9 ms·

I think its a bit more complex than pure competition. Let's say we're living in a world where Apple's IAP framework has a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with

by 015a 5y ago

I think its a bit more complex than pure competition. Let's say we're living in a world where Apple's IAP framework has a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees, think Stripe or whatever, at 3-5%. Many apps would still choose to not use Apple's system, because of exactly what Match says: Its not a matter of cost, its a matter of power. Service providers want to control the billing relationship with their users; they don't want Apple to have any control, because Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer, and they will delegate much of that power to the Consumer. Service providers don't want their users to have any power in the billing relationship. There are reasonable arguments why this is fine; say, for example, a service provider wants to offer some customer 20% off for the next three months, for whatever reason. This kind of setup is hard to model in the IAP framework; its very egalitarian. But, overwhelmingly, the problem is more-so when it comes to canceling subscriptions, and whenever Match or Netflix or whoever says "we want to be able to directly deal with consumers" you should delete every word they say and replace it with the words "apple makes canceling free trials and subscriptions too easy, and we want to make it hard." There's actually nothing else to it; the magnitude of the fee Apple charges is high (30%), and needs to be reduced, but that tax is dimes compared to the profit companies make from users paying for subscriptions they don't want or need. So; competition states, if their solution is genuinely better, companies will use it. Actually, this is false; companies don't give a shit about their users. They won't use it, even if its better for users, even if it were free, because the solution is definitely not better for them, because money is power, and Apple's IAP framework delegates too much power to Apple (a third party) and the users. The competition argument is actually irrelevant, because the two solutions we're comparing (self-managed sub management vs Apple-managed) are actually not fungible in the same way Stripe is fungible with Square (or whoever). They carry fundamentally different externalities for both users and service providers.

tshaddox 5y ago
A much simpler way to put this is: What if I explicitly want a smartphone with a platform where all third-party software has to follow the platform’s rules? iPhones will actively become worse for me if third party app stores are allowed. Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone platform more like the Android platform somehow give customers more choice?
- Jensson 5y ago
  So what you are afraid of is that people would prefer alternative app stores? If they don't then you have nothing to worry about, as long as the Apple app store has such a huge market share companies will continue to support it. And if you are right and most Apple user really wants another app store and will flock to them causing companies to abandon the Apple app store then why should your opinion on this matter more than theirs? > Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone platform more like the Android platform somehow give customers more choice? You get just as much choice as before, you can choose Apple hardware and software just like then. Just that choosing Apple hardware and software no longer forces you to also choose their App store as your only way to access other software, so it also alters that choice a bit, but you still have as many choices as before. However just like android you will likely see that almost everyone chooses to use it anyway, so companies will still continue to support it. Your fears are totally unwarranted.
  - darkwizard42 5y ago
    Not parent, but I'm not afraid that people would prefer alternative app stores, I'm afraid that developers will hang shady incentives and dark patterns into getting users to prefer them... Look at the "choice" we got when Epic opened up their own game launcher/store. It created all these awful exclusives on those platforms and ultimately people still picked the terrible Epic experience (buggy launcher, crashes, etc.) just to get those games. That isn't consumer choice... that is developer choice by incentive/price discrimination/exclusivity.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    No, I’m afraid that iPhone owners would have a significantly worse experience if iPhones allowed alternative app stores, full stop. I’m not concerned with deciding who to blame when users install bad software (and I don’t think Apple is concerned with that either). I’m not arguing that my opinion matters more than anyone else’s. I am just making an argument for my prediction that customer satisfaction would go down if this change happened.
  - bzzzt 5y ago
    Just look at the new privacy labels which were so impopular with the big advertising giants Google even paused updating some app for months just so they wouldn't have to tell users what data they were sharing. Wouldn't Google (or Facebook) prefer to have an iOS appstore where they didn't have to tell users what they were doing? Would they make the effort to release their apps on the Apple appstore if that wasn't the only way?
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Hard disagree. IAP will still be super integrated into iPhone, so my guess is that, for the consumer, the steps to using it will be absolutely simple and easy. Going to another payment system will likely require at least a click or two more, and that friction alone will make most businesses stick with IAP, assuming the rates are comparable. It's really only the blockbuster apps (e.g. Fortnight) that will have the power to convince people to move to a different payments system, because in their case folks who actually want the app will be willing to tap through one or two extra steps.
simion314 5y ago
Super obvious solution, give the customer the choice. Example you can buy games for PC from the store you like, you want the game to be on your Steam library then you use Steam, you want DRM free you go to GOG , you want to support the indie dev you go to other site: Customer can chose in the majority of games with the exceptions of some big titles (but you can still find EA games on Steam for example). The only objection to user choice is that the users are stupid and need someone else to chose for them, my answer is Apple has the money to educate the users , they can put a giant ad on TV to tell users about their "virtues"
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  Yeah but this isn't a choice unless the developer allows for it (and if they do, they can use price discrimination to force users to their preferred platform -- which on each of the game stores, this price discrimination exists today). Lots of developers make their product EXCLUSIVE to a platform and then you don't have any choice but to abide by sometimes a scummier platform's rules. Apple has undoubtedly made managing payments in their mobile ecosystem easier for the end user to understand. It definitely limits some of the choices for developers, but given what I have seen and experience in the massive failure that is Epic's game store, I think it is not something most consumers will benefit from.
  - ThatPlayer 5y ago
    >they can use price discrimination to force users to their preferred platform And that's why stores get to compete to BE their preferred platform. Software stores are middleman. They've got to compete for both users and developers. You can't say apps have to be on all stores at the same prices when stores charge different prices to be on them. Or have different requirements to be on the store. Or when stores straight up do not allow your app (Apple with Xbox Cloud Streaming)
  - simion314 5y ago
    An independent developer will put his games in all stores if he can. The only ones that will not do it are ones that might have their own store or have a deal, so I would expect a random dev to put is happ in the Apple store and in a Freedom store but for sure Apple will not put it's apps in the Freedom store and will make deals with others not to put their apps there. So the problem are giants like Apple,Epic,EA not the independent devs. As I mentioned most games are in more then one store , and if a game is missing from other store is not some bullshit contract or ToS, is because the developer did not had the time or motivation to do it. P.S. and let's not forget Apple censorship, you will not get soon all games from Steam approved by Apple because Apple decides for you what you should consume, their Christian/conservastives values are forced on you.
Maarten88 5y ago
> ... a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees ... Dutch consumers mostly pay using IDeal, a payment standard created by all Dutch banks, that costs < 0.5% in fees to merchants. It has fewer consumer protections than what credit cards offer, for that there are consumer protection laws. These same consumer protection laws should make things like cancelling a subscription easy. Of course many companies fail to do so properly. One day I hope the government will enforce these like Apple protects their platform, and we'll end up having what we have now, just cheaper.
threatofrain 5y ago
Also, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. This is a position from the Dutch government on whether Apple may compel app companies to support Apple Pay, and not whether Apple gets its cut. Paying through Stripe does not translate to an ability to dodge the IAP, unless we're talking about dodgy accounting. Neither is this a position that app vendors must support multiple platforms such as Apple Pay. This is a win for app makers like PopEyes who really want your credit card. This is not a win for consumers who want a choice as to whether Apple intermediates their payment relationship with app companies.
ludjer 5y ago
> Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer They are only pro consumer when it makes them more money.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  Yeah, Apple only looks pro-Consumer because they're still in the business of selling software, hardware, and software services to consumers. Their competition is all funded by corporate advertising. It's not a matter of Apple being a positive force for consumers or customers. They're simply the most magnanimous blackguard.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Apple's 30% cut is only from purchases and not from ads so it pushes all the apps you get on that platform towards ads. So even they themselves doesn't get a lot of money from ads, their policy greatly encourages ad based monetization.
    - da_chicken 5y ago
      By that logic literally everything is based on advertising. That makes the argument meaningless rather than convincing.
- 015a 5y ago
  Um, duh? Isn't that implied? Would you describe any company's actions under the light of "yeah they only did that because it lost money". That's not just something companies don't do; its illegal (for public companies).
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Nitpick: it’s not illegal to drive a company into the ground. It’s illegal to lie to your shareholders about doing so (it’s fraud). The “fiduciary duty” to shareholders is not a legal thing. If I tell my shareholders that I’m gonna drive my company into the ground by laying off 90% of the staff, and they give me money, that’s not my problem.
Jensson 5y ago
> 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees No it isn't, EU already went after credit card companies and forced them to lower their rates. I see no reason why EU wouldn't do the same for Apple and similar. Of course in USA you still pay those insane rates, but not everyone has to do it.
rainbowsloth 5y ago
As a consumer, I want ease of use and safety. I don’t want to be bothered with a menu in-app on if I want to pay through Apple Pay or through PayPal or some other proprietary custom service. I just want to pay using the cards I have already added onto my phone’s wallet. Who handles the transaction behinds the scene is of no importance to me. The important thing is that it is handled. I don’t want the app to bounce me out into Safari where I login to another service just to pay. I don’t want the app to open an in-app browser for me to enter my credit card information to pay. I want a standardized, system-level integrated payment screen like what iOS currently does. I want it to be standardized and system-level integrated because I don’t want to have to think if the website or app is launching me to a phishing or scam page. I want this screen to tell me clearly how much I owe, who I owe it to, and let me choose how to pay for it by selecting one of the cards I’ve added to my wallet or an option to pay one-time with a card (that doesn’t get saved to the wallet) ad hoc. I don’t care if the payment goes through Apple Pay, or Stripe, or Walmart Pay, or whatever. If Walmart is insistent on processing payments through Walmart Pay, then I want to just simply scan my phone’s NFC wallet and have Walmart Pay take money from the default credit card I have attached to my wallet app.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> So; competition states, if their solution is genuinely better, companies will use it. Actually, this is false; companies don't give a shit about their users. The users are part of the market too. A lot of people use direct withdrawal from a checking account to pay their mortgage. Because the mortgage lender doesn't have the same incentive as a subscription service to make it hard to cancel. So you do that for your mortgage, but would you do it for a subscription service you might want to cancel? Heck no. People use credit cards for that. Then if the service won't cancel your subscription you have a last resort the ability to dispute the charge with the credit card company. Apple makes it even easier but charges even more. But the choice is really important. Imagine if Apple was taking 30% of your mortgage payment and the bank had to pass that cost on to you. Even the 3% charged by credit card companies would be tens of dollars a month, for an ability to cancel which in that case isn't worth its cost. So people will choose based on what kind of business it is. If Netflix demands that you use ACH, people will balk. If Apple is providing enough value over the alternatives to justify their fees, people will demand it. And in some cases maybe they are -- customers might demand it for super scummy services they know they'd otherwise have trouble cancelling. So in open competition, the users demand it where it's needed. In the other cases it's not worth the cost.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Credit cards don't work like that in Europe. It's more like a debit card. You don't get the purchase warranty perks and chargebacks are highly restricted. They will sometimes charge back but you have to have real proof. It's not like the US. This is why credit cards are really uncommon in Europe. Most people just use their debit cards that are free and can also use the regular credit card systems (with the exception of the Netherlands which has a different system). A credit card really only makes sense here if you want to use its credit. And if you do there's cheaper options.
  - exoque 5y ago
    Depends on the country, where I live there is no direct debit (Banks have just now begun to replace the old cards ) so most people use credit cards to buy stuff online.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. They are litigious, anti-competitive, and use unethical supply chains at great human cost, but their marketing/propaganda is superb. Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries, for example. That by itself is massively anti-consumer, but it's one among hundreds of inherently user hostile behaviors that Apple inflicts on the world. Other players in the market are constrained by Apple's design choices, because those choices often single-handedly drive economies of scale for device components. Apple is not pro consumer. Apple is ruthlessly oriented toward absolute control of perceptions and behaviors of customers within their walled garden so they can extract the maximum amount of money from their customers. Apple hides the externalities within their own domain and imposes market expectations on the rest of the world. Their exploitation of software patent and ip laws stifle innovation and competition, and they set the standards of corporate behavior for all the major players. Unless by "traditionally" you mean exactly the period of Apple's history when they were plucky underdogs... Apple hasn't been pro-consumer for a couple or three decades.
- musicale 5y ago
  > Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. And yet many people on HN love their iPhones, Kindle Paperwhites, Xboxes, PlayStations, and Switch consoles... (note: you can actually load PDFs onto your Paperwhite, or onto your iPhone/iPad for that matter)
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Do you honestly think that iPhone customers will be more satisfied with iPhones if iPhones are required to support third-party app stores and/or sideloading? I find it impossible to believe that this could make customers happier. It is almost certainly going to result in more malware and user tracking, more bugs, more fragmented processes for finding and paying for apps, more user-hostile in-app purchase and subscription behavior, etc.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    I think more people would be more satisfied with their iPhone if Apple introduced a form of "Enter your Pin number to install $APP_NAME from $APP_REPOSITORY" system. That way, users would know outright that they're not getting software directly from Apple, and are forced to authenticate in order to confirm they want it. Then both sides win: you get to have your perfectly secure iPhone, and I get to have a device that actually does the things I want it to.
soperj 5y ago
>Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer Yes, that's why "you're holding it wrong" happened. That's why they didn't replace the CPU in their laptops for half a decade. Because they care about you.
- Bud 5y ago
  How long do you think it's still going to be convincing to anyone with an IQ over 50 to talk about what Steve Jobs said about antenna issues on the iPhone 4? He's been dead for over a decade now. Get over it. And come up with an argument that at least comes from the last 10 years. That argument is an embarrassment.
  - soperj 5y ago
    That's why they're scanning your pictures. Because they care about you. Happier?
    - Bud 5y ago
      Not really, given that they are, um, not scanning any pictures. And even once they start, they will be scanning exactly zero of my pictures. Also, could we argue in good faith, and not tell lies, and not pretend that there's not a complex issue in play regarding the debate over scanning for child porn? That'd be a lot better. Thank you.
      - soperj 5y ago
        hahaha. I'm not arguing my friend, nor am I telling any lies.
shkkmo 5y ago
Apple is only "pro-consumer" when the person paying for that stance isn't Apple. When Apple is footing the bill, they are quite happy to be as anti-consumer as they think they cam get away with. If Apple's approach to billing is something consumers value and are willing to pay for, then consumers will choose to keep using Apple payment methods. Perhaps some consumers would like to pay 25% less and are fine with disputing charges when a company makes it too hard to cancel? Also, Apple already enforces other rules when reviewing Apps, Apple could still force companies to allow easy cancelation without forcing them to use Apple for payments. Apples' insistence of using their payments would also be less egregious if they allowed alternative app stores. As it is, Apple's stance is bad for consumer choice.
ksec 5y ago
>its a matter of power. Which is the argument I have been saying since the beginning. They are stepping over the line of those in power. And it doesn't help when this does not belong to those currently in power or they have no leverage to use it. When this happens, the only way to solve it would be no one has that power, hence opening up. Any other reasoning, monopoly or not are only there to sugar coat their argument. As with anything about power, it belongs to politics, and things get ugly in a hurry.
raxxorrax 5y ago
> because Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer That highly depends on the lens you look through. To say Apple is pro Apple is more correct although they understand they must make some concessions here and there. But if you look at repairability and generally lock-in, Apple is not pro-consumer. In the end the consumer also pays their store fees of course.

by 015a 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

A much simpler way to put this is: What if I explicitly want a smartphone with a platform where all third-party software has to follow the platform’s rules? iPhones will actively become worse for me if third party app stores are allowed. Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone platform more like the Android platform somehow give customers more choice?

Jensson 5y ago
So what you are afraid of is that people would prefer alternative app stores? If they don't then you have nothing to worry about, as long as the Apple app store has such a huge market share companies will continue to support it. And if you are right and most Apple user really wants another app store and will flock to them causing companies to abandon the Apple app store then why should your opinion on this matter more than theirs? > Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone platform more like the Android platform somehow give customers more choice? You get just as much choice as before, you can choose Apple hardware and software just like then. Just that choosing Apple hardware and software no longer forces you to also choose their App store as your only way to access other software, so it also alters that choice a bit, but you still have as many choices as before. However just like android you will likely see that almost everyone chooses to use it anyway, so companies will still continue to support it. Your fears are totally unwarranted.
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  Not parent, but I'm not afraid that people would prefer alternative app stores, I'm afraid that developers will hang shady incentives and dark patterns into getting users to prefer them... Look at the "choice" we got when Epic opened up their own game launcher/store. It created all these awful exclusives on those platforms and ultimately people still picked the terrible Epic experience (buggy launcher, crashes, etc.) just to get those games. That isn't consumer choice... that is developer choice by incentive/price discrimination/exclusivity.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  No, I’m afraid that iPhone owners would have a significantly worse experience if iPhones allowed alternative app stores, full stop. I’m not concerned with deciding who to blame when users install bad software (and I don’t think Apple is concerned with that either). I’m not arguing that my opinion matters more than anyone else’s. I am just making an argument for my prediction that customer satisfaction would go down if this change happened.
- bzzzt 5y ago
  Just look at the new privacy labels which were so impopular with the big advertising giants Google even paused updating some app for months just so they wouldn't have to tell users what data they were sharing. Wouldn't Google (or Facebook) prefer to have an iOS appstore where they didn't have to tell users what they were doing? Would they make the effort to release their apps on the Apple appstore if that wasn't the only way?

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Hard disagree. IAP will still be super integrated into iPhone, so my guess is that, for the consumer, the steps to using it will be absolutely simple and easy. Going to another payment system will likely require at least a click or two more, and that friction alone will make most businesses stick with IAP, assuming the rates are comparable. It's really only the blockbuster apps (e.g. Fortnight) that will have the power to convince people to move to a different payments system, because in their case folks who actually want the app will be willing to tap through one or two extra steps.

simion314 5y ago

Super obvious solution, give the customer the choice. Example you can buy games for PC from the store you like, you want the game to be on your Steam library then you use Steam, you want DRM free you go to GOG , you want to support the indie dev you go to other site: Customer can chose in the majority of games with the exceptions of some big titles (but you can still find EA games on Steam for example). The only objection to user choice is that the users are stupid and need someone else to chose for them, my answer is Apple has the money to educate the users , they can put a giant ad on TV to tell users about their "virtues"

darkwizard42 5y ago
Yeah but this isn't a choice unless the developer allows for it (and if they do, they can use price discrimination to force users to their preferred platform -- which on each of the game stores, this price discrimination exists today). Lots of developers make their product EXCLUSIVE to a platform and then you don't have any choice but to abide by sometimes a scummier platform's rules. Apple has undoubtedly made managing payments in their mobile ecosystem easier for the end user to understand. It definitely limits some of the choices for developers, but given what I have seen and experience in the massive failure that is Epic's game store, I think it is not something most consumers will benefit from.
- ThatPlayer 5y ago
  >they can use price discrimination to force users to their preferred platform And that's why stores get to compete to BE their preferred platform. Software stores are middleman. They've got to compete for both users and developers. You can't say apps have to be on all stores at the same prices when stores charge different prices to be on them. Or have different requirements to be on the store. Or when stores straight up do not allow your app (Apple with Xbox Cloud Streaming)
- simion314 5y ago
  An independent developer will put his games in all stores if he can. The only ones that will not do it are ones that might have their own store or have a deal, so I would expect a random dev to put is happ in the Apple store and in a Freedom store but for sure Apple will not put it's apps in the Freedom store and will make deals with others not to put their apps there. So the problem are giants like Apple,Epic,EA not the independent devs. As I mentioned most games are in more then one store , and if a game is missing from other store is not some bullshit contract or ToS, is because the developer did not had the time or motivation to do it. P.S. and let's not forget Apple censorship, you will not get soon all games from Steam approved by Apple because Apple decides for you what you should consume, their Christian/conservastives values are forced on you.

Maarten88 5y ago

> ... a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees ... Dutch consumers mostly pay using IDeal, a payment standard created by all Dutch banks, that costs < 0.5% in fees to merchants. It has fewer consumer protections than what credit cards offer, for that there are consumer protection laws. These same consumer protection laws should make things like cancelling a subscription easy. Of course many companies fail to do so properly. One day I hope the government will enforce these like Apple protects their platform, and we'll end up having what we have now, just cheaper.

threatofrain 5y ago

Also, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. This is a position from the Dutch government on whether Apple may compel app companies to support Apple Pay, and not whether Apple gets its cut. Paying through Stripe does not translate to an ability to dodge the IAP, unless we're talking about dodgy accounting. Neither is this a position that app vendors must support multiple platforms such as Apple Pay. This is a win for app makers like PopEyes who really want your credit card. This is not a win for consumers who want a choice as to whether Apple intermediates their payment relationship with app companies.

ludjer 5y ago

> Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer They are only pro consumer when it makes them more money.

da_chicken 5y ago
Yeah, Apple only looks pro-Consumer because they're still in the business of selling software, hardware, and software services to consumers. Their competition is all funded by corporate advertising. It's not a matter of Apple being a positive force for consumers or customers. They're simply the most magnanimous blackguard.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Apple's 30% cut is only from purchases and not from ads so it pushes all the apps you get on that platform towards ads. So even they themselves doesn't get a lot of money from ads, their policy greatly encourages ad based monetization.
  - da_chicken 5y ago
    By that logic literally everything is based on advertising. That makes the argument meaningless rather than convincing.
015a 5y ago
Um, duh? Isn't that implied? Would you describe any company's actions under the light of "yeah they only did that because it lost money". That's not just something companies don't do; its illegal (for public companies).
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Nitpick: it’s not illegal to drive a company into the ground. It’s illegal to lie to your shareholders about doing so (it’s fraud). The “fiduciary duty” to shareholders is not a legal thing. If I tell my shareholders that I’m gonna drive my company into the ground by laying off 90% of the staff, and they give me money, that’s not my problem.

Jensson 5y ago

> 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees No it isn't, EU already went after credit card companies and forced them to lower their rates. I see no reason why EU wouldn't do the same for Apple and similar. Of course in USA you still pay those insane rates, but not everyone has to do it.

rainbowsloth 5y ago

As a consumer, I want ease of use and safety. I don’t want to be bothered with a menu in-app on if I want to pay through Apple Pay or through PayPal or some other proprietary custom service. I just want to pay using the cards I have already added onto my phone’s wallet. Who handles the transaction behinds the scene is of no importance to me. The important thing is that it is handled. I don’t want the app to bounce me out into Safari where I login to another service just to pay. I don’t want the app to open an in-app browser for me to enter my credit card information to pay. I want a standardized, system-level integrated payment screen like what iOS currently does. I want it to be standardized and system-level integrated because I don’t want to have to think if the website or app is launching me to a phishing or scam page. I want this screen to tell me clearly how much I owe, who I owe it to, and let me choose how to pay for it by selecting one of the cards I’ve added to my wallet or an option to pay one-time with a card (that doesn’t get saved to the wallet) ad hoc. I don’t care if the payment goes through Apple Pay, or Stripe, or Walmart Pay, or whatever. If Walmart is insistent on processing payments through Walmart Pay, then I want to just simply scan my phone’s NFC wallet and have Walmart Pay take money from the default credit card I have attached to my wallet app.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> So; competition states, if their solution is genuinely better, companies will use it. Actually, this is false; companies don't give a shit about their users. The users are part of the market too. A lot of people use direct withdrawal from a checking account to pay their mortgage. Because the mortgage lender doesn't have the same incentive as a subscription service to make it hard to cancel. So you do that for your mortgage, but would you do it for a subscription service you might want to cancel? Heck no. People use credit cards for that. Then if the service won't cancel your subscription you have a last resort the ability to dispute the charge with the credit card company. Apple makes it even easier but charges even more. But the choice is really important. Imagine if Apple was taking 30% of your mortgage payment and the bank had to pass that cost on to you. Even the 3% charged by credit card companies would be tens of dollars a month, for an ability to cancel which in that case isn't worth its cost. So people will choose based on what kind of business it is. If Netflix demands that you use ACH, people will balk. If Apple is providing enough value over the alternatives to justify their fees, people will demand it. And in some cases maybe they are -- customers might demand it for super scummy services they know they'd otherwise have trouble cancelling. So in open competition, the users demand it where it's needed. In the other cases it's not worth the cost.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
Credit cards don't work like that in Europe. It's more like a debit card. You don't get the purchase warranty perks and chargebacks are highly restricted. They will sometimes charge back but you have to have real proof. It's not like the US. This is why credit cards are really uncommon in Europe. Most people just use their debit cards that are free and can also use the regular credit card systems (with the exception of the Netherlands which has a different system). A credit card really only makes sense here if you want to use its credit. And if you do there's cheaper options.
- exoque 5y ago
  Depends on the country, where I live there is no direct debit (Banks have just now begun to replace the old cards ) so most people use credit cards to buy stuff online.

robbedpeter 5y ago

Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. They are litigious, anti-competitive, and use unethical supply chains at great human cost, but their marketing/propaganda is superb. Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries, for example. That by itself is massively anti-consumer, but it's one among hundreds of inherently user hostile behaviors that Apple inflicts on the world. Other players in the market are constrained by Apple's design choices, because those choices often single-handedly drive economies of scale for device components. Apple is not pro consumer. Apple is ruthlessly oriented toward absolute control of perceptions and behaviors of customers within their walled garden so they can extract the maximum amount of money from their customers. Apple hides the externalities within their own domain and imposes market expectations on the rest of the world. Their exploitation of software patent and ip laws stifle innovation and competition, and they set the standards of corporate behavior for all the major players. Unless by "traditionally" you mean exactly the period of Apple's history when they were plucky underdogs... Apple hasn't been pro-consumer for a couple or three decades.

musicale 5y ago
> Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. And yet many people on HN love their iPhones, Kindle Paperwhites, Xboxes, PlayStations, and Switch consoles... (note: you can actually load PDFs onto your Paperwhite, or onto your iPhone/iPad for that matter)
tshaddox 5y ago
Do you honestly think that iPhone customers will be more satisfied with iPhones if iPhones are required to support third-party app stores and/or sideloading? I find it impossible to believe that this could make customers happier. It is almost certainly going to result in more malware and user tracking, more bugs, more fragmented processes for finding and paying for apps, more user-hostile in-app purchase and subscription behavior, etc.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  I think more people would be more satisfied with their iPhone if Apple introduced a form of "Enter your Pin number to install $APP_NAME from $APP_REPOSITORY" system. That way, users would know outright that they're not getting software directly from Apple, and are forced to authenticate in order to confirm they want it. Then both sides win: you get to have your perfectly secure iPhone, and I get to have a device that actually does the things I want it to.

soperj 5y ago

>Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer Yes, that's why "you're holding it wrong" happened. That's why they didn't replace the CPU in their laptops for half a decade. Because they care about you.

Bud 5y ago
How long do you think it's still going to be convincing to anyone with an IQ over 50 to talk about what Steve Jobs said about antenna issues on the iPhone 4? He's been dead for over a decade now. Get over it. And come up with an argument that at least comes from the last 10 years. That argument is an embarrassment.
- soperj 5y ago
  That's why they're scanning your pictures. Because they care about you. Happier?
  - Bud 5y ago
    Not really, given that they are, um, not scanning any pictures. And even once they start, they will be scanning exactly zero of my pictures. Also, could we argue in good faith, and not tell lies, and not pretend that there's not a complex issue in play regarding the debate over scanning for child porn? That'd be a lot better. Thank you.
    - soperj 5y ago
      hahaha. I'm not arguing my friend, nor am I telling any lies.

shkkmo 5y ago

Apple is only "pro-consumer" when the person paying for that stance isn't Apple. When Apple is footing the bill, they are quite happy to be as anti-consumer as they think they cam get away with. If Apple's approach to billing is something consumers value and are willing to pay for, then consumers will choose to keep using Apple payment methods. Perhaps some consumers would like to pay 25% less and are fine with disputing charges when a company makes it too hard to cancel? Also, Apple already enforces other rules when reviewing Apps, Apple could still force companies to allow easy cancelation without forcing them to use Apple for payments. Apples' insistence of using their payments would also be less egregious if they allowed alternative app stores. As it is, Apple's stance is bad for consumer choice.

ksec 5y ago

>its a matter of power. Which is the argument I have been saying since the beginning. They are stepping over the line of those in power. And it doesn't help when this does not belong to those currently in power or they have no leverage to use it. When this happens, the only way to solve it would be no one has that power, hence opening up. Any other reasoning, monopoly or not are only there to sugar coat their argument. As with anything about power, it belongs to politics, and things get ugly in a hurry.

raxxorrax 5y ago

> because Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer That highly depends on the lens you look through. To say Apple is pro Apple is more correct although they understand they must make some concessions here and there. But if you look at repairability and generally lock-in, Apple is not pro-consumer. In the end the consumer also pays their store fees of course.