3 ms·

Depends on the resolution. If a developer is able to use another payment processor alongside Apple's payment system, and set different price points to recover t

Depends on the resolution. If a developer is able to use another payment processor alongside Apple's payment system, and set different price points to recover the respective fees, the buyer would be able to decide whether adding Apple as an intermediary is worth the price premium. Currently, the buyer does not have such a choice. They must involve Apple and pay the price premium if they want to make the purchase. Also, adding Apple as an intermediary increases the buyer's privacy exposure in some cases. If the buyer already has an account with the developer's service and makes a purchase that is linked to the account, interjecting Apple into the equation would reveal the purchase to both Apple and the developer, instead of just the developer.

threatofrain 5y ago
First, the Dutch government position is that forcing apps to have Apple's payment system is anti-competitive... not that developers must include multiple payment systems. The customer isn't getting more choice here, the app maker is getting more choice. Companies like PopEyes, who really want you to enter your credit card, will be getting the choice. Second, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. If you do payments through another payment ecosystem... Apple still gets a cut. Nobody gets to dodge a price premium. If you want to talk about price premium, we should really be talking about the IAP. Third, you are getting more risk here. When you use Apple Pay, the vendor knows almost nothing about you. We're talking about the likes of Target and PopEyes (who really wants your credit card info) vs Apple, who retains very little financial information [1]. How many apps have you paid for? How many businesses do you transact with? That's a lot of Targets. And fourth, I am concerned about whether Apple will be able to compel developers to have easy recurring payment cancellation in one place. Whether it's a business or a government doing this, being able to easily monitor and cancel recurring payments is a big consumer win. Where is the consumer choice for this? Finally, the marketplace is about the negotiation of leverage. You talk about customers choosing vendors... my family members aren't going to win in negotiations with any company. The choice will be Walmart's way or the highway. Where is the consumer choice to have Apple negotiate with Walmart on your behalf? [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027
- commoner 5y ago
  1. Developers are not able to offer multiple payment systems for certain types of purchases when Apple forces apps to use Apple's payment system. By removing Apple's restriction, developers would be able to offer multiple payment systems and allow customers to have a choice between different payment systems. Apple's restriction prevents customers from having this choice, because it prevents developers from offering it. 2. We'll see when the Dutch situation is finalized. Epic v. Apple was filed in the Northern District of California, which is separate from the Netherlands. 3. You're missing my point. For instance, if you already have an Amazon account and you purchase an e-book to add to your Kindle collection, Amazon would get this purchase information no matter how you pay, since your e-book purchase is linked to your Amazon account. Amazon would already have your payment method (unless you haven't purchased any physical or digital items directly from them beforehand). Paying through Apple would only expose your purchase information to Apple in addition to Amazon, and at a price premium. It would not prevent Amazon from having the purchase information. 4. Payment processors such as PayPal also allow cancelling recurring subscriptions in one click from a centralized page. Apple's payment system is not unique in this regard. Developers should be able to offer multiple payment systems, so that customers can choose between them. Some customers do not want to use Apple's payment system for some of their purchases, and Apple's requirement deprives these customers of alternative options. Dutch regulators have found Apple's restriction to be anti-competitive.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    1 & 4. You haven't answered the question about what consumers are supposed to do when they want Apple Pay, rather than having dozens of financial relationships with dozens of companies. In the free market, you negotiate with what leverage you have. Companies like Walmart, Target, and PopEyes are free to do as they wish. That PayPal offers you a place to cancel subscriptions does not mean that Target must offer you the option of your preferred payment vendor. In order to achieve this, perhaps you might throw around your weight to negotiate with Target and such? You don't get to compel the use of PayPal unless Target agrees. 2. The reason why companies must pay IAP is for legal reasons, not Apple Pay. Since we're talking about the Netherlands, we can just view Epic as an example of how Apple's legal strategy has played out across the ocean, or not talk about them at all. 3. I think you have a technical misunderstanding if you think paying with Apple Pay means that the vendor has your financial information. They don't. With Apple Pay, Target wouldn't have any credit card information to leak. You are more exposed to financial risk with the numerous financial relationships you have. The reason why some companies already have your credit card information is because you couldn't resist giving it to them, perhaps because Apple wasn't negotiating on your behalf.
bradknowles 5y ago
And if the app maker doesn’t offer any other alternative to their captive payment system? How do I force them to accept the Apple payment system as a valid alternative? One where I’d be happy to pay a premium, just to make sure that when it comes time to cancel the account, I can do so easily and quickly?
- commoner 5y ago
  Apple still controls the App Store, so Apple can require developers to offer an easy cancellation method for subscriptions that can be purchased from apps in the App Store. Depending the result of the Dutch antitrust decision, Apple might still be able to require developers to offer Apple's payment system alongside any other payment systems, and there would be no problem with that as long as developers are able to offer different price points to offset the fees for each payment system.

threatofrain 5y ago

First, the Dutch government position is that forcing apps to have Apple's payment system is anti-competitive... not that developers must include multiple payment systems. The customer isn't getting more choice here, the app maker is getting more choice. Companies like PopEyes, who really want you to enter your credit card, will be getting the choice. Second, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. If you do payments through another payment ecosystem... Apple still gets a cut. Nobody gets to dodge a price premium. If you want to talk about price premium, we should really be talking about the IAP. Third, you are getting more risk here. When you use Apple Pay, the vendor knows almost nothing about you. We're talking about the likes of Target and PopEyes (who really wants your credit card info) vs Apple, who retains very little financial information [1]. How many apps have you paid for? How many businesses do you transact with? That's a lot of Targets. And fourth, I am concerned about whether Apple will be able to compel developers to have easy recurring payment cancellation in one place. Whether it's a business or a government doing this, being able to easily monitor and cancel recurring payments is a big consumer win. Where is the consumer choice for this? Finally, the marketplace is about the negotiation of leverage. You talk about customers choosing vendors... my family members aren't going to win in negotiations with any company. The choice will be Walmart's way or the highway. Where is the consumer choice to have Apple negotiate with Walmart on your behalf? [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203027

commoner 5y ago
1. Developers are not able to offer multiple payment systems for certain types of purchases when Apple forces apps to use Apple's payment system. By removing Apple's restriction, developers would be able to offer multiple payment systems and allow customers to have a choice between different payment systems. Apple's restriction prevents customers from having this choice, because it prevents developers from offering it. 2. We'll see when the Dutch situation is finalized. Epic v. Apple was filed in the Northern District of California, which is separate from the Netherlands. 3. You're missing my point. For instance, if you already have an Amazon account and you purchase an e-book to add to your Kindle collection, Amazon would get this purchase information no matter how you pay, since your e-book purchase is linked to your Amazon account. Amazon would already have your payment method (unless you haven't purchased any physical or digital items directly from them beforehand). Paying through Apple would only expose your purchase information to Apple in addition to Amazon, and at a price premium. It would not prevent Amazon from having the purchase information. 4. Payment processors such as PayPal also allow cancelling recurring subscriptions in one click from a centralized page. Apple's payment system is not unique in this regard. Developers should be able to offer multiple payment systems, so that customers can choose between them. Some customers do not want to use Apple's payment system for some of their purchases, and Apple's requirement deprives these customers of alternative options. Dutch regulators have found Apple's restriction to be anti-competitive.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  1 & 4. You haven't answered the question about what consumers are supposed to do when they want Apple Pay, rather than having dozens of financial relationships with dozens of companies. In the free market, you negotiate with what leverage you have. Companies like Walmart, Target, and PopEyes are free to do as they wish. That PayPal offers you a place to cancel subscriptions does not mean that Target must offer you the option of your preferred payment vendor. In order to achieve this, perhaps you might throw around your weight to negotiate with Target and such? You don't get to compel the use of PayPal unless Target agrees. 2. The reason why companies must pay IAP is for legal reasons, not Apple Pay. Since we're talking about the Netherlands, we can just view Epic as an example of how Apple's legal strategy has played out across the ocean, or not talk about them at all. 3. I think you have a technical misunderstanding if you think paying with Apple Pay means that the vendor has your financial information. They don't. With Apple Pay, Target wouldn't have any credit card information to leak. You are more exposed to financial risk with the numerous financial relationships you have. The reason why some companies already have your credit card information is because you couldn't resist giving it to them, perhaps because Apple wasn't negotiating on your behalf.

bradknowles 5y ago

And if the app maker doesn’t offer any other alternative to their captive payment system? How do I force them to accept the Apple payment system as a valid alternative? One where I’d be happy to pay a premium, just to make sure that when it comes time to cancel the account, I can do so easily and quickly?

commoner 5y ago
Apple still controls the App Store, so Apple can require developers to offer an easy cancellation method for subscriptions that can be purchased from apps in the App Store. Depending the result of the Dutch antitrust decision, Apple might still be able to require developers to offer Apple's payment system alongside any other payment systems, and there would be no problem with that as long as developers are able to offer different price points to offset the fees for each payment system.