3 ms·

Not necessarily: Apple could permit an app developer to allow third party payments in the same app, but only if the user was in the Netherlands. That's not a di

Not necessarily: Apple could permit an app developer to allow third party payments in the same app, but only if the user was in the Netherlands. That's not a difficult code path to manage. The issue here is Apple is trying to frustrate any attempts to circumvent their payment processing: By both still demanding 27% fees, and also requiring they publish a separate app (likely requiring users to uninstall the main app and install the new one), Apple is trying to make it so onerous and painful to use third party payments that nobody will actually do so in practice.

Someone 5y ago
> By both still demanding 27% fees In the court case that led to this, the court required Apple to support third party payment processors, but rejected the claim that their 30% cut was outrageous. The EU also has regulations limiting how much payment services such as Mastercard can charge. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_730 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_...: “caps are set at 0.2% of the value of the transaction for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards“ Given that, I don’t see how the same court could say a 3% margin for third party payment services is unfair. Requiring a new app, on the other hand, is the trouble area. It means losing App Store reviews, and, probably more importantly, means users can’t seamlessly upgrade to a version that supports a third party payment service. Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app.
- ummonk 5y ago
  > Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app. I think the apps here would be front ends to the same dating network.
  - Someone 5y ago
    They would, but the app developer wants all their users to move to the new payment service (e.g. so that the developer gets to know more about its users) That calls for making it as easy as possible to migrate. Downloading a new app and deleting the old one is harder for users than using the iOS auto-update mechanism, so developers would prefer to have the ability to update their app with one that offers a subscription through a new payment service. Developers can force users of the old app by retiring it, but they can’t force them to download the new one. Chances are some users will think “what do I get out of this app?” and not download the new one. That’s the “losing subscribers” part.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  It's not the 3% cut for payments. It's the 27% cut for doing nothing.
  - Someone 5y ago
    I know, but in this case, from what I read, the antitrust authority said something about that in its original ruling, too, but a follow-up court case concerning that ruling scrapped that part of it, implicitly saying the 30% cut is not problematic/the antitrust authority didn’t argue well enough that it is (IANAL, and I don’t think the full history is online, so corrections welcome) Because of that, I can see why Apple isn’t giving up the golden goose at the moment.
mr_toad 5y ago
> likely requiring users to uninstall the main app and install the new one This. Most users won’t bother, so they’ll default to using Apple as a payment processor. Everyone knows the power of defaults.

Someone 5y ago

> By both still demanding 27% fees In the court case that led to this, the court required Apple to support third party payment processors, but rejected the claim that their 30% cut was outrageous. The EU also has regulations limiting how much payment services such as Mastercard can charge. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_730 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_...: “caps are set at 0.2% of the value of the transaction for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards“ Given that, I don’t see how the same court could say a 3% margin for third party payment services is unfair. Requiring a new app, on the other hand, is the trouble area. It means losing App Store reviews, and, probably more importantly, means users can’t seamlessly upgrade to a version that supports a third party payment service. Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app.

ummonk 5y ago
> Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app. I think the apps here would be front ends to the same dating network.
- Someone 5y ago
  They would, but the app developer wants all their users to move to the new payment service (e.g. so that the developer gets to know more about its users) That calls for making it as easy as possible to migrate. Downloading a new app and deleting the old one is harder for users than using the iOS auto-update mechanism, so developers would prefer to have the ability to update their app with one that offers a subscription through a new payment service. Developers can force users of the old app by retiring it, but they can’t force them to download the new one. Chances are some users will think “what do I get out of this app?” and not download the new one. That’s the “losing subscribers” part.
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
It's not the 3% cut for payments. It's the 27% cut for doing nothing.
- Someone 5y ago
  I know, but in this case, from what I read, the antitrust authority said something about that in its original ruling, too, but a follow-up court case concerning that ruling scrapped that part of it, implicitly saying the 30% cut is not problematic/the antitrust authority didn’t argue well enough that it is (IANAL, and I don’t think the full history is online, so corrections welcome) Because of that, I can see why Apple isn’t giving up the golden goose at the moment.

mr_toad 5y ago

> likely requiring users to uninstall the main app and install the new one This. Most users won’t bother, so they’ll default to using Apple as a payment processor. Everyone knows the power of defaults.