4 ms·

Apple isn't hiding how much the user needs to pay for a purchase, they can still make the determination that they need to go somewhere else. This would be like

Apple isn't hiding how much the user needs to pay for a purchase, they can still make the determination that they need to go somewhere else. This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. It's irrelevant to the consumers, what they pay doesn't change.

hanselot 6y ago
Walmart == AppStore? Does walmart also only sell things at 30% markup or is there perhaps some possibility that in reality, things are valued differently based on what they are. Buying a computer is not something I do often, therefore it has high markup and cost. Buying groceries, that is a different story. It for sure doesn't cost apple anything to have the bit of information under the approval message. Ironically, it does cost them money to find a way to block it from being displayed.
SyneRyder 6y ago
> This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. This actually happens in Australia. Because AmEx charges an extra 1.75% to businesses, stores display a warning at checkout that using an AmEx card will incur an extra fee of 1.75%. Edit: Here's an example graphic from the Australian Government website, explaining that it's illegal for a business to charge more than what it costs them: https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharging%20infographic_1.png https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharg...
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  Apple isn't passing the extra fee onto the customer, neither is FB. I understand your point, but it's not applicable here.
  - amaccuish 6y ago
    I think you're confused because Apple is acting as a payment processor (even though there is another one for the card) and as a marketplace.
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      Is your argument that apple is passing off the extra 30% fee to the consumer? If not then what you just said is bullshit.
m-p-3 6y ago
It's still a significant amount of money that is paid towards Apple on each purchases. A bit of transparency should be done to explicitly know how much of your money goes where, kinda like how airlines must describe how much of your money goes towards different fees (at least that's how it is in my country). Sure, it doesn't change how much it ends costing me, but I get a better idea of the costs associated.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  FB has no right to any specific messaging on Apple's platform. If they really really had a problem with it they would leave the platform. But we both know they won't, so instead they're trying to put pressure on Apple's customers to force Apple to allow them to do what they want. And the funny thing is that Apple is actually the one thinking about the customers. The recent privacy changes is what prompted this. It's literally two tech companies fighting. It boggles my mind that people think FB has some moral or ethical upper hand here.
  - stOneskull 6y ago
    it's like board room A and board room B. little butterfly effects in the past and those executives could be repping for the other team.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    Only 2 viable App Stores. At some point Apple and google will have full control of all access to the web and content. Other stuff will be more like what we think of as the dark web now
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      right, and there are problems with this. But this is irrelevant to the current topic.
fogetti 6y ago
Is there something which I need to explain better to you to understand what I am saying? I am really puzzled by your thinking TBH. This is not a binary thing. It's not like you either have the information or not. It's more like you either have little or no information, satisfying level of information or it can even be an overwhelmingly detailed amount of information. Depending on how much and of what kind of quality of info you have, you can have varying level of leverage. So in effect and by definition that info is not irrelevant.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  The hubris in believing your position is so right the only way someone could believe you're wrong is if they're misunderstanding your position. I don't get an itemized list of all the vendors the restaurant had to pay in order to bring me my meal, I just get a bill for the cost of the food. It's only complicated if you make it complicated, which you kind of have to do in order to rationalize the belief that FB is being wronged here.
  - fogetti 6y ago
    > the only way someone could believe you're wrong is if they're misunderstanding your position Yes, that's how it is. And you are the proof of it.
munk-a 6y ago
Visa and MasterCard will sue you (and disconnect you Point of Sale device really quickly) if you try and pass those costs transparently onto the customer - they've loosened the rules a bit for minimum purchase quantities (i.e. 5$ minimum for credit card purchase) but if you try charging an extra x% of the listed price when people pay with credit card they will go after you hard.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  That's a strawman, I said nothing about Wal-mart passing the cost onto the consumer.

hanselot 6y ago

Walmart == AppStore? Does walmart also only sell things at 30% markup or is there perhaps some possibility that in reality, things are valued differently based on what they are. Buying a computer is not something I do often, therefore it has high markup and cost. Buying groceries, that is a different story. It for sure doesn't cost apple anything to have the bit of information under the approval message. Ironically, it does cost them money to find a way to block it from being displayed.

SyneRyder 6y ago

> This would be like Wal-mart putting up signs telling everyone they have to pay Visa fee's. This actually happens in Australia. Because AmEx charges an extra 1.75% to businesses, stores display a warning at checkout that using an AmEx card will incur an extra fee of 1.75%. Edit: Here's an example graphic from the Australian Government website, explaining that it's illegal for a business to charge more than what it costs them: https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharging%20infographic_1.png https://www.accc.gov.au/sites/www.accc.gov.au/files/Surcharg...

RandoHolmes 6y ago
Apple isn't passing the extra fee onto the customer, neither is FB. I understand your point, but it's not applicable here.
- amaccuish 6y ago
  I think you're confused because Apple is acting as a payment processor (even though there is another one for the card) and as a marketplace.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    Is your argument that apple is passing off the extra 30% fee to the consumer? If not then what you just said is bullshit.

m-p-3 6y ago

It's still a significant amount of money that is paid towards Apple on each purchases. A bit of transparency should be done to explicitly know how much of your money goes where, kinda like how airlines must describe how much of your money goes towards different fees (at least that's how it is in my country). Sure, it doesn't change how much it ends costing me, but I get a better idea of the costs associated.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
FB has no right to any specific messaging on Apple's platform. If they really really had a problem with it they would leave the platform. But we both know they won't, so instead they're trying to put pressure on Apple's customers to force Apple to allow them to do what they want. And the funny thing is that Apple is actually the one thinking about the customers. The recent privacy changes is what prompted this. It's literally two tech companies fighting. It boggles my mind that people think FB has some moral or ethical upper hand here.
- stOneskull 6y ago
  it's like board room A and board room B. little butterfly effects in the past and those executives could be repping for the other team.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Only 2 viable App Stores. At some point Apple and google will have full control of all access to the web and content. Other stuff will be more like what we think of as the dark web now
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    right, and there are problems with this. But this is irrelevant to the current topic.

fogetti 6y ago

Is there something which I need to explain better to you to understand what I am saying? I am really puzzled by your thinking TBH. This is not a binary thing. It's not like you either have the information or not. It's more like you either have little or no information, satisfying level of information or it can even be an overwhelmingly detailed amount of information. Depending on how much and of what kind of quality of info you have, you can have varying level of leverage. So in effect and by definition that info is not irrelevant.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
The hubris in believing your position is so right the only way someone could believe you're wrong is if they're misunderstanding your position. I don't get an itemized list of all the vendors the restaurant had to pay in order to bring me my meal, I just get a bill for the cost of the food. It's only complicated if you make it complicated, which you kind of have to do in order to rationalize the belief that FB is being wronged here.
- fogetti 6y ago
  > the only way someone could believe you're wrong is if they're misunderstanding your position Yes, that's how it is. And you are the proof of it.

munk-a 6y ago

Visa and MasterCard will sue you (and disconnect you Point of Sale device really quickly) if you try and pass those costs transparently onto the customer - they've loosened the rules a bit for minimum purchase quantities (i.e. 5$ minimum for credit card purchase) but if you try charging an extra x% of the listed price when people pay with credit card they will go after you hard.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
That's a strawman, I said nothing about Wal-mart passing the cost onto the consumer.