3 ms·
For any app which has an existence beyond the app store, customers can already pay without Apple. Customers can pay for Microsoft Office, Amazon Prime, or Netfl
by threatofrain 6y ago
For any app which has an existence beyond the app store, customers can already pay without Apple. Customers can pay for Microsoft Office, Amazon Prime, or Netflix on their own through conventional channels.
Apple's position is that if you are delivering digital goods to be used on their devices, then you must offer an additional way to pay.
From the consumer's perspective my choices have now grown. Where before I could've managed my own relationships with Microsoft and others, now I can have the option for Apple to intermediate. For people with elderly parents and runaway subscriptions, this is crazy valuable.
And while I say customers can manage their own relationships, the truth is that without Apple backing them up, it's companies who will get the better of the relationship by successfully compelling customers to go through their bad payment system, like they already do.
- ryanbrunner 6y agoI think this would be a fair statement if the customer was given an option on the device, but when you consider that scenario, it becomes super clear that Apple's take is predatory: - Either pay X, your purchase is handled through Stripe / Paypal, and your relationship is with the company directly. - Or pay X + 30%, and your relationship is with Apple Certainly I can see some advantages to the second option, but how many customers do you think would willingly pay a 30% premium for that given the choice. At 5-10% (i.e. a few percentage points above established and legit payment processors, but ones that are a little less full-service), I think it becomes a much more reasonable argument.