5 ms·

>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

>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.
jdminhbg 6y ago
> I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. In this case, you have to let your kid take your credit card and input it into any sketchy gaming company's web form. What happens from there?
- agentdrtran 6y ago
  this already happens regularly with iOS! Parents setup fingerprint payments and their kids go nuts with IAPs.
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    The IAPs are vetted by Apple, and a developer who gets authorized to use one can't turn around and reuse that IAP access to charge other things. Yes, some IAP scams get by review and end up making the news. But the difference between that happening and a free-for-all of credit card numbers for scam games is massive.
    - JetSpiegel 6y ago
      > The IAPs are vetted by Apple > some IAP scams get by review Schrodinger's Vetting
- m3kw9 6y ago
  The 20% is temporary incentive to get away from iOS’s 30% it’s all about them lineing their own pockets
  - wobblykiwi 6y ago
    It's permanent. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
BluSyn 6y ago
> I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. I find it hard to believe a company like Epic would lower prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. Their claims of corporate altruism here are clearly overstated. That said, this might be true for indie developers that would like to charge less to increase their user base, so I think Apple should probably lower fees to 10-15%. I think that's far more reasonable. > 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. I agree with the premise that competition can lower prices, which is very pro-consumer. That said, I don't think a degraded UX, and potentially huge privacy disaster would be great for consumers. Cost isn't the only factor. In a third-party App scenario, Apple wouldn't be in a position to prevent privacy violations. The amount of data siphoned from this third-party store is likely to be game changing. Facebook could ask users to use their own store so they can track everything you do, and majority of users won't understand that difference. Not to mention countries like China would then likely demand all citizens use the app store full of spyware. Once again it comes down to security vs. usability debate that I think will always be at the heart of these issues.
- tavianator 6y ago
  > I find it hard to believe a company like Epic would lower prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. But they did: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkyvvk/fortnite-developer-is-now-daring-apple-and-google-to-ban-the-game https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkyvvk/fortnite-developer...
  - mirthflat83 6y ago
    Just like how you see the "sales price" on Amazon and Walmart? Ok.

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.

jdminhbg 6y ago

> I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. In this case, you have to let your kid take your credit card and input it into any sketchy gaming company's web form. What happens from there?

agentdrtran 6y ago
this already happens regularly with iOS! Parents setup fingerprint payments and their kids go nuts with IAPs.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  The IAPs are vetted by Apple, and a developer who gets authorized to use one can't turn around and reuse that IAP access to charge other things. Yes, some IAP scams get by review and end up making the news. But the difference between that happening and a free-for-all of credit card numbers for scam games is massive.
  - JetSpiegel 6y ago
    > The IAPs are vetted by Apple > some IAP scams get by review Schrodinger's Vetting
m3kw9 6y ago
The 20% is temporary incentive to get away from iOS’s 30% it’s all about them lineing their own pockets
- wobblykiwi 6y ago
  It's permanent. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

BluSyn 6y ago

> I mean, in this case, the consumer is literally saving 20% for the same purchase. Seems good to me. I find it hard to believe a company like Epic would lower prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. Their claims of corporate altruism here are clearly overstated. That said, this might be true for indie developers that would like to charge less to increase their user base, so I think Apple should probably lower fees to 10-15%. I think that's far more reasonable. > 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. I agree with the premise that competition can lower prices, which is very pro-consumer. That said, I don't think a degraded UX, and potentially huge privacy disaster would be great for consumers. Cost isn't the only factor. In a third-party App scenario, Apple wouldn't be in a position to prevent privacy violations. The amount of data siphoned from this third-party store is likely to be game changing. Facebook could ask users to use their own store so they can track everything you do, and majority of users won't understand that difference. Not to mention countries like China would then likely demand all citizens use the app store full of spyware. Once again it comes down to security vs. usability debate that I think will always be at the heart of these issues.

tavianator 6y ago
> I find it hard to believe a company like Epic would lower prices in response. They want that 30% for themselves. But they did: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkyvvk/fortnite-developer-is-now-daring-apple-and-google-to-ban-the-game https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkyvvk/fortnite-developer...
- mirthflat83 6y ago
  Just like how you see the "sales price" on Amazon and Walmart? Ok.