6 ms·

Again, it’s crazy people defend Apple on this. Apple is not just providing a payment platform, it’s forcing you to use it. As a developer, you should be free to

Again, it’s crazy people defend Apple on this. Apple is not just providing a payment platform, it’s forcing you to use it. As a developer, you should be free to use any payment platform you want in your app, like on the web. Let the user decide. End of story.

maccard 3y ago
> Let the user decide. End of story. The value proposition of iOS is that the app store is the place to go, and that my experience will be seamless. I want a centralised place to manage my subscriptions. Here's an example: I subscribed to NYT Cooking in the web a few years back. I went to cancel only to find out that I have to phone them. If I subscribed on an app store it would have been one click and done. I'm actually still subscribed to it. Why is your choice more important than my choice?
- nprateem 3y ago
  Yeah that's perfectly reasonable. Of course it makes everything easier. It's also practically impossible to compete against which is what gives apple this unfair advantage, making their 30% cut obscene. They're making it due to being first, technical issues aside.
- ric2b 3y ago
  Right, so you'd use the app store by choice, so why should Apple force you to?
  - maccard 3y ago
    The first move that will come out of this will be a Meta store for "all your meta products". You won't have the choice of Instagram on the App store or Instagram on the Meta store, you'll have Instagram on the Meta store. This won't be a choice for users, this will be a choice for large developers.
    - ric2b 3y ago
      That never happened on Android, why would it be different on iPhone?
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      So just follow your own supposed ethos and don't use Meta products?
- jdkoeck 3y ago
  Your point is moot because Apple forces you to use its own app store, where using their payment platform is mandatory. If there were alternative app stores, I would have no qualm with this restriction. Let Apple's store compete with others, it will come out on top if it's really the best. The larger point is this: in a free market, if you have a bad experience with a product (like NYT Cooking in your example), you can bring your business elsewhere. That's how it works, and that's what Apple is interfering with.
  - maccard 3y ago
    Why does the free market arugment apply on apple's ecosystem but not the mobile ecosystem? There are alternative app stores with alternative ecosystems - if you have a bad experience with your iPhone, replace it with an Android and use the open ecosystem there.
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      Because the entire mobile market is a duopoly and asking someone to switch platforms that they might have invested 15 years of their life into isn't reasonable. Think of all the data, hardware (smart watches, tablets, trackers, speakers, smart home gadgets), app & in-app purchases that one would have to forfeit to switch platforms. They explicitly carved out their own market by making it a tightly integrated walled garden that's closed to outside integration, it seems hypocritical to now claim that users are free to leave at any time. They're not and that's by design.
      - maccard 3y ago
        How come it's reasonable to force someone who _doesnt_ want the app store to be opened to competition to change? I don't want the Meta store where Meta decide what level of API access their apps get). I explicitly choose the iOS ecosystem _because_ of this. If you want the alternative, you have a choice right now with Android. If this changes, then I _dont_ get a choice. Your choice removes my only option of a curated app marketplace in favour of a marketplace that will allow for billion dollar companies to set their own rules on how I interact with their apps, rather than me delegating that to one trusted gatekeeper.
riscy 3y ago
Apple provides the OS and SDKs developers need to make their app function at all. Users do not care how much it costs a developer. They want it to be easy to see and cancel subscriptions all in one place. The web’s myriad of payment systems is the opposite of a good user experience, meant to only fatten the pockets of developers by making it difficult to cancel.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > Users do not care how much it costs a developer. This is a ludicrous statement. The users are the ones paying for it.
  - riscy 3y ago
    That 15-30% going to Apple isn’t going to go back to app users. Don’t pretend this is all about developers wanting to give users a discount.
    - jdkoeck 3y ago
      It actually is, there are plenty of services where you can pay 30% less if you go through their site instead of Apple's app store.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      Do you believe businesses don’t take their margins into account when pricing their products?
ribit 3y ago
I'm all for letting the user decide. But what you are proposing is not letting the user decide. If Melinda wants to use the Facebook app, but the Facebook app is only available on the Meta store, then Melina is forced to use the Meta store. This is not giving users choice. This is replacing one corp-backed store by multiple corp-backed stores. The user loses. The only way how this would be a choice is if the same app, with the same basic functionality was available on all stores. Then the user would really have the choice which store to use. Or if there were alternative apps on different stores. Good luck with that given the current monopoly markets.
- Fluorescence 3y ago
  Melinda should be able to choose to have a business relationship with Meta. The Meta store, aka a trivial hosting/payment service, would be part of that Meta offering. She should not however only be allowed to have an Apple(Meta) relationship where Apple gets to tax and restrict Meta for it's own commercial benefit. An "App Store", when it is not used as a rent-seeking choke-point, is a nothing-burger, it's a simple website to buy and download an app, yet you are trying to claim some great horror if this website was run by Meta not Apple. Please. It's nonsensical.
  - ribit 3y ago
    Right. So you are saying that Meta has the right to implement their services and platforms in any way they see fit, and the user has the right to choose between using those services under Meta's conditions or not using them at all. But Apple has no similar right to their own services, platforms, or SDKs, and is forced to let Meta harness their platform and user base while expecting no compensation? And this apparently makes sense to you? What you are proposing is the dictatorship of the developer. This completely throws the idea of proprietary platforms and SDKs out of the window. By the way, I couldn't care less if Meta has their own shop or not, and I don't see any horror in that, they decide how to best run their business, not me. But I take an issue with claims that Meta running their own exclusive show somehow creates more user choice (which is the direction the commenter I was replying to was heading towards)

maccard 3y ago

> Let the user decide. End of story. The value proposition of iOS is that the app store is the place to go, and that my experience will be seamless. I want a centralised place to manage my subscriptions. Here's an example: I subscribed to NYT Cooking in the web a few years back. I went to cancel only to find out that I have to phone them. If I subscribed on an app store it would have been one click and done. I'm actually still subscribed to it. Why is your choice more important than my choice?

nprateem 3y ago
Yeah that's perfectly reasonable. Of course it makes everything easier. It's also practically impossible to compete against which is what gives apple this unfair advantage, making their 30% cut obscene. They're making it due to being first, technical issues aside.
ric2b 3y ago
Right, so you'd use the app store by choice, so why should Apple force you to?
- maccard 3y ago
  The first move that will come out of this will be a Meta store for "all your meta products". You won't have the choice of Instagram on the App store or Instagram on the Meta store, you'll have Instagram on the Meta store. This won't be a choice for users, this will be a choice for large developers.
  - ric2b 3y ago
    That never happened on Android, why would it be different on iPhone?
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    So just follow your own supposed ethos and don't use Meta products?
jdkoeck 3y ago
Your point is moot because Apple forces you to use its own app store, where using their payment platform is mandatory. If there were alternative app stores, I would have no qualm with this restriction. Let Apple's store compete with others, it will come out on top if it's really the best. The larger point is this: in a free market, if you have a bad experience with a product (like NYT Cooking in your example), you can bring your business elsewhere. That's how it works, and that's what Apple is interfering with.
- maccard 3y ago
  Why does the free market arugment apply on apple's ecosystem but not the mobile ecosystem? There are alternative app stores with alternative ecosystems - if you have a bad experience with your iPhone, replace it with an Android and use the open ecosystem there.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    Because the entire mobile market is a duopoly and asking someone to switch platforms that they might have invested 15 years of their life into isn't reasonable. Think of all the data, hardware (smart watches, tablets, trackers, speakers, smart home gadgets), app & in-app purchases that one would have to forfeit to switch platforms. They explicitly carved out their own market by making it a tightly integrated walled garden that's closed to outside integration, it seems hypocritical to now claim that users are free to leave at any time. They're not and that's by design.
    - maccard 3y ago
      How come it's reasonable to force someone who _doesnt_ want the app store to be opened to competition to change? I don't want the Meta store where Meta decide what level of API access their apps get). I explicitly choose the iOS ecosystem _because_ of this. If you want the alternative, you have a choice right now with Android. If this changes, then I _dont_ get a choice. Your choice removes my only option of a curated app marketplace in favour of a marketplace that will allow for billion dollar companies to set their own rules on how I interact with their apps, rather than me delegating that to one trusted gatekeeper.

riscy 3y ago

Apple provides the OS and SDKs developers need to make their app function at all. Users do not care how much it costs a developer. They want it to be easy to see and cancel subscriptions all in one place. The web’s myriad of payment systems is the opposite of a good user experience, meant to only fatten the pockets of developers by making it difficult to cancel.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
> Users do not care how much it costs a developer. This is a ludicrous statement. The users are the ones paying for it.
- riscy 3y ago
  That 15-30% going to Apple isn’t going to go back to app users. Don’t pretend this is all about developers wanting to give users a discount.
  - jdkoeck 3y ago
    It actually is, there are plenty of services where you can pay 30% less if you go through their site instead of Apple's app store.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    Do you believe businesses don’t take their margins into account when pricing their products?

ribit 3y ago

I'm all for letting the user decide. But what you are proposing is not letting the user decide. If Melinda wants to use the Facebook app, but the Facebook app is only available on the Meta store, then Melina is forced to use the Meta store. This is not giving users choice. This is replacing one corp-backed store by multiple corp-backed stores. The user loses. The only way how this would be a choice is if the same app, with the same basic functionality was available on all stores. Then the user would really have the choice which store to use. Or if there were alternative apps on different stores. Good luck with that given the current monopoly markets.

Fluorescence 3y ago
Melinda should be able to choose to have a business relationship with Meta. The Meta store, aka a trivial hosting/payment service, would be part of that Meta offering. She should not however only be allowed to have an Apple(Meta) relationship where Apple gets to tax and restrict Meta for it's own commercial benefit. An "App Store", when it is not used as a rent-seeking choke-point, is a nothing-burger, it's a simple website to buy and download an app, yet you are trying to claim some great horror if this website was run by Meta not Apple. Please. It's nonsensical.
- ribit 3y ago
  Right. So you are saying that Meta has the right to implement their services and platforms in any way they see fit, and the user has the right to choose between using those services under Meta's conditions or not using them at all. But Apple has no similar right to their own services, platforms, or SDKs, and is forced to let Meta harness their platform and user base while expecting no compensation? And this apparently makes sense to you? What you are proposing is the dictatorship of the developer. This completely throws the idea of proprietary platforms and SDKs out of the window. By the way, I couldn't care less if Meta has their own shop or not, and I don't see any horror in that, they decide how to best run their business, not me. But I take an issue with claims that Meta running their own exclusive show somehow creates more user choice (which is the direction the commenter I was replying to was heading towards)