3 ms·

There are definitely some apps that charge more on iOS compared to paying directly. Off the top of my head YouTube and Spotify (before they removed it). And app

There are definitely some apps that charge more on iOS compared to paying directly. Off the top of my head YouTube and Spotify (before they removed it). And apps like Netflix doesn't even let you subscribe in the app. Or I'm unable to purchase e-books with the Amazon Kindle app. Even Twitch.tv's subscriptions costs more on iOS.

jbverschoor 5y ago
Well, they're not allowed when using external entitlements: > Consistent with the ACM’s order, dating apps that are granted an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app payment provider will pay Apple a commission on transactions. Apple will charge a 27% commission on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities. Developers will be responsible for the collection and remittance of any applicable taxes, such as the Netherlands’ value-added tax (VAT), for sales processed by a third-party payment provider. So yay for 3% saving, which they'll spend on another payment provider, do all the support, add reporting, vat etc. Seems like a lot of trouble. They simply made the wrong case, just like Epic did. If they would've said that they think 30% is too much, it'd be a whole different story. Would I want to save €0.75 on a €25/mo subscription and have to deal with dark patterns etc? Hell no. And especially no to the dating industry which is known for their tricks. Also, the 75ct saving should be split between the user and the dev. So my incentive would be 20ct? 10ct? Good luck lol
- ThatPlayer 5y ago
  And that's why I hope the ACM will not accept this new change as enough.
saurik 5y ago
Yeah. If anything, the primary reason why you wouldn't see lowered prices for external payments is because of Apple putting in requirements--such as Visa and Mastercard did with credit cards <- another case where it was pretty obvious how many companies absolutely wanted to give people paying cash a discount--that developers aren't allowed to sell things at different prices outside and on their store. This narrative that companies wouldn't give people lowered prices just doesn't jive with any of the existing data points or experiences we have in related industries.

jbverschoor 5y ago

Well, they're not allowed when using external entitlements: > Consistent with the ACM’s order, dating apps that are granted an entitlement to link out or use a third-party in-app payment provider will pay Apple a commission on transactions. Apple will charge a 27% commission on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities. Developers will be responsible for the collection and remittance of any applicable taxes, such as the Netherlands’ value-added tax (VAT), for sales processed by a third-party payment provider. So yay for 3% saving, which they'll spend on another payment provider, do all the support, add reporting, vat etc. Seems like a lot of trouble. They simply made the wrong case, just like Epic did. If they would've said that they think 30% is too much, it'd be a whole different story. Would I want to save €0.75 on a €25/mo subscription and have to deal with dark patterns etc? Hell no. And especially no to the dating industry which is known for their tricks. Also, the 75ct saving should be split between the user and the dev. So my incentive would be 20ct? 10ct? Good luck lol

ThatPlayer 5y ago
And that's why I hope the ACM will not accept this new change as enough.

saurik 5y ago

Yeah. If anything, the primary reason why you wouldn't see lowered prices for external payments is because of Apple putting in requirements--such as Visa and Mastercard did with credit cards <- another case where it was pretty obvious how many companies absolutely wanted to give people paying cash a discount--that developers aren't allowed to sell things at different prices outside and on their store. This narrative that companies wouldn't give people lowered prices just doesn't jive with any of the existing data points or experiences we have in related industries.