5 ms·

> Senators Richard Blumenthal and Amy Klobuchar, both Democrats, teamed up with Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn to sponsor the bill, which would bar big app

> Senators Richard Blumenthal and Amy Klobuchar, both Democrats, teamed up with Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn to sponsor the bill, which would bar big app stores from requiring app providers to use their payment system. Extremely disappointing. Google and Apple already support other payment methods, but by forcing apps on the iOS store to support Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple, me and my family are all the safer for it. That's part of the reason I jumped into the Apple ecosystem — that Apple intermediates relationships. This is not a pro-consumer move. Consumers already have choice. We should instead have laws for Extremely Strict data handling for payment vendors, including the sale of customer information.

mikedouglas 5y ago
IAP is a platform-enforced monopoly that allows Apple and Google to extract a flat 30% from every digital transaction that happens in an app. It's one of the clearest examples of the deadweight loss from monopolies, as businesses that would otherwise exist but have higher marginal costs can't offer products that consumers would otherwise benefit from. https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402691047940100100 https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/14026910479401001...
- threatofrain 5y ago
  App store fees and Apple Pay are different things. What people are concerned about are increased fees and side-loading apps, and we can have a separate policy discussion on capping fees and having separate stores. What Apple Pay does is protect consumers from having to hand out their credit card information to random companies with less-than-Apple's reputation for handling consumer financial data. This is true both on and off the app store. No other payment vendor is going as far as Apple to protect your financial data, and you most certainly will never have the negotiating position to make Target budge on how they do things.
- 6510 5y ago
  I keep thinking of this burger joint 22 km from my house who do free delivery when I order a rather large 6 euro burger menu. The micro-margins and the monumental effort involved blows my mind. They have to be cheap enough to get enough orders to be able to chain together enough deliveries most of the time. Surely Apple and Google in this settings are entitled to 2 euro for all the work they did. Seems only fair.
pritambaral 5y ago
> Google and Apple already support other payment methods Apple is the only mode of payment allowed in apps in Apple's App Store. No "other payment method" is allowed.
- slownews45 5y ago
  I've successfully used everything from apple pay (note 2FA required) to different credit cards to debit cards to even paypal and weird things like gift cards and add funds. What payment method does apple not support when buying things? Maybe ACH / Wire? Is that realistic for apps?
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    Does that apply to all apps? Can any app provide those modes? Or are those modes restricted only to Amazon-like apps that allow users to buy physical goods etc.? My claim is generic across apps; your anecdotes are limited to certain types of apps.
  - cyral 5y ago
    I think they mean IAP, not Apple Pay. Apple requires every app (unless it's for a physical product and some other exceptions) to use Apple's in app purchase system. You can pay with credit card, gift cards, etc, but 15% (30% over $1mm) goes to Apple, not the merchant - which is what this bill is about, since Apple has a monopoly as the only app store they can charge whatever they want and developers have to put up with it. You can't embed your own payment system, or even make references that such system is available elsewhere (e.g. on your website)
    - slownews45 5y ago
      That is very different. Most users like apple's consistent payment flow and protection it provides, especially if you've dealt with other providers online (and all the scam tactics).
      - summerlight 5y ago
saurik 5y ago
You do realize you are paying upwards of 42% (1/.7) more on every single thing you buy via Apple for that "benefit", right? Like, I see a lot of people say stuff like this, but I just can't imagine that every single time they spend $5 they are mentally picturing handing at least $1 of that to Apple while thanking them for preventing people from telling anyone about alternative ways to pay (or even breaking down that $1 fee so people can viscerally understand what is going on).
- slownews45 5y ago
  You'll actually find that iphone users, because you are relatively "safe" (in my case around subscriptions -> I've never had a problem cancelling on apple where JUST TODAY I'm told I have to call a customer service number to cancel another product - UGH!!!) people will actually spend MORE (much more sometimes). That's the case for me. Subscriptions online generally -> hell no. On apple -> sure.
  - saurik 5y ago
    If that is actually true, then you will still be willing to do it even if I were allowed by Apple to tell you how much money Apple was taking and even if I were allowed to present the option to you in my application and make it just as easy for you to buy using an alternative payment system (instead of having to only implement the feature on my website, and then hope you are curious enough to look). Apple, however, seems to be very confident that it isn't true (well, maybe for you, but that you are an outlier)--that if presented with two payment options, one of which cost $5 and one of which cost only $4 (I needn't even add a markup: my goal might be to make more volume at a lower price), that a lot of people would choose the $4 option--and so they specifically ban both of the above practices.
    - slownews45 5y ago
      We need to be crystal clear that the coalition fighting apple on this (match.com and friends) are EXACTLY the type of people you DO NOT want on your platform. "FTC Sues Owner of Online Dating Service Match.com for Using Fake Love Interest Ads To Trick Consumers into Paying for a Match.com Subscription" DA claim in CA "Match used actions that included misleading billing characterizations, nonconspicuous auto renewal disclosures, elimination of required cancellation disclosures, and imposition of a long and tedious cancellation process,” the district attorney said. Do I think match and all the other scam billers / loot box mechanic providers will be able to get consumers into their impossible to cancel flows with $1 and $0 offers (with hidden huge renewal fees and early cancel requirements)? Sure. Note that Apple's policies cost developers like you LOTS more than just their cut. Their billing flow includes same font size trial renewal details (no * or hidden renewal rules). Their flows include easy cancellations WITH REMINDERS ahead of time on subscriptions (no call to cancel). Their flows include prompts to cancel subscriptions on app deletion (when I deleted the few paid apps I have where you subscribe on provider site they NEVER once emailed me to give me a quick link to cancel related subscription). So you really could offer the $0 and $1 offers and even MAKE MORE MONEY. Do I think this would destroy a lot of the "don't think about it" apple platform vibe? Also for sure. And so as a consumer I'm glad apple keeps these folks in line and off their platform. I can just imagine the spamming pop-ups to try to get folks into these crap billing flows already. Do devs not pay attention to per user cash money revenue? Apple is building a platform that should be MORE lucrative, not less by making it safe to spend money on. Are devs really making more per user on Android? I find that hard to believe. The same sideloading epic likes on android means tons of stuff can be pirated etc.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
Realistically, on the one hand we have the option to incentivize Apple to be an intermediary by letting them increase the price of everything by 42% and pocket the difference. On the other hand, we have the option to ban this practice, and force big app stores to allow alternative payment systems. This will, as you state, predictably lead to some developers building their own insecure alternative payment systems, selling private information, and other negative outcomes. Sometimes it works fine, though. What we're unlikely to get is some utopia in the middle where you can select a sign-in and payment option in each app, where you can choose between paying $5 to Apple and letting them be the intermediary, paying $3.50 to the developers directly, or perhaps paying $3.61 using a 3% markup intermediary.
Covzire 5y ago
Very strongly disagree... consumers have almost no choices on portables today. Should someone as a parent be able to prevent their kids from installing other app stores to bypass Apple's curation, if they deem Apple's App Store the safest? Of course, and that's not liable to change. But what exactly is the argument against device owners being free to procure any available app they want for their own devices, if they so choose? This paradigm already exists on Windows PCs and largely Macs too and it's very successful and the openness is worth the risk for me and any hacker I know. For games, there are several stores like Steam, Epic, GoG, Ubi, Origin, etc and each provide reliable delivery of safe apps, so allowing consumers that same choice on their portable devices absolutely is a pro-consumer stance.
- slownews45 5y ago
  Except you as an individual consumer have zero - ZERO negotiating power vis a vis whatsapp for example. So if WhatsApp makes you get their app through X, and skips all the protections apple offers - you are not getting them to budget.
post_break 5y ago
Do you use a Mac or buy anything on the internet? You can buy iPhones with different payment methods at the Apple Store right? My point being iOS is basically one big lootbox where Apple sells the coins you need to buy (rent) the apps on your iPhone. Consumers deserve the choice to pay developers directly, just like they do on Macs (for now).
MrStonedOne 5y ago
Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause the outcry that lead to this? Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me. Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me. They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
> by forcing apps on the iOS store to support Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple, me and my family are all the safer for it. The legislation will still allow Apple to do this. It will force Apple to allow developers to give users a choice (in addition to Apple pay), to charge different prices for different payment methods. You and your family will be welcome to continue paying via Apple pay if you so choose - the only thing that will change is you'll know how much you're paying Apple for the privilege of using Apple pay.

mikedouglas 5y ago

IAP is a platform-enforced monopoly that allows Apple and Google to extract a flat 30% from every digital transaction that happens in an app. It's one of the clearest examples of the deadweight loss from monopolies, as businesses that would otherwise exist but have higher marginal costs can't offer products that consumers would otherwise benefit from. https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402691047940100100 https://twitter.com/jasminericegirl/status/14026910479401001...

threatofrain 5y ago
App store fees and Apple Pay are different things. What people are concerned about are increased fees and side-loading apps, and we can have a separate policy discussion on capping fees and having separate stores. What Apple Pay does is protect consumers from having to hand out their credit card information to random companies with less-than-Apple's reputation for handling consumer financial data. This is true both on and off the app store. No other payment vendor is going as far as Apple to protect your financial data, and you most certainly will never have the negotiating position to make Target budge on how they do things.
6510 5y ago
I keep thinking of this burger joint 22 km from my house who do free delivery when I order a rather large 6 euro burger menu. The micro-margins and the monumental effort involved blows my mind. They have to be cheap enough to get enough orders to be able to chain together enough deliveries most of the time. Surely Apple and Google in this settings are entitled to 2 euro for all the work they did. Seems only fair.

pritambaral 5y ago

> Google and Apple already support other payment methods Apple is the only mode of payment allowed in apps in Apple's App Store. No "other payment method" is allowed.

slownews45 5y ago
I've successfully used everything from apple pay (note 2FA required) to different credit cards to debit cards to even paypal and weird things like gift cards and add funds. What payment method does apple not support when buying things? Maybe ACH / Wire? Is that realistic for apps?
- pritambaral 5y ago
  Does that apply to all apps? Can any app provide those modes? Or are those modes restricted only to Amazon-like apps that allow users to buy physical goods etc.? My claim is generic across apps; your anecdotes are limited to certain types of apps.
- cyral 5y ago
  I think they mean IAP, not Apple Pay. Apple requires every app (unless it's for a physical product and some other exceptions) to use Apple's in app purchase system. You can pay with credit card, gift cards, etc, but 15% (30% over $1mm) goes to Apple, not the merchant - which is what this bill is about, since Apple has a monopoly as the only app store they can charge whatever they want and developers have to put up with it. You can't embed your own payment system, or even make references that such system is available elsewhere (e.g. on your website)
  - slownews45 5y ago
    That is very different. Most users like apple's consistent payment flow and protection it provides, especially if you've dealt with other providers online (and all the scam tactics).
    - summerlight 5y ago

saurik 5y ago

You do realize you are paying upwards of 42% (1/.7) more on every single thing you buy via Apple for that "benefit", right? Like, I see a lot of people say stuff like this, but I just can't imagine that every single time they spend $5 they are mentally picturing handing at least $1 of that to Apple while thanking them for preventing people from telling anyone about alternative ways to pay (or even breaking down that $1 fee so people can viscerally understand what is going on).

slownews45 5y ago
You'll actually find that iphone users, because you are relatively "safe" (in my case around subscriptions -> I've never had a problem cancelling on apple where JUST TODAY I'm told I have to call a customer service number to cancel another product - UGH!!!) people will actually spend MORE (much more sometimes). That's the case for me. Subscriptions online generally -> hell no. On apple -> sure.
- saurik 5y ago
  If that is actually true, then you will still be willing to do it even if I were allowed by Apple to tell you how much money Apple was taking and even if I were allowed to present the option to you in my application and make it just as easy for you to buy using an alternative payment system (instead of having to only implement the feature on my website, and then hope you are curious enough to look). Apple, however, seems to be very confident that it isn't true (well, maybe for you, but that you are an outlier)--that if presented with two payment options, one of which cost $5 and one of which cost only $4 (I needn't even add a markup: my goal might be to make more volume at a lower price), that a lot of people would choose the $4 option--and so they specifically ban both of the above practices.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    We need to be crystal clear that the coalition fighting apple on this (match.com and friends) are EXACTLY the type of people you DO NOT want on your platform. "FTC Sues Owner of Online Dating Service Match.com for Using Fake Love Interest Ads To Trick Consumers into Paying for a Match.com Subscription" DA claim in CA "Match used actions that included misleading billing characterizations, nonconspicuous auto renewal disclosures, elimination of required cancellation disclosures, and imposition of a long and tedious cancellation process,” the district attorney said. Do I think match and all the other scam billers / loot box mechanic providers will be able to get consumers into their impossible to cancel flows with $1 and $0 offers (with hidden huge renewal fees and early cancel requirements)? Sure. Note that Apple's policies cost developers like you LOTS more than just their cut. Their billing flow includes same font size trial renewal details (no * or hidden renewal rules). Their flows include easy cancellations WITH REMINDERS ahead of time on subscriptions (no call to cancel). Their flows include prompts to cancel subscriptions on app deletion (when I deleted the few paid apps I have where you subscribe on provider site they NEVER once emailed me to give me a quick link to cancel related subscription). So you really could offer the $0 and $1 offers and even MAKE MORE MONEY. Do I think this would destroy a lot of the "don't think about it" apple platform vibe? Also for sure. And so as a consumer I'm glad apple keeps these folks in line and off their platform. I can just imagine the spamming pop-ups to try to get folks into these crap billing flows already. Do devs not pay attention to per user cash money revenue? Apple is building a platform that should be MORE lucrative, not less by making it safe to spend money on. Are devs really making more per user on Android? I find that hard to believe. The same sideloading epic likes on android means tons of stuff can be pirated etc.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

Realistically, on the one hand we have the option to incentivize Apple to be an intermediary by letting them increase the price of everything by 42% and pocket the difference. On the other hand, we have the option to ban this practice, and force big app stores to allow alternative payment systems. This will, as you state, predictably lead to some developers building their own insecure alternative payment systems, selling private information, and other negative outcomes. Sometimes it works fine, though. What we're unlikely to get is some utopia in the middle where you can select a sign-in and payment option in each app, where you can choose between paying $5 to Apple and letting them be the intermediary, paying $3.50 to the developers directly, or perhaps paying $3.61 using a 3% markup intermediary.

Covzire 5y ago

Very strongly disagree... consumers have almost no choices on portables today. Should someone as a parent be able to prevent their kids from installing other app stores to bypass Apple's curation, if they deem Apple's App Store the safest? Of course, and that's not liable to change. But what exactly is the argument against device owners being free to procure any available app they want for their own devices, if they so choose? This paradigm already exists on Windows PCs and largely Macs too and it's very successful and the openness is worth the risk for me and any hacker I know. For games, there are several stores like Steam, Epic, GoG, Ubi, Origin, etc and each provide reliable delivery of safe apps, so allowing consumers that same choice on their portable devices absolutely is a pro-consumer stance.

slownews45 5y ago
Except you as an individual consumer have zero - ZERO negotiating power vis a vis whatsapp for example. So if WhatsApp makes you get their app through X, and skips all the protections apple offers - you are not getting them to budget.

post_break 5y ago

Do you use a Mac or buy anything on the internet? You can buy iPhones with different payment methods at the Apple Store right? My point being iOS is basically one big lootbox where Apple sells the coins you need to buy (rent) the apps on your iPhone. Consumers deserve the choice to pay developers directly, just like they do on Macs (for now).

MrStonedOne 5y ago

Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause the outcry that lead to this? Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me. Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me. They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago

> by forcing apps on the iOS store to support Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple, me and my family are all the safer for it. The legislation will still allow Apple to do this. It will force Apple to allow developers to give users a choice (in addition to Apple pay), to charge different prices for different payment methods. You and your family will be welcome to continue paying via Apple pay if you so choose - the only thing that will change is you'll know how much you're paying Apple for the privilege of using Apple pay.