5 ms·

Apple could add an API for 3rd party subscriptions to integrate with that screen. But Apple prefers to insinuate that you either pay them 30% or get scammed, a

by pornel 2y ago

Apple could add an API for 3rd party subscriptions to integrate with that screen. But Apple prefers to insinuate that you either pay them 30% or get scammed, and there is absolutely no option in between.

auggierose 2y ago
[flagged]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
30% is too high. Charge whatever Visa charges.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Without commenting on the appropriate level of charges, Visa and Apple provide very different services. For example, with Apple, you get administration of taxes in many locales as well as dealing with currency exchange. Also, I don't think sellers have to deal with chargebacks, although Apple might have their own version of a chargeback, but I am not sure.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > Also, I don't think sellers have to deal with chargebacks, although Apple might have their own version of a chargeback, but I am not sure. They absolutely do, just through Apple, "Disputes". Apple will refund the user the full purchase price (that's fun, $10 app, you get $7 after the Apple cut, and on refund, you have to refund $10, so you're actually out money). And too many disputes will get your developer privileges restricted or revoked.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      That’s pretty shitty of Apple.
- jp57 2y ago
  You mean for Apple to charge that on top of the Visa charges, which Apple is paying out of the 30% now, I assume? Apple is the merchant of record for App Store txns and pays all the transaction fees, as well as all their other costs, out of the 30%. (I don't know how much all that adds up to, but the total is strictly greater than sum of the credit card fees.)
- matwood 2y ago
  What would you pay to have access to the most affluent mobile users with CC's preloaded and ready to buy? That's what Apple is charging for. It must be worth quite a bit since people either pay or complain up and down they are forced to pay it or they don't have a business. IIRC, the judge in the EPIC case even said there was no issue with 30%.
lenerdenator 2y ago
> Apple could add an API for 3rd party subscriptions to integrate with that screen. They could. And the third parties would absolutely ignore it or make it a front door to their own subscription management, which could mean anything from something as simple as the current iOS subscription management (highly unlikely) or a link that opens a browser page that tells you to call a given phone number to cancel your subscription that is always "experiencing high call volumes" and "thanks you for your patience" after half-an-hour on the phone. A service that is effectively un-cancelable really is the dream product: the person doesn't want it, so they don't actively use it (meaning you have no expense in providing it), but also don't want the hassle of putting up with your "are you sure?" tactics to cancel. Businesses make hundreds of millions of dollars annually on hard-to-cancel subscriptions in the US.
- aftbit 2y ago
  But then Apple could use their market power to remove those cheating apps from the app store, just like they are doing for the billing changes.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Maybe. Or they could just keep doing the thing that earns them the most money, which is what they're doing now.
    - aftbit 2y ago
      I'm just saying, it's a strawman argument to claim that Apple is doing this to "protect users". That's what they want you to think, but they're actually doing this to make a massive amount of revenue at the cost of literally everyone in the market, users and creators alike. Edit: Econ 101 - the more inelastic the demand, the more the tax burden falls on consumers. One would assume that demand for Patreon is relatively elastic, at least when compared to things like food, housing, transportation, etc. Thus most of this tax burden will actually fall on the producers (i.e. Patreon and the creators), which explains why they're not willing to just take the 30% cut and will instead charge more for Apple users.

by pornel 2y ago

auggierose 2y ago

[flagged]

mensetmanusman 2y ago

30% is too high. Charge whatever Visa charges.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Without commenting on the appropriate level of charges, Visa and Apple provide very different services. For example, with Apple, you get administration of taxes in many locales as well as dealing with currency exchange. Also, I don't think sellers have to deal with chargebacks, although Apple might have their own version of a chargeback, but I am not sure.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > Also, I don't think sellers have to deal with chargebacks, although Apple might have their own version of a chargeback, but I am not sure. They absolutely do, just through Apple, "Disputes". Apple will refund the user the full purchase price (that's fun, $10 app, you get $7 after the Apple cut, and on refund, you have to refund $10, so you're actually out money). And too many disputes will get your developer privileges restricted or revoked.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    That’s pretty shitty of Apple.
jp57 2y ago
You mean for Apple to charge that on top of the Visa charges, which Apple is paying out of the 30% now, I assume? Apple is the merchant of record for App Store txns and pays all the transaction fees, as well as all their other costs, out of the 30%. (I don't know how much all that adds up to, but the total is strictly greater than sum of the credit card fees.)
matwood 2y ago
What would you pay to have access to the most affluent mobile users with CC's preloaded and ready to buy? That's what Apple is charging for. It must be worth quite a bit since people either pay or complain up and down they are forced to pay it or they don't have a business. IIRC, the judge in the EPIC case even said there was no issue with 30%.

lenerdenator 2y ago

> Apple could add an API for 3rd party subscriptions to integrate with that screen. They could. And the third parties would absolutely ignore it or make it a front door to their own subscription management, which could mean anything from something as simple as the current iOS subscription management (highly unlikely) or a link that opens a browser page that tells you to call a given phone number to cancel your subscription that is always "experiencing high call volumes" and "thanks you for your patience" after half-an-hour on the phone. A service that is effectively un-cancelable really is the dream product: the person doesn't want it, so they don't actively use it (meaning you have no expense in providing it), but also don't want the hassle of putting up with your "are you sure?" tactics to cancel. Businesses make hundreds of millions of dollars annually on hard-to-cancel subscriptions in the US.

aftbit 2y ago
But then Apple could use their market power to remove those cheating apps from the app store, just like they are doing for the billing changes.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Maybe. Or they could just keep doing the thing that earns them the most money, which is what they're doing now.
  - aftbit 2y ago
    I'm just saying, it's a strawman argument to claim that Apple is doing this to "protect users". That's what they want you to think, but they're actually doing this to make a massive amount of revenue at the cost of literally everyone in the market, users and creators alike. Edit: Econ 101 - the more inelastic the demand, the more the tax burden falls on consumers. One would assume that demand for Patreon is relatively elastic, at least when compared to things like food, housing, transportation, etc. Thus most of this tax burden will actually fall on the producers (i.e. Patreon and the creators), which explains why they're not willing to just take the 30% cut and will instead charge more for Apple users.