5 ms·

If I buy a box of cookies from a grocery store for $3, should I expect a note in the box which says I can buy them directly from the manufacturer for only $2?

hu3 6y ago
The point is Apple forbids developers from letting customers aware of the 30% tax. And if you really want to oversimplify the discussion to a brick and mortar analogy, it's common for grocery stores to make taxes explicit in receipts: https://i.imgur.com/Lp3nwlH.png https://i.imgur.com/Lp3nwlH.png
- zeroimpl 6y ago
  That’s not the same thing at all. I’m saying that you bought the product from a grocery store, and the product itself contains information discouraging you from continuing to buy from the grocery store. In the app case, you bought an IAP from Apple (I know it’s Facebook’s app, but that doesn’t change the fact that the transaction was executed by Apple) but somehow think it’s ok for there to be a note saying you can pay less if you buy it on your computer instead.
  - Osiris 6y ago
    Facebook want saying they could pay less. They were saying, if you pay $10, $7 goes to the event, $3 goes to apple. It didn't say "go to this other website and just pay $7". I think it's totally reasonable to disclose the fees, I would even argue that it's the morally correct thing to do.
onhn 6y ago
I think this would be great, yes. The store has no reason to hide the markup if its fair, reflecting the convenience they added.
untog 6y ago
By the sounds of it Facebook’s note didn’t say “buy from us”, it simply notified users that Apple will take a 30% cut. I’m loathe to care either way here because I don’t think any giant multinational needs me to speak in their favour, but the part that grinds with me is that Apple blocked it under a rule about “irrelevant information”. Given that FB created this feature for community events the fact that 30% wouldn’t be going to the host of the event feels like very relevant information to me. If Apple wants to have a rule that says “we decide what you can and cannot say” then they should just make one rather than hide behind other rules.
- Osiris 6y ago
  This send to be a common thing that Apple does. I read an article recently about how some had a lot of unwritten rules but uses it's vaguely written public rules to enforce them, as is happening in this case. "Irrelevant" is an entirely subjective term. The real question is, if Apple don't want to an app to talk about the 30% cut, why is there not a rule that explicitly states that?
mulmen 6y ago
Printing the manufacturer’s suggested price on the outside of grocery packaging is common.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  I'm in the UK and things may be different here but we only get "Recommended Retail Price" which I'm sure includes a margin for the shopkeeper (although I will concede my knowledge of wholesale prices is long out of date.)
SilasX 6y ago
No. But you should expect (I think?) the grocery store not to ban the cookie maker from packing notes about how to order from the maker directly. (Edit: I mentioned that because, per the story, I think Apple has a policy of prohibiting you from telling users how to circumvent Apple's cut.) I actually don't know if grocery stores generally require this -- maybe they do. I suspect it's not an issue because it's generally going to be more expensive to do one-off orders directly from the OEM, unless it's an order too large for the grocery store to want to manage anyway. Edit 2: Earlier comment where I made your point in a different context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162403
dathinab 6y ago
It's fully legal, it's called UVP. You state the price it "freely" cost on your product. And if it cost somewhere more because additional costs is clearly visible. Lastly this is not about saying "you can buy it cheaper there" but saying "apple gets 30% of this". Which the difference between not so nice marketing and making prices more transparent the later one is a fundamental part of a (working) free marked...
- graeme 6y ago
  Do you mean the mrsp? That doesn’t tell you retailer vs. wholesaler vs. manufacturer share.
dahfizz 6y ago
Should such a note be illegal?
- zeroimpl 6y ago
  No, but the grocery store can choose to not sell any product which does this.
Apocryphon 6y ago
It’s a known practice. https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWObybWWGW4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWObybWWGW4
roywiggins 6y ago
Well, there's a reason Arizona Tea prints "99c" on the can
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  Isn't it $1.29 now?
jacquesm 6y ago
You won't be able to. Minimum volume orders are a thing.
yohannparis 6y ago
I don't think your example is right, it will be more, if you buy this box of cookie, Visa will take 25 cents + 3%, the grocery bank will take 2%, etc. Here Apple enforce that you do not have to create an account with Facebook to purchase goods and services on Facebook. That people can use their Apple ID, then that's a 30% cut.

hu3 6y ago

The point is Apple forbids developers from letting customers aware of the 30% tax. And if you really want to oversimplify the discussion to a brick and mortar analogy, it's common for grocery stores to make taxes explicit in receipts: https://i.imgur.com/Lp3nwlH.png https://i.imgur.com/Lp3nwlH.png

zeroimpl 6y ago
That’s not the same thing at all. I’m saying that you bought the product from a grocery store, and the product itself contains information discouraging you from continuing to buy from the grocery store. In the app case, you bought an IAP from Apple (I know it’s Facebook’s app, but that doesn’t change the fact that the transaction was executed by Apple) but somehow think it’s ok for there to be a note saying you can pay less if you buy it on your computer instead.
- Osiris 6y ago
  Facebook want saying they could pay less. They were saying, if you pay $10, $7 goes to the event, $3 goes to apple. It didn't say "go to this other website and just pay $7". I think it's totally reasonable to disclose the fees, I would even argue that it's the morally correct thing to do.

onhn 6y ago

I think this would be great, yes. The store has no reason to hide the markup if its fair, reflecting the convenience they added.

untog 6y ago

By the sounds of it Facebook’s note didn’t say “buy from us”, it simply notified users that Apple will take a 30% cut. I’m loathe to care either way here because I don’t think any giant multinational needs me to speak in their favour, but the part that grinds with me is that Apple blocked it under a rule about “irrelevant information”. Given that FB created this feature for community events the fact that 30% wouldn’t be going to the host of the event feels like very relevant information to me. If Apple wants to have a rule that says “we decide what you can and cannot say” then they should just make one rather than hide behind other rules.

Osiris 6y ago
This send to be a common thing that Apple does. I read an article recently about how some had a lot of unwritten rules but uses it's vaguely written public rules to enforce them, as is happening in this case. "Irrelevant" is an entirely subjective term. The real question is, if Apple don't want to an app to talk about the 30% cut, why is there not a rule that explicitly states that?

mulmen 6y ago

Printing the manufacturer’s suggested price on the outside of grocery packaging is common.

zimpenfish 6y ago
I'm in the UK and things may be different here but we only get "Recommended Retail Price" which I'm sure includes a margin for the shopkeeper (although I will concede my knowledge of wholesale prices is long out of date.)

SilasX 6y ago

No. But you should expect (I think?) the grocery store not to ban the cookie maker from packing notes about how to order from the maker directly. (Edit: I mentioned that because, per the story, I think Apple has a policy of prohibiting you from telling users how to circumvent Apple's cut.) I actually don't know if grocery stores generally require this -- maybe they do. I suspect it's not an issue because it's generally going to be more expensive to do one-off orders directly from the OEM, unless it's an order too large for the grocery store to want to manage anyway. Edit 2: Earlier comment where I made your point in a different context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162403

dathinab 6y ago

It's fully legal, it's called UVP. You state the price it "freely" cost on your product. And if it cost somewhere more because additional costs is clearly visible. Lastly this is not about saying "you can buy it cheaper there" but saying "apple gets 30% of this". Which the difference between not so nice marketing and making prices more transparent the later one is a fundamental part of a (working) free marked...

graeme 6y ago
Do you mean the mrsp? That doesn’t tell you retailer vs. wholesaler vs. manufacturer share.

dahfizz 6y ago

Should such a note be illegal?

zeroimpl 6y ago
No, but the grocery store can choose to not sell any product which does this.

Apocryphon 6y ago

It’s a known practice. https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWObybWWGW4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWObybWWGW4

roywiggins 6y ago

Well, there's a reason Arizona Tea prints "99c" on the can

zimpenfish 6y ago
Isn't it $1.29 now?

jacquesm 6y ago

You won't be able to. Minimum volume orders are a thing.

yohannparis 6y ago

I don't think your example is right, it will be more, if you buy this box of cookie, Visa will take 25 cents + 3%, the grocery bank will take 2%, etc. Here Apple enforce that you do not have to create an account with Facebook to purchase goods and services on Facebook. That people can use their Apple ID, then that's a 30% cut.