4 ms·
It’s especially infuriating because it seems like that’s an easy problem to solve. It’s unreasonable to allow subscriptions above $50 a year. And if developers
by finfinfin 5y ago
It’s especially infuriating because it seems like that’s an easy problem to solve. It’s unreasonable to allow subscriptions above $50 a year. And if developers do insist on a higher price, then Apple could audit them.
- mdoms 5y agoMy Netflix subscription is upwards of $200/year and that's one of the cheaper ones. MotoGP Videopass is something north of $300, Microsoft Gamepass is somewhere in the triple figures. I don't own an iPhone so none of mine go through Apple but my point is there are any number of legitimate subscriptions well above your arbitrary figure.
- finfinfin 5y agoValid point. I think higher price subscriptions could be manually reviewed by Apple to prevent abuse.
- tartoran 5y agoYes. Not a hard to solve problem. Thing is apple profits more from higher subscription and even abuse so their incentive to fix is not there or they drag their feet to gobble up as much as possible. Apple used to be safe, now it’s rampant with scams and fake apps. I removed my credit card from my apple account so I no longer have any surprises.
- douglaswlance 5y agoAll subscriptions are reviewed by Apple.
- tartoran 5y agoThen somerhing’s broken in their review process. Nefarious pp clones continue to scam people with subscriptions and crazy fees
- Alupis 5y agoSeriously, from a company that famously wouldn't allow flashlight apps because they provided the "official" one, this is just silly.
- esotericimpl 5y agoReviewed meaning… what? Some rando who decides to look at arbritrary things.
- alasdair_ 5y agoThis seems reasonable. Anyone remember the $999 “I am rich” “app” that was just a button that did nothing?
- comprev 5y agoIt was a large ruby stone or something I seem to remember.