4 ms·

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 Ap

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.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    > 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. This is precisely my point. Walmart's way or the highway. After all, the free market is a land of the negotiation of weight, and you don't weigh very much. > 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. In the free market, you aren't entitled to anything you can't negotiate. Apple can do this for you. Apple has enough weight with the collection of customers behind them. > 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. A company doesn't have to know your financial data to know that you paid for a digital good. I am talking about Target, except Target is just an example of a company that already had a financial leak scandal. I also talked about Amazon, since there's enough room to talk about more than one company. My response was that you forked over your credit card information because Amazon had that power. As you say, you're not entitled to choose the terms of your relationship with Amazon. Your choices were only Amazon or... not Amazon. I mean, not unless you can negotiate with Amazon. And then you have to do this for PopEyes and Target too, all while contemplating your entitlements as a customer. So I ask again, where is the consumer choice to have Apple intermediate relationships on your behalf?

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.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  > 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. This is precisely my point. Walmart's way or the highway. After all, the free market is a land of the negotiation of weight, and you don't weigh very much. > 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. In the free market, you aren't entitled to anything you can't negotiate. Apple can do this for you. Apple has enough weight with the collection of customers behind them. > 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. A company doesn't have to know your financial data to know that you paid for a digital good. I am talking about Target, except Target is just an example of a company that already had a financial leak scandal. I also talked about Amazon, since there's enough room to talk about more than one company. My response was that you forked over your credit card information because Amazon had that power. As you say, you're not entitled to choose the terms of your relationship with Amazon. Your choices were only Amazon or... not Amazon. I mean, not unless you can negotiate with Amazon. And then you have to do this for PopEyes and Target too, all while contemplating your entitlements as a customer. So I ask again, where is the consumer choice to have Apple intermediate relationships on your behalf?