, as vendors and banks aren't just going to lose money. Apple is way out of line, and apple customers would benefit from informing themselves.
- threatofrain 6y agoIsn't the situation similar with Amazon? And how much higher are the prices for the consumers, in return for the Amazon experience? What is the Amazon tax to the consumer?
- shajznnckfke 6y agoI believe Amazon’s cut is 15% and eBay’s is 10%.
- CubsFan1060 6y agoAdditionally, 10 different payment systems. I trust Apple. I'd like to buy whatever subscription, but now "Joe's email app" wants my credit card number. Now I have to figure out if I trust them as well.
- shajznnckfke 6y agoI’m a huge fan of Apple Pay and do not begrudge the 0.15% cut they take on those transactions. The cut they take for App Store purchases is over 100x that amount, which is obscene.
- CubsFan1060 6y agoBut,it's more than that. Not only do I get some security for payment, but I get: * Some level of guarantee that every app on my phone has been vetted (it's not perfect of course, but is better than nothing). It's unlikely that anything to nefarious makes can make it onto my phone, and if it does, it'll be removed. * I get a better fit and finish. Apps on the iPhone very often have a better quality to them. * I get the ability to refund when needed. * Personally, my support requirements go down. When my nephew calls me with a problem, I know that he didn't go download some random app from instructions he got from a friend. Clearly, there's also some profit in there. Edit: Perhaps to get to my point -- these were ALL known when I bought my phone, and for me, were part of the reason I bought it. If I was not ok with this, I would have bought an Android phone.
- heavyset_go 6y agoAnd I'm sure that other companies could be more efficient with the 30% App Store cut, or less than 30%, but the power of markets and competition are stifled by Apple's restrictive limitations. Bandcamp, for example, provides both digital and physical assets, and only takes a 10% - 15% cut. They provide a secure experience for their customers free of ads, malware, spyware and spam.
- benhurmarcel 6y agoBut nobody wants to deny you the choice of paying an extra 30% to get all that. What they want is the choice.
- vegcel 6y agoConversely, one of the things I miss about Android apps is the competition. I recall there being several (free) apps that fulfill some function on Android, and then when switching to iPhone, the apps that provide that function costing $10+ dollars. There's an obvious trade off for security/reliability, but I've still come across my fair share of terrible iPhone apps. Android definitely has a more freeware/open source vibe.
- unixhero 6y agoCome back then, we have chocolate.
- sschueller 6y agoOn Android I pay a one time fee of $25 to get access to the play store. On Apple I pay $100 every year plus they are total dicks about it. The fee is $100 yet I pay even more although my currency is stronger than the dollar plus sales tax!
- aaomidi 6y agoThen you're welcome to not use anything other than Apple's services. You're just annoyed because you want third party apps, but you don't want to follow their ToS :)
- yawn 6y agoAdding sideloading support would not affect you then. This is about those users that want more control over their devices.
- zionic 6y agoAnd this is your choice, should you limit your use to the app store. Now explain why the rest of us have to be limited to your choice only on our $1000+ mobile computers.
- jariel 6y agoThis comment misses the point though. If you want to be happy with using the store for all your life's needs - that's completely fine. Nobody will argue with you here. Otherwise, people should be able to download as they please. Imagine if your electricity company only allowed 'approved Toasters' on their electric grid, complete with special plugins, and a 30% cut of the device. It's an anti-competitive practice as old as time.
- a_e_k 6y ago> Imagine if your electricity company only allowed 'approved Toasters' on their electric grid, complete with special plugins, and a 30% cut of the device. You mean like the days when Ma Bell limited the selection of phones that people could choose from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T#Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T#Monopoly: 'Each phone was leased from AT&T on a monthly basis by customers, who generally paid for their phone and its connection many times over in cumulative lease fees. This monopoly made millions of extra dollars for AT&T, which had the secondary effect of greatly limiting phone choices and styles. AT&T strictly enforced policies against buying and using phones by other manufacturers that had not first been transferred to and re-rented from the local Bell monopoly. Many phones made by Western Electric thus carried the following disclaimer permanently molded into their housings: "BELL SYSTEM PROPERTY — NOT FOR SALE."'
- bosswipe 6y agoThe question will be if developers start abandoning the platform will you be a happy user if you're unable to access popular apps on your locked down Apple computer.
- dagaci 6y agoThat is quite fine for your personality and capabilities, however there are a lot of people who would love to have the freedom to choose differently.
- simion314 6y agoNobody is forcing you to side load apps. Just because someone say has the option to install an application that Apple censored it it does not mean you are also forced to install that application.
- sangnoir 6y ago> I don't want a situation where 10 apps means 10 different privacy agreements No one forces you to side-load. I don't see how you not wanting something turns into "no one else should have it"
- lern_too_spel 6y agoWhat if you want better privacy than what the App Store can provide, like F-Droid? On iOS, you're currently out of luck.