3 ms·
> "Unfortunately, IAP being 'optional' means that no one will ever use it," writes App Store VP Matt Fischer Um...yeah, that's pretty damning.
by DrBenCarson 5y ago
> "Unfortunately, IAP being 'optional' means that no one will ever use it," writes App Store VP Matt Fischer
Um...yeah, that's pretty damning.
- wraptile 5y agoCan you imagine saying "no one would use our product if they weren't forced to" and still winning the case against you?
- kevincox 5y agoTo be fair their argument is it is better for the users. This comment is talking about the price bring too high for apps. Of course it is a good indication that it is overpriced.
- DrBenCarson 5y agoNot saying I agree with what I'm about to respond with, but nonetheless: If not using IAP is worse for users, wouldn't users then immediately gravitate to apps that do use IAP? Meaning not using IAP would be a competitive disadvantage and tada, capitalism magic--especially given iOS users are the most valuable segment in the world (typically wealthier and much more willing to spend $1.99 on an app than their Android counterparts) The counter-argument is it is better for users in ways they are oblivious to (i.e. security), but even that should eventually make its way to the user. If eventually all but IAP cards are compromised or abused, users will eventually change their behavior, especially iOS users (typically more educated). * all iOS user characterizations are based on 3rd party research and not my own opinions