7 ms·

I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer, and I have huge privacy concerns wi

by BluSyn 6y ago

I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer, and I have huge privacy concerns with trusting third-party devs to handle my payment information. There's a 100% certainty that such payment information would be used for advertising purposes in the best-case, and rampant identity theft or mass payment security breaches in the worst-case. I'm certain Apple would also get a share of the blame for these third-party issues, which further tarnishes their platform and user experience. For all Apple's faults, they've actually put a huge amount of effort to making payment processing seamless for the user, while also making it extremely transparent. I get regular notifications if I have a subscription trial about to expire, and it's super easy to manage ALL subscriptions through a single UI, and cancel them with a single click. This would not be possible through third-party systems, which I can guarantee would put huge effort into tricking users rather than making it easier for them. And yet again, Apple would receive the blame for allowing these Apps. All that said I also don't agree with Apple taking a huge 30% cut, especially for subscription services that directly complete with them such as Netflix. Though obviously there are costs to run this ecosystem, so Apple also can't just charge nothing. I see both sides of this argument, and I don't see a middle ground that can please all sides. There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.

ajkjk 6y ago
Well the argument is they're pro-consumer in that the things you buy would end up costing less.
bgorman 6y ago
Theoretically some of the cost saving from an alternative payment processor would be passed on to the consumer.
- BluSyn 6y ago
  While that would certainly be true for indie developers, I think it's laughable to suggest a company like Epic would lower their prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. So I would take any claims from Epic that they are doing this purely for the benefit of the consumer as just pure marketing. Though assuming that is true, there's an argument to be made that some consumers are willing to pay a premium for privacy. Though 30% is probably too high of a premium for most.
  - Osiris 6y ago
    We can't know that because Apple forbids it. You're just guessing at what would happen. Regardless of whether Epic lowers its prices or not, that doesn't forgive Apple for REQUIRING all developers to use their payment processing service. Also, Epic mentioned that Apple causes customer service issues because Apple is inserted into the payment process and Epic can't directly deal with the customer's payment issue. So pricing is not the ONLY reason for allowing competition.
  - La1n 6y ago
    >laughable to suggest a company like Epic would lower their prices in response. But they did lower their prices in response already
    - mirthflat83 6y ago
      I'm seeing this same exact wording on multiple comments. Are these bots from Epic? Or are people at HN really this obtuse to even realize that OP is talking about Epic's long term goals?
      - fomine3 6y ago
        Just accept the counterargument.
kelnos 6y ago
They can be pro-consumer in the sense that pretty much all of them charge an order of magnitude lower fees, savings that can be passed on to the consumer. But agreed that it also could represent an increased privacy risk. I guess that could be the trade off though: if you want stronger privacy guarantees, you pay through Apple's system (and pay more); otherwise you use the cheaper, third-party option. But also agreed that issues around the third-party options would tarnish Apple's reputation, regardless of the fact that people would have a choice.
ianferrel 6y ago
>I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. > There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle. Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable compromise? People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Are you okay with Apple requiring that if you offer services on their devices not through Apple Pay or sell your app via a 3rd party store that you must also offer them at the same price using Apple Pay and on the App Store? It has to be this way because otherwise you can force someone to use your 3rd party processor by making the Apple price 100x or something. If your payment processor is better than Apple you can pocket the 30%. Because why people are so quick to defend Apple out of a fear that if this crap is allowed then it will become the only option and users will wind up with less control and choice.
  - stingraycharles 6y ago
    I’d say that always requiring an Apple Pay option (in addition to optional third party payment mechanisms) is fair when you’re acting inside Apple’s walled garden. The problem right now is that it’s exclusively Apple, with a hefty tax, which is akin to a supermarket only accepting their own credit cards and no other payment options and adding a big premium to all products in the process. Apple will have to settle for the “real” price though, if they add a steep premium to all transactions they shouldn’t require the other payment options to price match that.
  - ianferrel 6y ago
    None of my other computing devices require software merchants to use a particular payment processor or pay certain prices, and it seems fine to me. So, yes, I'm fine with that.
colinmhayes 6y ago
Not paying 30% fees to apple absolutely helps consumers. If you look at the demand elasticity on mobile payments you'll see that fee's are mostly passed on to consumers. Developers will be happy to give a 25% discount to get that extra 2-3% after credit card fees.
- Spivak 6y ago
  If you can get away with charging $5.99 for an app today why would you charge less on a 3rd party store?
  - jdashg 6y ago
    If you can drive higher volume due to better margins, of course you would! The curve changes.
  - nikitaga 6y ago
    Because that's how competitive markets work? Lower costs for suppliers (developers) means lower equilibrium market prices. If some developer can "get away" with not lowering their prices in response to reduced costs, it means they could have "gotten away" with charging a higher price in the first place. So why aren't they charging a higher price now? Probably because they can't actually "get away" with it, i.e. they would lose more volume to make the increase in price unprofitable. Most consumer software has tons of competition, almost nothing is so unique that consumers wouldn't respond to relative price changes.
  - hamandcheese 6y ago
    I would also argue that even if the savings aren’t passed directly to the consumer in the form of money, it’s still better for consumers if that money helps support app developers rather than making Apples stacks of cash a little bit taller.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    Because you could charge up to 29% less to draw out direct purchases and still make more than an App Store purchase.
pier25 6y ago
> so Apple also can't just charge nothing They have +20M devs paying $100 per year.
- MichaelApproved 6y ago
  Wow, 20 million developers paying $100. I had no idea it was that high. So they make $2 billion a year in just dev fees? Do you have a source for that?
  - pier25 6y ago
    It was 20M in 2018, so it's probably more now: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-hits-20m-registered-developers-at-100b-in-revenues-500m-visitors-per-week/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-hits-20m-registe...
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      Registered developer != paying developer. Think about how many iOS developers a company has, they don’t pay $99/yr for each one, the company instead pays that once (usually) for all of them.
      - pier25 6y ago
        That's a good point. But even if 50% of registered AppStore devs didn't pay their fee, 1B is still a huge pile of cash.
        jsjohnst 6y ago
        Pure WAG, but I’m guessing <10% of registered developers are paying the annual fee.
_qulr 6y ago
This doomsday scenario is completely refuted by the longtime existence of the Apple Mac and third-party Mac software.
diebeforei485 6y ago
Apple makes exceptions for payment processing on apps already (for example Amazon Video). I think Apple would have a lot more goodwill if they reduced their take. It's unlikelybanyone would sue over 10-15%.

by BluSyn 6y ago

ajkjk 6y ago

Well the argument is they're pro-consumer in that the things you buy would end up costing less.

bgorman 6y ago

Theoretically some of the cost saving from an alternative payment processor would be passed on to the consumer.

BluSyn 6y ago
While that would certainly be true for indie developers, I think it's laughable to suggest a company like Epic would lower their prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. So I would take any claims from Epic that they are doing this purely for the benefit of the consumer as just pure marketing. Though assuming that is true, there's an argument to be made that some consumers are willing to pay a premium for privacy. Though 30% is probably too high of a premium for most.
- Osiris 6y ago
  We can't know that because Apple forbids it. You're just guessing at what would happen. Regardless of whether Epic lowers its prices or not, that doesn't forgive Apple for REQUIRING all developers to use their payment processing service. Also, Epic mentioned that Apple causes customer service issues because Apple is inserted into the payment process and Epic can't directly deal with the customer's payment issue. So pricing is not the ONLY reason for allowing competition.
- La1n 6y ago
  >laughable to suggest a company like Epic would lower their prices in response. But they did lower their prices in response already
  - mirthflat83 6y ago
    I'm seeing this same exact wording on multiple comments. Are these bots from Epic? Or are people at HN really this obtuse to even realize that OP is talking about Epic's long term goals?
    - fomine3 6y ago
      Just accept the counterargument.

kelnos 6y ago

They can be pro-consumer in the sense that pretty much all of them charge an order of magnitude lower fees, savings that can be passed on to the consumer. But agreed that it also could represent an increased privacy risk. I guess that could be the trade off though: if you want stronger privacy guarantees, you pay through Apple's system (and pay more); otherwise you use the cheaper, third-party option. But also agreed that issues around the third-party options would tarnish Apple's reputation, regardless of the fact that people would have a choice.

ianferrel 6y ago

>I really don't agree with the idea that "alternative payment processors" are pro-consumer. This only benefits the developer I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. > There needs to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle. Why isn't "let other stores sell software for iOS, and the market will set the rent those stores can extract from software developers" the reasonable compromise? People who want the ease and security of Apple and are willing to pay their extra fees can do so. Those who don't don't have to.

Spivak 6y ago
Are you okay with Apple requiring that if you offer services on their devices not through Apple Pay or sell your app via a 3rd party store that you must also offer them at the same price using Apple Pay and on the App Store? It has to be this way because otherwise you can force someone to use your 3rd party processor by making the Apple price 100x or something. If your payment processor is better than Apple you can pocket the 30%. Because why people are so quick to defend Apple out of a fear that if this crap is allowed then it will become the only option and users will wind up with less control and choice.
- stingraycharles 6y ago
  I’d say that always requiring an Apple Pay option (in addition to optional third party payment mechanisms) is fair when you’re acting inside Apple’s walled garden. The problem right now is that it’s exclusively Apple, with a hefty tax, which is akin to a supermarket only accepting their own credit cards and no other payment options and adding a big premium to all products in the process. Apple will have to settle for the “real” price though, if they add a steep premium to all transactions they shouldn’t require the other payment options to price match that.
- ianferrel 6y ago
  None of my other computing devices require software merchants to use a particular payment processor or pay certain prices, and it seems fine to me. So, yes, I'm fine with that.

colinmhayes 6y ago

Not paying 30% fees to apple absolutely helps consumers. If you look at the demand elasticity on mobile payments you'll see that fee's are mostly passed on to consumers. Developers will be happy to give a 25% discount to get that extra 2-3% after credit card fees.

Spivak 6y ago
If you can get away with charging $5.99 for an app today why would you charge less on a 3rd party store?
- jdashg 6y ago
  If you can drive higher volume due to better margins, of course you would! The curve changes.
- nikitaga 6y ago
  Because that's how competitive markets work? Lower costs for suppliers (developers) means lower equilibrium market prices. If some developer can "get away" with not lowering their prices in response to reduced costs, it means they could have "gotten away" with charging a higher price in the first place. So why aren't they charging a higher price now? Probably because they can't actually "get away" with it, i.e. they would lose more volume to make the increase in price unprofitable. Most consumer software has tons of competition, almost nothing is so unique that consumers wouldn't respond to relative price changes.
- hamandcheese 6y ago
  I would also argue that even if the savings aren’t passed directly to the consumer in the form of money, it’s still better for consumers if that money helps support app developers rather than making Apples stacks of cash a little bit taller.
- jayd16 6y ago
  Because you could charge up to 29% less to draw out direct purchases and still make more than an App Store purchase.

pier25 6y ago

> so Apple also can't just charge nothing They have +20M devs paying $100 per year.

MichaelApproved 6y ago
Wow, 20 million developers paying $100. I had no idea it was that high. So they make $2 billion a year in just dev fees? Do you have a source for that?
- pier25 6y ago
  It was 20M in 2018, so it's probably more now: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-hits-20m-registered-developers-at-100b-in-revenues-500m-visitors-per-week/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/04/app-store-hits-20m-registe...
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    Registered developer != paying developer. Think about how many iOS developers a company has, they don’t pay $99/yr for each one, the company instead pays that once (usually) for all of them.
    - pier25 6y ago
      That's a good point. But even if 50% of registered AppStore devs didn't pay their fee, 1B is still a huge pile of cash.
      - jsjohnst 6y ago
        Pure WAG, but I’m guessing <10% of registered developers are paying the annual fee.

_qulr 6y ago

This doomsday scenario is completely refuted by the longtime existence of the Apple Mac and third-party Mac software.

diebeforei485 6y ago

Apple makes exceptions for payment processing on apps already (for example Amazon Video). I think Apple would have a lot more goodwill if they reduced their take. It's unlikelybanyone would sue over 10-15%.