4 ms·

First, the Dutch government position is that forcing apps to have Apple's payment system is anti-competitive... not that developers must include multiple paymen

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.
  - commoner 5y ago
    1. Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept. Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn't offer the buyer's preferred payment option, the buyer can either either choose from the payment options the seller does accept, or shop elsewhere. Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment options alongside it. Buyers are not entitled to use Apple Pay everywhere, just as they are not entitled to use cash, PayPal, or a particular credit card everywhere. 3. I'm not talking about Target, I'm talking about an e-book purchase on Amazon that gets added to the purchaser's Kindle collection. Amazon must know that the user purchased the e-book, since that is the only way the e-book gets added to their collection. If Amazon already has the buyer's payment information from a previous purchase, directly purchasing the e-book through Amazon would be strictly more private than purchasing it with Apple overseeing the transaction. Every purchase is a different situation, and in some situations, using Apple as an intermediary is worse for privacy than directly purchasing through the vendor. Not everyone prefers having Apple monitor all of their transactions.

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.
- commoner 5y ago
  1. Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept. Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn't offer the buyer's preferred payment option, the buyer can either either choose from the payment options the seller does accept, or shop elsewhere. Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment options alongside it. Buyers are not entitled to use Apple Pay everywhere, just as they are not entitled to use cash, PayPal, or a particular credit card everywhere. 3. I'm not talking about Target, I'm talking about an e-book purchase on Amazon that gets added to the purchaser's Kindle collection. Amazon must know that the user purchased the e-book, since that is the only way the e-book gets added to their collection. If Amazon already has the buyer's payment information from a previous purchase, directly purchasing the e-book through Amazon would be strictly more private than purchasing it with Apple overseeing the transaction. Every purchase is a different situation, and in some situations, using Apple as an intermediary is worse for privacy than directly purchasing through the vendor. Not everyone prefers having Apple monitor all of their transactions.