14 ms·

I'm actually happier to pay a small premium for IAP based subscriptions because of the cancellation options. Having been subjected to asinine "retention" polic

• ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  And honestly, I have no problem with Apple even insisting there be an Apple IAP model (like they require "Sign in with Apple" offered alongside alternatives). Because choosing to pay the Apple tax is perfectly fine, especially if you feel it provides you benefits. The issue is Apple's requirement that you can only use IAP, cannot offer alternative, cheaper, prices, cannot direct people to your website to sign up for things, and cannot even disclose what portion of the bill goes to Apple. Your post proves Apple could still make money with offering it as an option for informed users. But Apple is being a bully and a thug by disallowing alternatives, and actively preventing app developers from telling people about them. What Epic did with Fortnite should be the gold standard: Buy direct or pay through Apple. The latter providing potentially better privacy/security and user experience at a price premium.
  • gshulegaard 6y ago
    I somewhat disagree. I think the gold standard would have been for Fortnite to simply increase the prices of IAP purchases on iOS devices to pass the 30% on to consumers who choose to use iOS IAP. I can't seem to find a rule that says pricing must be the same for IAP as elsewhere in current guidelines: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#subscriptions https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sub... That seems like the best of both worlds in the sense that as a user you can choose to purchase in iOS for convenience or go to Fortnite elsewhere and purchase there for cheaper. This move just seems like Epic wanted to pick a fight, they weren't actually interested in offsetting the Apple cut.
    • ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      I think there's something inherently unethical about Apple making it against the rules to let people know they're paying more to buy it on Apple though.
      • vlozko 6y ago
        That’s like Apple selling their watches in a Target store and on their box advertise lower priced wrist bands on apple.com on the box. No way would Target tolerate that.
        • inopinatus 6y ago
          I think it's more like Target dictating what marketing materials may not appear inside the box, because this happens after you already have the app.
        • punitxsmart 6y ago
          Lower price on apple.com ? Hahaha...good one!
• andrewmunsell 6y ago
  Why not just use temporary card numbers, a la Privacy.com (I am not affiliated with them, just a user)? I've taken to using Privacy/temp card numbers for all subscriptions. They have strict spending limits set and if needed, I'll deactivate the number. Sure, someone probably could send your "debt" to collections, but will they?
• varispeed 6y ago
  I believe that in many countries it is now illegal practice to make cancellation difficult.
• fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  If you are happy then many others will be happy as well and Apple should be able to compete on merit. I'm all for mandating an IAP option. But forcing apps to keep customers in the dark about other, cheaper options borders on deception.
• nathankunicki 6y ago
  The main problem there is you are not able to pay a premium for IAP subscriptions. Apple mandates that functionally equal options cost the same inside the app as outside, despite Apple taking the 30% cut for IAP.
  • gingerlime 6y ago
    > Apple mandates that functionally equal options cost the same inside the app as outside Do they? I heard it before, but when I tried to search the developer guidelines, I couldn’t spot anything specific about this.
• TheRealPomax 6y ago
  This is the opposite argument to what the problem is right now. It's not that IAP is bad, or that it shouldn't be available. It's that there's no alternative permitted in addition to Apple's IAP model. You're not even allowed to HINT at the fact that you might have alternative ways to pay for the things you want to pay for. Even if your name is hugeservicethateveryoneknows, you can't tell people that you have a website where they can manage their account. IAP is great, and setting rules such that if apps offer IAP, they have to at least offer the platform's own payment service as initial and preferred choice, is perfectly reasonable. But it's extortion if you own the entire ecosystem and promise to ban anyone who wants to offer additional, alternative means of account/service management for a product/service that you have no business ownership of.
  • pwinnski 6y ago
    This seems like a pretty large misreading of the situation. Yes, the most disagreeable thing about Apple's IAP policies is where they forbid links to alternative purchase pages. But it is also the smallest of the current complaints. It's not "additional" means of purchases many companies are pushing for. They want to be able to avoid offering Apple's IAP whatsoever. I mean, ProtonMail did not have IAP in their app at all, but offered options to pay for their service on their website. Apple insisted, as you suggest, that they "at least offer the platform's own payment service as initial and preferred choice," and now ProtonMail is saying that is "Mafia extortion."
    • rockostrich 6y ago
      Yea, I have trouble understanding how this is any different than how people purchase things in person. When you go to Best Buy and buy a TV they obviously aren't going to let the TV manufacturers advertise that you can buy the TV for cheaper directly from the manufacturer. Obviously it's not a 1-1 comparison, but Apple is giving the apps a similar platform to sell their product.
      • zamadatix 6y ago
        It's not a 1-1 comparison only because it sidesteps the crux of the debate completely and focuses on the strawman portion. What's argued as anticompetitive against these app stores is the integration of consumer devices with storefronts not that independent storefronts exist and don't advertise other storefronts.
• lorthemar 6y ago
  While I don't have any data on it. I think that retention tactics that drag out the process might be more harmful in the future. Especially in terms of brand image. I might be cancelling the service for a short while or I might be switching companies/priorities. If the cancellation process is tedious, I won't feel like returning to that service. In terms of the argument here, it feels like Proton Mail is trying to mirror Spotify's argument. The only problem is that, Spotify was a direct competitor to Apple Music. This is entirely different. Apple is providing a marketplace for apps, and many companies like Proton Mail are actually exploiting the system. The only fault here is Apple's approach to the issue. But in this specific case, I don't think there's any mafia action going on unlike the whole Spotify drama.
  • bsg75 6y ago
    > I think that retention tactics that drag out the process might be more harmful in the future. I agree, but the case I directly observed was when the only focus was on the current period. What happened in the current month or quarter was the only concern. Long term effects were "too complex to worry about". This form of business myopia is all too common.
• lisper 6y ago
  30% is not an amount I would consider a "small" premium.
  • bsg75 6y ago
    > I'm not debating if a 30% cut is reasonable
    • lisper 6y ago
      Neither am I. I'm debating whether it is small. > I'm actually happier to pay a small premium
  • stefano 6y ago
    The premium is actually higher than that. For $100, the developer gets $70. Which means the premium is $30 on a $70 base price, i.e. a ~42% higher price. That's a very steep price for easier payment cancellation.
    • systemvoltage 6y ago
      It is the percentage of the market price that the customer paid, not what developer got. You're twisting this. Think about it this way - if Apple was not in the middle, the developer would have received $100. So it is 30% less than what they would have received without Apple cut.
      • donmcronald 6y ago
        They meant the user pays a 42% premium. If the developer needs to earn $70 they need to charge $100 on the App Store which is a 42% increase for the user. So if you’re talking about passing along those costs it’s +42% on every purchase.
        • systemvoltage 6y ago
          No! The supply-demand curve intersects at $100 and not $70. 70/30 split is an internal transaction and cost of doing business. No different than distributor cut if you’re selling physical products. The customer paid $100. That is by definition the price. All costs are relative to the price. For example, sales tax or transaction fees.
• foofoo4u 6y ago
  You may be interested in https://privacy.com/ https://privacy.com/. I use it for all online subscriptions. It allows me to block all transactions, which brings me back control of what I am paying for.
• systemvoltage 6y ago
  I think HN discussions have always been focusing on developer/business side of things but people don't realize that users - they don't care what happens in the backend. They care about the experience and Apple delivers, and then some. I think Apple's 30% can be debated but a vanishingly small slice of users know this and care about it, millions of users just want to do their thing with beautiful ease and experience.
  • donmcronald 6y ago
    I find it so weird because retail seems to be a huge race towards the lowest quality due to demand for the lowest prices. If you put 2 identical products in the retail world and charged +42% for one of them no one would buy it. My impression is that it’s tough to sell a much better product at higher prices. The only way I can make it work in my mind is that from the users’ perspective there are no alternatives. IE: They don’t know it’s 30% off at the store down the road.
• forty 6y ago
  I feel it's the contrary. We are generally happy to refund customers that are not happy with our service, but the app store is the only payment system where we cannot refund them (I don't really know what the UX looks like on the customer side, but I think they have to contact Apple to ask for the refund and it's not always as easy as it should to get the refund) Note that things might have changed since I worked on this stuff.
  • fakedang 6y ago
    It's the same for Android too
    • forty 6y ago
      No, I believe we can refund ourselves payments on the play store (or at least I'm pretty sure we at least used to)
      • fakedang 6y ago
        I meant the calling up an Appstore rep and asking for the refund part. I know you definitely have to have a human to human interaction to get a Playstore refund.
  • drtz 6y ago
    I can confirm it's not straightforward to get a refund from Apple for an App Store purchase, it was for me at least. In the most recent case I tried to request a refund immediately after buying an app, only to get a vague and unhelpful error message. After a little Googling I learned that you have to wait a period of a few hours before requesting a refund. Of course I forgot to go back and request the refund later so I ended up paying for an app that didn't do what I expected it to.
• mindvirus 6y ago
  I wonder if there's a startup in that. Imagine a site where you pay a small premium and they manage your subscriptions - handling payment, cancellation and so on for you. You can see all of your subs, maybe even compare deals and stuff
• justaguy88 6y ago
  Being able to easily click 'cancel' is worth every penny
• e40 6y ago
  Regarding the NYT: either use paypal, so you can cancel their ability to charge, or a CC with virtual CC numbers (e.g. Citi). That way, you can't be charged unless you want it.
• yyyk 6y ago
  Users who don't like Apple policies are often told to 'switch to Android'. But how one does that when the subscription cannot be managed without an Apple device/account and there's no way to 'pass' your subscription directly to the merchant? That's pretty much the definition of lock-in - there's no way to cut Apple out. Apple on the other hand could remove the user out by banning all its subscriptions - which is far more damaging than any one merchant deciding to do so. The power imbalance is utterly on Apple's side.
  • marketingPro 6y ago
    Hmm interesting dilemma I hadn't considered. I've been pretty okay with blaming low information consumers for buying any Apple product, but this is totally different. How can users escape Apple? You are not the first person to complain about getting locked in because they used an Apple account. I don't have a good solution, but maybe this will be a good lesson you can carry on for the rest of your life.
  • dane-pgp 6y ago
    You're right. The "just switch to Android" excuse is so disingenuous, as the problem here is not just the switching cost for users, but the cost for businesses who might only employ iOS developers. Saying that a company "just" has to fire most of its staff if Apple ever detrimentally change their App Store rules is more obviously unreasonable than telling a user to buy a new phone.
• Spooky23 6y ago
  There’s a lot of drama associated with this stuff. 100% of nothing is less than 70% of something. When I was in college I interned at a company that negotiated retail placements for stuff like software. The 30% slice is a much better model than the terms our customers were stuck with. In some cases, software people lose more in the channel for commercial software as well — companies like SHI skim the cream for doing almost nothing. I can say as someone running a big enterprise org that there is no chance in hell that I’m wasting time negotiating terms with little companies, but Apple’s App Store model makes it possible to buy stuff.
  • gowld 6y ago
    That's great. Apple's great app store should compete in a free market for all stores, and you can enjoy shopping there.
    • Spooky23 6y ago
      Great point, that has had a huge impact on the quality and pricing of applications on the Android platform.
  • donmcronald 6y ago
    > When I was in college I interned at a company that negotiated retail placements for stuff like software. The 30% slice is a much better model than the terms our customers were stuck with. When I was in middle school a computer costed as much as a small car. Times change. Physical distribution of most software is dead and the associated costs are completely different now.
    • Spooky23 6y ago
      Only for the tiny sliver of direct sales. There’s a whole industry of middlemen that exists for various reasons.
  • gogopuppygogo 6y ago
    Agreed. Channel margin can exceed 30% commissions for enterprise SaaS. I see more of an issue with Apple telling Telegram how to moderate their platform than with the high fees for distribution on the platform.
• dtech 6y ago
  In the EU consumer protection law mandate this. You have to be able to cancel in all the same ways that you can sign up. The most common way to pay subscriptions is with SEPA direct debit, and banks have to let you revoke those authorizations even retro-actively for 90 days.
  • Someone 6y ago
    I don’t think stopping automatic payments automatically cancels the subscription. It just stops the money flow, but keeps you liable for the payments. It means the company has to make an effort to get money flowing again, though. Many will know that’s not worth it and stop the service instead. (Corrections welcome)
    • dtech 6y ago
      That's correct. However, it's useful for situations where you tried to unsubscribe, and have proof, and the company is still charging.
    • colejohnson66 6y ago
      But there are some who will let you accrue your debt over the years and then send you to collections.
  • ascagnel_ 6y ago
    US consumer laws have been woefully inadequate for decades, and this is another instance where they’re lacking. You can issue an individual chargeback if you happened to use a credit card, but that can have adverse effects on both you and the merchant. If you used an ATM/bank card, your bank may go to bat for you, but there’s no guarantee. I’m in the same boat re: Apple/Google subscription options. They don’t have a vested interest in keeping you attached to a single subscription, so they’ll keep the cancellation option easy in favor of keeping you in their ecosystem.
  • whatatita 6y ago
    I think a biggissue in this space is how dated the US banking industry is. They trail behind in so many ways that are anti-consumer and then they're used to justify draconion mafia moves like this one from Apple.
• glasss 6y ago
  It's awful that in today's world, a feature of a platform is that they don't partake in a particular scummy business practice. It's a shame that we even have this issue.
  • r00fus 6y ago
    Blame the "no regulation" crowd for that. Well functioning regulation and consumer protection is what promotes good things by forcing bad actors to get in line.
    • gowld 6y ago
      There's no guarantee that regulation is good regulation.
      • CamperBob2 6y ago
        Very true, which is why a smart merchant won't push their luck by abusing their customers. Turns out a lot of them, such as the NYT, aren't that smart.
      • baq 6y ago
        And there is no guarantee that bad regulation is worse than no regulation.
    • jungturk 6y ago
      In theory, a competitive market could achieve the same goals, but in practice, it seems like marketplaces often need some regulatory nudging to get over the humps.
      • r00fus 6y ago
        Completely unregulated free markets lead to extremes like slavery and leaded toys. Regulatory practices can be abused or coopted (leading to regulatory capture) but that shouldn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing. Would you frequent a completely unmoderated online forum? We all know how chatroulette turned out...
• wycy 6y ago
  > ex: NYT NYT is a great example of this. It took me multiple attempts over a span of 2 days to cancel my NYT subscription. There have been a few times since then when I've been tempted to re-subscribe (their election results tools are great), but remembering how hard it was to unsubscribe, I don't think I'll go back.
  • gnicholas 6y ago
    Many local libraries offer NYT subscriptions through their portal. I think they only last for a year, so you have to renew them each year, but it's better than having to worry about cancellation.
    • reaperducer 6y ago
      This is a good tip. In several cities where I've lived, your library card would grant you online access to dozens or hundreds of newspapers from around the world. Some you could even download to your iPad to read later.
  • abawany 6y ago
    You know, this hasn't been my experience. The ability to get CS via chat to work on subscriptions stops/cancels has worked for me, albeit with a non-blocking wait. Edit0: wanted to add that my subscriptions (personal, gift) were done via PayPal (pre-approved payments) so I could cancel via there as well but the NYT chat/cs worked fine for me.
    • tzs 6y ago
      Mine was by credit card. I called the support number, got picked up quickly, told them I didn't have enough time for it and wanted to cancel. I also made it clear that I just wanted to cancel my newspaper subscription, not my crossword subscription, and mentioned that I realized I would no longer get 1/2 off on the crossword puzzle subscription. He cancelled the newspaper subscription, and then told me that I was mistaken about no longer getting 1/2 off on the crossword puzzle subscription. I'd only go back to full price on that if I let it expire and then re-ordered. As long as I have the subscription on auto-renew and those payments go through, it will stay at 1/2 price.
• ksk 6y ago
  No reason to think that this UX can't be duplicated in non-Apple app stores. It only artificially looks like that because Apple forces users and devs to only use their store. If users don't trust other App stores, they can simply avoid using them. Millions of people trust non-apple online stores with their money. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on good customer service either.
• walterbell 6y ago
  Yes, Apple subscriptions are a reliable way to signup for HBO or Showtime to binge-watch a specific show. Signup and immediately cancel the subscription, that gives you 30 days to watch. No further payment management actions needed.
  • macjohnmcc 6y ago
    It is funny that if you sign up for a 7 day free trial of Apple TV+ that if you cancel immediately before the end of the 7 days your trial is up immediately as well.
    • jaywalk 6y ago
      Rules for thee...
    • mynameisvlad 6y ago
      But that's a free trial. If you sign up for an Apple TV+ subscription and immediately cancel, it does the same thing as any other subscription.
    • mudetroit 6y ago
      Free trial is a bit different then what the parent was describing though. Which is paying for a month and turning off auto-renew effectively.
    • walterbell 6y ago
      Also applies to 1-year Apple TV trial.