5 ms·

Amazing, this is a huge win for consumers and developers.

rodgerd 5y ago
No, not at all. At the moment I can be sure that I can cancel a subscription without, for example, being required to call a US telephone number, as is the norm for subscription sites not using Apple. It's a huge win for developers who want to fuck over consumers. Consumers? Not so much.
- thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
  I agree and it is an unpopular option on HN, but I think it is a feature that I know can use any app in the App Store without having to give out my email. For me, the consumer choice is made when choosing whether I want that walled garden experience with iOS or a more flexible experience with Android.
- friedman23 5y ago
  I don't think you understand the true cost apple is imposing on everyone involved in the ios ecosystem. That 30% cut apple takes means you are paying 43% more for apps than you would have if apple didn't take their cut. I'd rather deal with a shitty subscription cancellation experience than pay 43% more money for something. edit: also I reject the idea that using third party payment processors will result in a bad experience. 99% of apps will use paypal for payment processing and managing subscriptions on paypal is super easy.
  - syspec 5y ago
    And if the 30% commission is removed, the prices will remain exactly the same.
    - spiderice 5y ago
      Not if you believe in the free market driving the prices down. If app A keeps the price the same, app B will undercut them because app A is charging 43% more than they now need to to make a profit.
      - ThatPlayer 5y ago
        Also if you believe lower prices attracts more customers. If I can keep the profit margins the same and charge customers less, that's still going to be an increase in sales and therefore more profits.
- ThatPlayer 5y ago
  And I can do that without Apple, because California has laws for that.
  - HatchedLake721 5y ago
    Awesome for you. There are other 7.9 billion people in the world who don’t live in California. They’re consumers too who don’t want to be **ed by developers too.
    - ThatPlayer 5y ago
      Exactly. Should 7.9 billion people be forced to pay into Apple to save them from greedy developers? Apple isn't the only one who can enforce this; that's what their governments or competition are for.
      - HatchedLake721 5y ago
        Developers pay to Apple, not consumers. There is an ongoing competition for the last 20 years, where we are today is the result of that competition. Developers ran away from Symbian, webOS, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone and RIM to Android and iOS. Developers want to develop for platforms with great APIs, hardware and great distribution. Consumers want to stick on platforms with active developers. RIM, Nokia, Palm and others tried, burned billions, but the market (via consumers and developers) has spoken. It’s no easy feat for new entrants (Google & Apple) to dethrone existing players sitting there for decades. But they’ve done it and turned others into history and a business lesson about innovation and how changing the status quo can disrupt existing markets.
- concinds 5y ago
  I fail to see how that changes anything. Apple has a good refund policy, but kids game on laptops too, and if they know your CC number, they can buy things on Fortnite on their laptops; the root problem is kids knowing your CC number. I don't see how Apple makes any difference. Ease of cancellation? Right now, no big app (except games) uses IAP anyway, because they don't want to give 30% profits to Apple. So you already need to go to Netflix.com, Disney.com, Kindle.com to cancel subscriptions. Zero difference. I just don't see what value Apple is adding here. Sure, friction means that you probably won't give your CC details to a 6$/year weather app subscription, but you be willing to buy it with IAP. But devs will still be able to provide IAPs, you know? And if they decide not to, you can just avoid those apps. What difference will it make in the average user's day?
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  I don't see anything stating apple can't require apple payments to be an option.
dwaite 5y ago
It absolutely is not a win for anyone. The in app payment system was exclusive (and advertising other payments forbidden) because IAP was how apple extracted their royalties for platform use by app developers. This only changed the ability to freely link to external payment options. It does not require Apple to allow in-app payments, it does not forbid Apple from requiring a royalty/commission on those external payments. So now the firewall is gone, and there could be really ugly fights where developers are told to prove they are in compliance with whatever commission scheme is coming. This could even result in Apple now extracting additional revenue from developers.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  I think apple will have a difficult time justifying the same level commission if it is providing fewer services than it was before (payment processing). They can do it, of course, but I would expect that to invite additional lawsuits.
  - dwaite 5y ago
    My cellphone provider still charges additional fees because the government mandated number portability back in 2003. If Apple has higher costs getting their commission because of payments outside of the App Store, I would 100% expect they will pass that cost on to developers.
- mchusma 5y ago
  It's a win for me both as a consumer and as a business owner. Saying it's a win for nobody is not accurate.
  - dwaite 5y ago
    It's a win potentially for third party payment processors. As a business owner (I'm assuming app developer) you have no guarantee of reduced overall impact to revenue. To give Google as an example, they now charge an 11% commission on payments made using third party processors in South Korea.

No, not at all. At the moment I can be sure that I can cancel a subscription without, for example, being required to call a US telephone number, as is the norm for subscription sites not using Apple. It's a huge win for developers who want to fuck over consumers. Consumers? Not so much.

thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
I agree and it is an unpopular option on HN, but I think it is a feature that I know can use any app in the App Store without having to give out my email. For me, the consumer choice is made when choosing whether I want that walled garden experience with iOS or a more flexible experience with Android.
friedman23 5y ago
I don't think you understand the true cost apple is imposing on everyone involved in the ios ecosystem. That 30% cut apple takes means you are paying 43% more for apps than you would have if apple didn't take their cut. I'd rather deal with a shitty subscription cancellation experience than pay 43% more money for something. edit: also I reject the idea that using third party payment processors will result in a bad experience. 99% of apps will use paypal for payment processing and managing subscriptions on paypal is super easy.
- syspec 5y ago
  And if the 30% commission is removed, the prices will remain exactly the same.
  - spiderice 5y ago
    Not if you believe in the free market driving the prices down. If app A keeps the price the same, app B will undercut them because app A is charging 43% more than they now need to to make a profit.
    - ThatPlayer 5y ago
      Also if you believe lower prices attracts more customers. If I can keep the profit margins the same and charge customers less, that's still going to be an increase in sales and therefore more profits.
ThatPlayer 5y ago
And I can do that without Apple, because California has laws for that.
- HatchedLake721 5y ago
  Awesome for you. There are other 7.9 billion people in the world who don’t live in California. They’re consumers too who don’t want to be **ed by developers too.
  - ThatPlayer 5y ago
    Exactly. Should 7.9 billion people be forced to pay into Apple to save them from greedy developers? Apple isn't the only one who can enforce this; that's what their governments or competition are for.
    - HatchedLake721 5y ago
      Developers pay to Apple, not consumers. There is an ongoing competition for the last 20 years, where we are today is the result of that competition. Developers ran away from Symbian, webOS, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone and RIM to Android and iOS. Developers want to develop for platforms with great APIs, hardware and great distribution. Consumers want to stick on platforms with active developers. RIM, Nokia, Palm and others tried, burned billions, but the market (via consumers and developers) has spoken. It’s no easy feat for new entrants (Google & Apple) to dethrone existing players sitting there for decades. But they’ve done it and turned others into history and a business lesson about innovation and how changing the status quo can disrupt existing markets.
concinds 5y ago
I fail to see how that changes anything. Apple has a good refund policy, but kids game on laptops too, and if they know your CC number, they can buy things on Fortnite on their laptops; the root problem is kids knowing your CC number. I don't see how Apple makes any difference. Ease of cancellation? Right now, no big app (except games) uses IAP anyway, because they don't want to give 30% profits to Apple. So you already need to go to Netflix.com, Disney.com, Kindle.com to cancel subscriptions. Zero difference. I just don't see what value Apple is adding here. Sure, friction means that you probably won't give your CC details to a 6$/year weather app subscription, but you be willing to buy it with IAP. But devs will still be able to provide IAPs, you know? And if they decide not to, you can just avoid those apps. What difference will it make in the average user's day?
spywaregorilla 5y ago
I don't see anything stating apple can't require apple payments to be an option.

dwaite 5y ago

It absolutely is not a win for anyone. The in app payment system was exclusive (and advertising other payments forbidden) because IAP was how apple extracted their royalties for platform use by app developers. This only changed the ability to freely link to external payment options. It does not require Apple to allow in-app payments, it does not forbid Apple from requiring a royalty/commission on those external payments. So now the firewall is gone, and there could be really ugly fights where developers are told to prove they are in compliance with whatever commission scheme is coming. This could even result in Apple now extracting additional revenue from developers.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
I think apple will have a difficult time justifying the same level commission if it is providing fewer services than it was before (payment processing). They can do it, of course, but I would expect that to invite additional lawsuits.
- dwaite 5y ago
  My cellphone provider still charges additional fees because the government mandated number portability back in 2003. If Apple has higher costs getting their commission because of payments outside of the App Store, I would 100% expect they will pass that cost on to developers.
mchusma 5y ago
It's a win for me both as a consumer and as a business owner. Saying it's a win for nobody is not accurate.
- dwaite 5y ago
  It's a win potentially for third party payment processors. As a business owner (I'm assuming app developer) you have no guarantee of reduced overall impact to revenue. To give Google as an example, they now charge an 11% commission on payments made using third party processors in South Korea.