8 ms·

Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? I read somewhere (I think Epic v Apple) where the judge surmised that App stor

Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? I read somewhere (I think Epic v Apple) where the judge surmised that App store model was not just payments but the whole mechanism of tracking subscriptions, cancel and refunds, and standard pricing for purchases. I can understand the viewpoint that Apple customers might expect the same functionality if they purchase directly on site. But then, let the developer explain that too. "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" is a fair enough line that can be mandated just like they mandated everything else. Think they will have to do away with it eventually, though from the outside it looks like they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things.

londons_explore 2y ago
> they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things. This. EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies who abuse users data rights, use monopolies to push EU companies out of the market, and use accounting tricks to barely pay any taxes. Therefore, the EU has to be fining Apple and Google for something. If not this, then it'll be something else.
- IsTom 2y ago
  EU's single biggest win is free and open Single Market and it will fight to keep it so. It doesn't matter where companies come from – if you look at e.g. GDPR enforcement tracker you'll see they're as eager to keep internal EU companies in line.
  - robertfall 2y ago
    Yea, but that's not so true for the DMA. They're only targeting foreign companies using it.
    - martimarkov 2y ago
      Any evidence for this? Which big domestic company is a gatekeeper and not being targeted by the EU?
      - burnerthrow008 2y ago
        Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. See, the problem is that if I name one as an example, you will just fall back to silly games like "but the EU defined the term 'gatekeeper' in such a way that your example does not count". It does not matter whether the market dynamics are the same as the defined gatekeepers, whether the market shares are similar, or anything like that. Your side will shut down any debate with logic such as that. So why bother engaging? It's like arguing with a hardcore religious person about god. "Oh, but that's not what I meant by 'god'".
        p_j_w 2y ago
        This just sounds like you don't have any examples. >It does not matter whether the market dynamics are the same as the defined gatekeepers Perhaps then find an example where this is the case.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - buzer 2y ago
      Initially all companies that were defined as gatekeepers under DMA were foreign, but on 13.5.2024 Booking.com was designated as one as well. They are a Dutch company.
- xandrius 2y ago
  Let's not make it some sort of agenda out the EU: these companies are out just for themselves and however much someone likes their tech/philosophy/ecosystem, their practices are bullshit and unfair.
  - _justinfunk 2y ago
    If Apple gets to have an nefarious agenda, then the EU may have one as well.
    - xandrius 2y ago
      One is a for-profit company known for anti-competitive and cut-throat techniques, as well as expert in tax dodging over the world. The other is a governmental group formed by 27 rather different countries, all having a wide range of philosophies, cultures, corruption and mentalities. I know which one I am more likely to get some level-headed decision which might help me.
    - hkt 2y ago
      The EU at the cutting edge of competition law, which is to say it is looking actively at the competitive landscape and saying "what are the problems?" then moving doctrine along to solve them. There's a lot to be said for the approach. If the EU can be said to have an agenda, it is clear from the rules - their agenda is market fairness, and the ability of new entrants to successfully compete. The DMA is a key plank of that, but there will be others.
    - izacus 2y ago
      I know it might be not be an obvious difference for people living in US these days, but there's in fact a massive difference between a megacorporation and elected government.
      - _justinfunk 2y ago
        Who did you vote for in the EU? When were those elections?
- SSLy 2y ago
  forget not the stick is also levied towards domestic to EU companies. starting with Booking.com
  - Bud 2y ago
    [dead]
- naravara 2y ago
  > EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies EU tech companies want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies. The Digital Markets Act’s standards for considering someone a “gatekeeper” seems like it was specifically tailored to exclude Spotify while binding Apple, Google, and Facebook.
  - arlcode 2y ago
    There is plenty of competition in Spotify's market.Music is a commodity and the market is working Just fine. Btw Netflix also isn't a gatekeeper and neither are Disney, salesforce or Oracle to name a few.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > The Digital Markets Act’s standards for considering someone a “gatekeeper” seems like it was specifically tailored to exclude Spotify while binding Apple, Google, and Facebook. A glance at that list of 4 companies will quickly lead a person to the intuitive observation that 1 of those companies is not like the other. It's hard to see how one would classify Spotify as a "Gatekeeper" in the sense that the others are, so perhaps your observation is by design: Why would we expect the legal definition of ”Gatekeeper" to include Spotify, if Spotify is not a gatekeeper even on a common-sense level?
  - sensanaty 2y ago
    How is Spotify a gatekeeper? There's iTunes, Deezer, YouTube Music, Tidal and many, many, many other music providers.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  It’s one of the few benefits of EU being a complete backwater when it comes to software and consumer tech products. There will be very little harm to EU’s economy since almost all of the profits are being sent to the US anyway. Also this/GDPR/etc. is a form of protectionism (not that I see anything wrong with that to a limited extent) which will hopefully give at least some slight competitive advantage to EU tech companies (since they really do need it) and maybe a bit more crumbs to fight over.
spiderfarmer 2y ago
The only reason is that they don't want the public to realise how greedy they are. They know the value they add is not worth the price difference to a lot of customers. As many have said for years. As long as Apple is not able to explain their value to the customer, they have to rely on shady business tactics to maintain the revenue stream they became addicted to.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Having been so close to bankruptcy seemed to have tainted their behaviour, that now anything goes to protect what in the end saved them, moreso than in other companies.
  - ninth_ant 2y ago
    No, not “moreso than in other companies” — maximizing profits is something that effectively all companies do. The difference is that smaller companies can get away with anticompetitive behaviour but there are regulations for market leaders. What Apple was allowed to do when they were a disrupter is different from what they are allowed to do with a dominant postion in the ecosystem. PS Saying all companies are greedy and would abuse a market position is not a moral defense of Apple’s behaviour, it’s a defense of antitrust regulations.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Do you know any other marketplace / reseller who puts a message: "By the way, if you book directly with the provider and cut us out, it will be cheaper"? I can fully understand Apple's position. They created the system that customers love, developers will have to pay something to get access to those customers. Apple doesn't have to explain to customers the value. Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    > I can fully understand Apple's position They want to maximize their revenue, just like any other company and there is absolutely nothing else to it. > Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting. You don’t get to pick and choose which features do you want and most people don’t really care. Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting. That’s what allows Apple to abuse their position as a quasi-monopoly (as a platform for app developers adjusted by user spending they are effectively that in multiple markets).
rekoil 2y ago
They could also provide developers some APIs to register external subscriptions and purchases, and thus make cancellation and refunds available through centralised user interfaces within iOS, but they don't, because their goal isn't actually to create great products for their customers, it's to create value for shareholders, and they can more easily do that by locking users into their model.
- IMTDb 2y ago
  As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only one with my payment informations. I can safely install any app that I want, get subscription, in-apps etc without ever having to wonder where my payment informations are going. You can't have that level of safety with API. Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. If I unsubscribe from an Apple provided UI, I will hold Apple responsible for the execution of the action. Apple works really really hard to make sure that this trust we have in their system is warranted. As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else. The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. That being said, Apple should allow users to perform all these operations outside of the iOS ecosystem if the developer allows it. I feel there is a clear communication here that "anything done outside of the Apple UI's is not the responsibility of Apple" (including payment / subscription management).
  - troupo 2y ago
    > Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. > As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else. This is true. > The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon.
pjc50 2y ago
> Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? They haven't (and obviously won't), but the intent is clearly to eliminate any criticism of Apple from within apps, while also making sure that there aren't any "leaks" in the system from which money could escape that they want their fingers on. (except for privileged companies like Netflix and Amazon)
beeboobaa3 2y ago
> where the judge surmised that App store model was not just payments but the whole mechanism of tracking subscriptions, cancel and refunds, and standard pricing for purchases Well, yeah. When it's your only goddamn choice it sure as shit becomes that. I can guarantee you it can be done for much, much less than 30%. But apple won't allow it.
- martimarkov 2y ago
  But that’s how they decided to fund other areas like having iOS free. I still don’t understand the logic behind the complaint. If the developers don’t want to pay, why not just drop support for iOS? If the answer is because customers are on iOS then… idk respect that this is the decision of the user. Don’t force me to install another App Store or give you my card data so you can charge me the same amount and keep more profit while compromising my privacy and security
  - happymellon 2y ago
    > that's how they decided to fund other areas like having iOS free Isn't that funded by iDevice and Mac sales? Because Mac sales sure as hell aren't going to MacOS development...
  - stale2002 2y ago
    > idk respect that this is the decision of the user. You have it completely opposite. The argument is that the user should be given full power and permission over their own device that they own, and should be allowed to choose, on their iPhone, to install whatever they want. If a user doesn't want to install an app, thats fine. But give them the choice to do so. > Don’t force me to install another App Store Then don't install another app store! Just don't do it!
  - beeboobaa3 2y ago
    Apple, being part of a duopoly, should not have that power. That's all. I don't care about protecting their business or whatever the fuck else.
amelius 2y ago
> But then, let the developer explain that too. This is a bit like banning free speech because sometimes not the whole story is told.
HumblyTossed 2y ago
> Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? Surely because they think, "We're Apple, this is how we do things." But honestly, there's starting to burn through a lot of the consumer good will credit they have built up. They're just another "shareholders first" company now.
vundercind 2y ago
> Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? As a user, it’d just be irritating noise to have this start showing up in apps, unless buried in some little out of the way link somewhere like other unimportant things like the supposedly legally binding t&c all these apps pretend we’re reading. Messages like this (“go subscribe somewhere else to get a lower price”) also confuse the hell out of e.g. my dad and prime them to fall for scam messages.
- Rohansi 2y ago
  Could just show "Apple transaction fees" as a separate line item instead of just the total. Everyone should be more accustomed to that than a possibly sketchy looking message.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Yeah making it itemized on the payment screen would be fine. As long as the stated amount and the final total weren’t different, like sales taxes in US stores. No “$10… just kidding now it’s $13”. But listing it on the “bill”, yeah, wouldn’t mind a bit if they were forced to do that.
naravara 2y ago
> "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" For one thing, nobody reads that stuff and secondary, after a few months people forget the details of where and how they subscribed to things. So it absolutely would lead to an increase in support calls to Apple as people ask why they can’t manage a subscription through the App Store. Even me, who generally does keep track of this sort of thing, completely forgot through what service I first activated an HBO subscription and it was kind of a hassle to cancel it since, it turned out, I had set it up through Roku and I haven’t owned anything Roku in 6 years so didn’t think to look. A blanket ban is overdoing it though, and is just a lazy (and conveniently profit maximizing) way to stop it. I’ve long felt that what Apple ought to do is maintain a codified standard of bad behaviors that address the specific dark patterns they are worried about and just hold that over developers’ heads to retroactively punish abuse rather than having a default posture of being adversarial.
- irdc 2y ago
  > what Apple ought to do is maintain a codified standard of bad behaviors that address the specific dark patterns they are worried about and just hold that over developers’ heads The problem with doing that is that it likely results in a game of Whack-A-Mole with malicious parties. See for instance Google regarding SEO.
  - naravara 2y ago
    They’re already playing that game through App Review anyway though. This just gives them more granular sets of punishments they can dole out beyond just “accepted” or “rejected.” It also discourages seedy developers from just opening up chains of fly-by-night developer accounts to upload scams, since they could gate a lot of these elevated API privileges behind needing to have a good reputation.
willseth 2y ago
> "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" This seems like a reasonable compromise. Allow Apple to tell you what you won't get if you leave their store, but otherwise let consumers choose. > Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? The reason is that every major retailer has anti-steering or most favored nation agreements with their suppliers, and Apple thinks they shouldn't be banned from it when everyone else does it. Applied to physical retail it does seem pretty absurd, e.g. The Cuisinart blender box at Target says it's 10% cheaper at Wal-Mart.
- araes 2y ago
  It's close to that, and if Apple was forced to advertise the cheaper price, or the product seller themselves was then it would be. This is more like Target prohibits sellers from ever notifying you that there's a sales price at Walmart if you're looking for a deal. You're not allowed to push deals for you're own product during Black Friday or similar. Frankly. I donno where the quote about the "do not tell about sales is at." I tried to read the legalese and got stuck on: 7.3 "You may also distribute Your Applications ... within Your company, ... on a limited number of Registered Devices (as specified in the Program web portal)" Wait. What? My own company has limited internal distribution on my own app? 7.6 "Except for the distribution of ... Licensed Applications through the App Store or Custom App Distribution, the distribution of Applications (using Section 7.3, 7.4, 7.5) ... and/or as otherwise permitted herein, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. You agree not to distribute Your Application ... via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so." IE, you cannot go out on the street and "share" this app with someone, or give it to them, or similar. And obviously not 3rd party portals. 9.2-9.3: "You agree to protect Apple Confidential Information using at least the same degree of care that You use to protect Your own confidential information of similar importance, but no less than a reasonable degree of care." ... "Apple will be free to use and disclose any Licensee Disclosures on an unrestricted basis without notifying or compensating You." Note: Licensee Disclosures include All Data. You agree to put Apple's data in a vault, Apple agrees to copy your app.
- tomxor 2y ago

londons_explore 2y ago

> they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things. This. EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies who abuse users data rights, use monopolies to push EU companies out of the market, and use accounting tricks to barely pay any taxes. Therefore, the EU has to be fining Apple and Google for something. If not this, then it'll be something else.

IsTom 2y ago
EU's single biggest win is free and open Single Market and it will fight to keep it so. It doesn't matter where companies come from – if you look at e.g. GDPR enforcement tracker you'll see they're as eager to keep internal EU companies in line.
- robertfall 2y ago
  Yea, but that's not so true for the DMA. They're only targeting foreign companies using it.
  - martimarkov 2y ago
    Any evidence for this? Which big domestic company is a gatekeeper and not being targeted by the EU?
    - burnerthrow008 2y ago
      Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. See, the problem is that if I name one as an example, you will just fall back to silly games like "but the EU defined the term 'gatekeeper' in such a way that your example does not count". It does not matter whether the market dynamics are the same as the defined gatekeepers, whether the market shares are similar, or anything like that. Your side will shut down any debate with logic such as that. So why bother engaging? It's like arguing with a hardcore religious person about god. "Oh, but that's not what I meant by 'god'".
      - p_j_w 2y ago
        This just sounds like you don't have any examples. >It does not matter whether the market dynamics are the same as the defined gatekeepers Perhaps then find an example where this is the case.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - buzer 2y ago
    Initially all companies that were defined as gatekeepers under DMA were foreign, but on 13.5.2024 Booking.com was designated as one as well. They are a Dutch company.
xandrius 2y ago
Let's not make it some sort of agenda out the EU: these companies are out just for themselves and however much someone likes their tech/philosophy/ecosystem, their practices are bullshit and unfair.
- _justinfunk 2y ago
  If Apple gets to have an nefarious agenda, then the EU may have one as well.
  - xandrius 2y ago
    One is a for-profit company known for anti-competitive and cut-throat techniques, as well as expert in tax dodging over the world. The other is a governmental group formed by 27 rather different countries, all having a wide range of philosophies, cultures, corruption and mentalities. I know which one I am more likely to get some level-headed decision which might help me.
  - hkt 2y ago
    The EU at the cutting edge of competition law, which is to say it is looking actively at the competitive landscape and saying "what are the problems?" then moving doctrine along to solve them. There's a lot to be said for the approach. If the EU can be said to have an agenda, it is clear from the rules - their agenda is market fairness, and the ability of new entrants to successfully compete. The DMA is a key plank of that, but there will be others.
  - izacus 2y ago
    I know it might be not be an obvious difference for people living in US these days, but there's in fact a massive difference between a megacorporation and elected government.
    - _justinfunk 2y ago
      Who did you vote for in the EU? When were those elections?
SSLy 2y ago
forget not the stick is also levied towards domestic to EU companies. starting with Booking.com
- Bud 2y ago
  [dead]
naravara 2y ago
> EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies EU tech companies want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies. The Digital Markets Act’s standards for considering someone a “gatekeeper” seems like it was specifically tailored to exclude Spotify while binding Apple, Google, and Facebook.
- arlcode 2y ago
  There is plenty of competition in Spotify's market.Music is a commodity and the market is working Just fine. Btw Netflix also isn't a gatekeeper and neither are Disney, salesforce or Oracle to name a few.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > The Digital Markets Act’s standards for considering someone a “gatekeeper” seems like it was specifically tailored to exclude Spotify while binding Apple, Google, and Facebook. A glance at that list of 4 companies will quickly lead a person to the intuitive observation that 1 of those companies is not like the other. It's hard to see how one would classify Spotify as a "Gatekeeper" in the sense that the others are, so perhaps your observation is by design: Why would we expect the legal definition of ”Gatekeeper" to include Spotify, if Spotify is not a gatekeeper even on a common-sense level?
- sensanaty 2y ago
  How is Spotify a gatekeeper? There's iTunes, Deezer, YouTube Music, Tidal and many, many, many other music providers.
ffgjgf1 2y ago
It’s one of the few benefits of EU being a complete backwater when it comes to software and consumer tech products. There will be very little harm to EU’s economy since almost all of the profits are being sent to the US anyway. Also this/GDPR/etc. is a form of protectionism (not that I see anything wrong with that to a limited extent) which will hopefully give at least some slight competitive advantage to EU tech companies (since they really do need it) and maybe a bit more crumbs to fight over.

spiderfarmer 2y ago

The only reason is that they don't want the public to realise how greedy they are. They know the value they add is not worth the price difference to a lot of customers. As many have said for years. As long as Apple is not able to explain their value to the customer, they have to rely on shady business tactics to maintain the revenue stream they became addicted to.

pjmlp 2y ago
Having been so close to bankruptcy seemed to have tainted their behaviour, that now anything goes to protect what in the end saved them, moreso than in other companies.
- ninth_ant 2y ago
  No, not “moreso than in other companies” — maximizing profits is something that effectively all companies do. The difference is that smaller companies can get away with anticompetitive behaviour but there are regulations for market leaders. What Apple was allowed to do when they were a disrupter is different from what they are allowed to do with a dominant postion in the ecosystem. PS Saying all companies are greedy and would abuse a market position is not a moral defense of Apple’s behaviour, it’s a defense of antitrust regulations.
carlosjobim 2y ago
Do you know any other marketplace / reseller who puts a message: "By the way, if you book directly with the provider and cut us out, it will be cheaper"? I can fully understand Apple's position. They created the system that customers love, developers will have to pay something to get access to those customers. Apple doesn't have to explain to customers the value. Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > I can fully understand Apple's position They want to maximize their revenue, just like any other company and there is absolutely nothing else to it. > Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting. You don’t get to pick and choose which features do you want and most people don’t really care. Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting. That’s what allows Apple to abuse their position as a quasi-monopoly (as a platform for app developers adjusted by user spending they are effectively that in multiple markets).

rekoil 2y ago

They could also provide developers some APIs to register external subscriptions and purchases, and thus make cancellation and refunds available through centralised user interfaces within iOS, but they don't, because their goal isn't actually to create great products for their customers, it's to create value for shareholders, and they can more easily do that by locking users into their model.

IMTDb 2y ago
As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only one with my payment informations. I can safely install any app that I want, get subscription, in-apps etc without ever having to wonder where my payment informations are going. You can't have that level of safety with API. Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. If I unsubscribe from an Apple provided UI, I will hold Apple responsible for the execution of the action. Apple works really really hard to make sure that this trust we have in their system is warranted. As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else. The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. That being said, Apple should allow users to perform all these operations outside of the iOS ecosystem if the developer allows it. I feel there is a clear communication here that "anything done outside of the Apple UI's is not the responsibility of Apple" (including payment / subscription management).
- troupo 2y ago
  > Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that. > As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else. This is true. > The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything. However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon.

pjc50 2y ago

> Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? They haven't (and obviously won't), but the intent is clearly to eliminate any criticism of Apple from within apps, while also making sure that there aren't any "leaks" in the system from which money could escape that they want their fingers on. (except for privileged companies like Netflix and Amazon)

beeboobaa3 2y ago

> where the judge surmised that App store model was not just payments but the whole mechanism of tracking subscriptions, cancel and refunds, and standard pricing for purchases Well, yeah. When it's your only goddamn choice it sure as shit becomes that. I can guarantee you it can be done for much, much less than 30%. But apple won't allow it.

martimarkov 2y ago
But that’s how they decided to fund other areas like having iOS free. I still don’t understand the logic behind the complaint. If the developers don’t want to pay, why not just drop support for iOS? If the answer is because customers are on iOS then… idk respect that this is the decision of the user. Don’t force me to install another App Store or give you my card data so you can charge me the same amount and keep more profit while compromising my privacy and security
- happymellon 2y ago
  > that's how they decided to fund other areas like having iOS free Isn't that funded by iDevice and Mac sales? Because Mac sales sure as hell aren't going to MacOS development...
- stale2002 2y ago
  > idk respect that this is the decision of the user. You have it completely opposite. The argument is that the user should be given full power and permission over their own device that they own, and should be allowed to choose, on their iPhone, to install whatever they want. If a user doesn't want to install an app, thats fine. But give them the choice to do so. > Don’t force me to install another App Store Then don't install another app store! Just don't do it!
- beeboobaa3 2y ago
  Apple, being part of a duopoly, should not have that power. That's all. I don't care about protecting their business or whatever the fuck else.

amelius 2y ago

> But then, let the developer explain that too. This is a bit like banning free speech because sometimes not the whole story is told.

HumblyTossed 2y ago

> Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? Surely because they think, "We're Apple, this is how we do things." But honestly, there's starting to burn through a lot of the consumer good will credit they have built up. They're just another "shareholders first" company now.

vundercind 2y ago

> Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? As a user, it’d just be irritating noise to have this start showing up in apps, unless buried in some little out of the way link somewhere like other unimportant things like the supposedly legally binding t&c all these apps pretend we’re reading. Messages like this (“go subscribe somewhere else to get a lower price”) also confuse the hell out of e.g. my dad and prime them to fall for scam messages.

Rohansi 2y ago
Could just show "Apple transaction fees" as a separate line item instead of just the total. Everyone should be more accustomed to that than a possibly sketchy looking message.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Yeah making it itemized on the payment screen would be fine. As long as the stated amount and the final total weren’t different, like sales taxes in US stores. No “$10… just kidding now it’s $13”. But listing it on the “bill”, yeah, wouldn’t mind a bit if they were forced to do that.

naravara 2y ago

> "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" For one thing, nobody reads that stuff and secondary, after a few months people forget the details of where and how they subscribed to things. So it absolutely would lead to an increase in support calls to Apple as people ask why they can’t manage a subscription through the App Store. Even me, who generally does keep track of this sort of thing, completely forgot through what service I first activated an HBO subscription and it was kind of a hassle to cancel it since, it turned out, I had set it up through Roku and I haven’t owned anything Roku in 6 years so didn’t think to look. A blanket ban is overdoing it though, and is just a lazy (and conveniently profit maximizing) way to stop it. I’ve long felt that what Apple ought to do is maintain a codified standard of bad behaviors that address the specific dark patterns they are worried about and just hold that over developers’ heads to retroactively punish abuse rather than having a default posture of being adversarial.

irdc 2y ago
> what Apple ought to do is maintain a codified standard of bad behaviors that address the specific dark patterns they are worried about and just hold that over developers’ heads The problem with doing that is that it likely results in a game of Whack-A-Mole with malicious parties. See for instance Google regarding SEO.
- naravara 2y ago
  They’re already playing that game through App Review anyway though. This just gives them more granular sets of punishments they can dole out beyond just “accepted” or “rejected.” It also discourages seedy developers from just opening up chains of fly-by-night developer accounts to upload scams, since they could gate a lot of these elevated API privileges behind needing to have a good reputation.

willseth 2y ago

> "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" This seems like a reasonable compromise. Allow Apple to tell you what you won't get if you leave their store, but otherwise let consumers choose. > Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? The reason is that every major retailer has anti-steering or most favored nation agreements with their suppliers, and Apple thinks they shouldn't be banned from it when everyone else does it. Applied to physical retail it does seem pretty absurd, e.g. The Cuisinart blender box at Target says it's 10% cheaper at Wal-Mart.

araes 2y ago
It's close to that, and if Apple was forced to advertise the cheaper price, or the product seller themselves was then it would be. This is more like Target prohibits sellers from ever notifying you that there's a sales price at Walmart if you're looking for a deal. You're not allowed to push deals for you're own product during Black Friday or similar. Frankly. I donno where the quote about the "do not tell about sales is at." I tried to read the legalese and got stuck on: 7.3 "You may also distribute Your Applications ... within Your company, ... on a limited number of Registered Devices (as specified in the Program web portal)" Wait. What? My own company has limited internal distribution on my own app? 7.6 "Except for the distribution of ... Licensed Applications through the App Store or Custom App Distribution, the distribution of Applications (using Section 7.3, 7.4, 7.5) ... and/or as otherwise permitted herein, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. You agree not to distribute Your Application ... via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so." IE, you cannot go out on the street and "share" this app with someone, or give it to them, or similar. And obviously not 3rd party portals. 9.2-9.3: "You agree to protect Apple Confidential Information using at least the same degree of care that You use to protect Your own confidential information of similar importance, but no less than a reasonable degree of care." ... "Apple will be free to use and disclose any Licensee Disclosures on an unrestricted basis without notifying or compensating You." Note: Licensee Disclosures include All Data. You agree to put Apple's data in a vault, Apple agrees to copy your app.
tomxor 2y ago