7 ms·

> It's clear as day they know the minute they allowed alternatives, a giant fraction of the App Store would depart because they can get a better deal either els

by lwkl 5y ago

> It's clear as day they know the minute they allowed alternatives, a giant fraction of the App Store would depart because they can get a better deal either elsewhere. As an user of an iPhone I don't want this. I bought an iPhone because I deal with enough technology in my day to day job and I want a phone that's straightforward to use and doesn't need any attention. So no I don't want to install three app stores on my iPhone and have to deal with 20 different payment providers. In the end it's important to make the distinction between consumer interests and the interest of businesses that want to sell their product on the iOS platform. I get that this sucks for developers because iOS is from what I've heard much more profitable than Android. In my opinion consumers interests should be weighed higher here and Apple's policies for the App store are mostly pro consumer, at least compared with the situation on different platforms. Consumers that want a more open platform can always choose Android or Linux phones.

zmmmmm 5y ago
It's a totally false dichotomy that you have to choose between consumer friendly and business friendly outcome. The idea those things are linked is a convenient fiction Apple has come up with to maintain its position of control. Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. It can make them present a uniform interface for payment, delivery etc etc. Just like it puts those constraints already on the apps. Pretending it's powerless and all these terrible outcomes will ensue when it literally already controls every detail of every single app on the existing store is one of Apple's "big lies" (but one clearly a lot of people have fallen for).
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. I doubt you mean that. All apps must be served from server farms in the Oort Cloud and be in Esperanto would be acceptable constraints? But it's actually not a false dichotomy. Things I want are vendors who make iOS apps forced to use other parts of the Apple ecosystem. Forced to use Safari. Forced to offer Apple Single Sign On (if they use anyone's). Forced to offer Apple's payment methods. Those are the very things they are trying to get out of by having alternate app stores.
  - dastbe 5y ago
    should apple be allowed to make a (what seems like substantial) profit off that lock-in? by comparison payment processors like stripe can offer as a baseline 2.9% and 30 cents. if you predict that the average uber is 10 dollars (which is probably low these days) that's 6% if you were able to process with stripe and they're still turning a profit. If you want to make the argument that because of the substantial number of free apps that apple needs to subsidize the costs of review etc. then I'm 100% sure that these companies would rather pay for the underlying resources than get raked over by this pricing scheme.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      You do understand that Uber can use Stripe (or whoever else) to process the rides? It's just the in-app premium monthly membership fee we're discussing? Apple's payments are extremely pro-user friendly. Do I wish they charged less? Yes. But if it's open to competition no one will use Apple payments even if they are the cheapest, because they are tilted more in the user's favor than other payment methods (subscription cancellation, etc.)
      - dastbe 5y ago
        > It's just the in-app premium monthly membership fee we're discussing? Sure, but even then Stripe charges half a percent extra to handle subscriptions. Given Uber One is 10$, my original assessment still stands that Apple wants ~4x what equivalent processors wants on their marketplace. > But if it's open to competition no one will use Apple payments even if they are the cheapest You're assuming that all subscription businesses would prefer to engage unethically with their customers. Many businesses are much more interested in the customer acquisition funnel and building up trust, and if Apple payments eliminates dropoff in subscribers because their payment credentials are already there or it just has strong user trust then many companies will prefer it even if they aren't the cheapest (but competitive). And if Apple wants to enforce standard such that even the unethical companies have to play in their garden, then they need to be pegged at a fair and reasonable cost of services delivered which we can ascertain from everybody else who is doing this.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Would you support them doing the same thing on MacOS? Or transactions through Safari? I don’t see how iOS requires a 30% cut but Macs and transactions through Safari don’t. The justification is the same, they make and maintain all the tech behind those the same as they do iOS. So really iOS shouldn’t have a cut or MacOS and Safari should. To be consistent.

by lwkl 5y ago

zmmmmm 5y ago

It's a totally false dichotomy that you have to choose between consumer friendly and business friendly outcome. The idea those things are linked is a convenient fiction Apple has come up with to maintain its position of control. Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. It can make them present a uniform interface for payment, delivery etc etc. Just like it puts those constraints already on the apps. Pretending it's powerless and all these terrible outcomes will ensue when it literally already controls every detail of every single app on the existing store is one of Apple's "big lies" (but one clearly a lot of people have fallen for).

HWR_14 5y ago
> Apple can put however many constraints it wants on external app stores. I doubt you mean that. All apps must be served from server farms in the Oort Cloud and be in Esperanto would be acceptable constraints? But it's actually not a false dichotomy. Things I want are vendors who make iOS apps forced to use other parts of the Apple ecosystem. Forced to use Safari. Forced to offer Apple Single Sign On (if they use anyone's). Forced to offer Apple's payment methods. Those are the very things they are trying to get out of by having alternate app stores.
- dastbe 5y ago
  should apple be allowed to make a (what seems like substantial) profit off that lock-in? by comparison payment processors like stripe can offer as a baseline 2.9% and 30 cents. if you predict that the average uber is 10 dollars (which is probably low these days) that's 6% if you were able to process with stripe and they're still turning a profit. If you want to make the argument that because of the substantial number of free apps that apple needs to subsidize the costs of review etc. then I'm 100% sure that these companies would rather pay for the underlying resources than get raked over by this pricing scheme.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    You do understand that Uber can use Stripe (or whoever else) to process the rides? It's just the in-app premium monthly membership fee we're discussing? Apple's payments are extremely pro-user friendly. Do I wish they charged less? Yes. But if it's open to competition no one will use Apple payments even if they are the cheapest, because they are tilted more in the user's favor than other payment methods (subscription cancellation, etc.)
    - dastbe 5y ago
      > It's just the in-app premium monthly membership fee we're discussing? Sure, but even then Stripe charges half a percent extra to handle subscriptions. Given Uber One is 10$, my original assessment still stands that Apple wants ~4x what equivalent processors wants on their marketplace. > But if it's open to competition no one will use Apple payments even if they are the cheapest You're assuming that all subscription businesses would prefer to engage unethically with their customers. Many businesses are much more interested in the customer acquisition funnel and building up trust, and if Apple payments eliminates dropoff in subscribers because their payment credentials are already there or it just has strong user trust then many companies will prefer it even if they aren't the cheapest (but competitive). And if Apple wants to enforce standard such that even the unethical companies have to play in their garden, then they need to be pegged at a fair and reasonable cost of services delivered which we can ascertain from everybody else who is doing this.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

Would you support them doing the same thing on MacOS? Or transactions through Safari? I don’t see how iOS requires a 30% cut but Macs and transactions through Safari don’t. The justification is the same, they make and maintain all the tech behind those the same as they do iOS. So really iOS shouldn’t have a cut or MacOS and Safari should. To be consistent.