Artists to Spotify: cough
Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
741–750 of 865 posts
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. Why on earth is Apple allowed to do that? I get that it is their marketplace and their rules, but they are directly hurting competition and consumers this way. There's simply no real argument to prohibit developers like this. Seems like something the EU should combat against.
That depends on whether you prioritize the ability for developers to profit or the security of customers making the purchase. Apple is guaranteeing its users that purchases made within apps are secure and that only Apple has access to their payment info. In the alternate scenario, customers have no way of verifying the security or veracity of some random app developer collecting their payment info.
I feel for Spotify and other companies on the 30% tax but I also love knowing that any purchase by my family or myself is protected, private and easily refunded if there's a mistake. There are already a lot of apps preying on kids but it would be at another level without the in-house payment system.
I think something like 30% on the first purchase and then 5-6% for any recurring purchases would make more sense. I know it changes to 15% after a year but that's still ridiculous IMO.
Maybe there's an App Association that challenges all of these stores on their rather high recurring fees.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#743Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#744Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just those two, it's standard practice: Audible, Google Play video, Amazon video, Amazon music, Playstation Video, Vimeo, Sky Store video, and YouTube Premium/Google Music (same subscription with different marketing). Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. All this strikes me as a clear indi…
> The exact words used by the Audible app for iPhone: This app does not support purchasing content. Instead, add to your wishlist. I honestly never really thought about why this is - I simply just hated Audible for it, and thought it was the most annoying part of their app. However, it's odd - how come the Amazon app is allowed to get away with its own purchasing system?
I believe there's an exception for physical goods, so Amazon is ok but not Kindle, audible etc.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will people actually read the email? Will they remember it at the time they actually want to upgrade their account? (An "email me a payment link" button would almost certainly get rejected by Apple)
“We’ve just sent a verification code to the email you provided, please type the 4 digit code here:_ _ _ _” It could even be 2 digits (the same 2 digits for everyone), you’re just looking to get their eyes on the email letting them know additional paid subscriptions are available on your website.
Let's assume you purposefully crafted the email or app to break the code autofill built into iOS.
I think you'd end up confusing users. Most people will go to their email expecting to see a verification code in big bold type. If you make the code less obvious, they'll get frustrated ("I came here to get a code, why am I now doing something else?") It's awful UX at a particularly business-critical moment.
And this is all assuming Apple doesn't see through your ploy and just reject the app.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#746This isn't about a 30% take rate on IAP (that's fine). This isn't about apple having apple music.
The problem is that Spotify is not allowed to take credit card input directly in the app. The problem is that Spotify isn't allowed to redirect users to a webpage to collect payment.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#747Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but their influence on businesses, markets, policies, etc. is massive and is basically indistinguishable from a market monopoly... That won't hold up well in a court of law. That's the problem, we need to change the law. Because the law as it is currently written, just doesn't see something like Apple as anything close to a monopoly.
Imho, the modern monopoly phrasing should be "a substantial market share" (where substantial is defined both in absolute terms AND as a userbase large enough to be self-sufficient and fund best-of-breed category development). Iff that is true, you should be prohibited from preinstalling, offering, or endorsing any marketplace... without a customer being able to substitute another at their discretion. Thereby requirin…
I think that's why the term "quasi-monopoly" is often used instead.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#748What if Spotify takes your phone number and sends you a text link to sign up to pay?
That would probably be fine...until Apple created a rule to discourage and then eventually ban all apps that used that pattern without going through their API.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#749Cannot post link to https://www.timetoplayfair.com/ on Facebook. It says: Oops Something went wrong. We're working on getting it fixed as soon as we can.
Facebook was experiencing issues all day today.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/tech/facebook-instagram-down/...
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on whether you prioritize the ability for developers to profit or the security of customers making the purchase. Apple is guaranteeing its users that purchases made within apps are secure and that only Apple has access to their payment info. In the alternate scenario, customers have no way of verifying the security or veracity of some random app developer collecting their payment info.
I feel for Spotify and other companies on the 30% tax but I also love knowing that any purchase by my family or myself is protected, private and easily refunded if there's a mistake. There are already a lot of apps preying on kids but it would be at another level without the in-house payment system. I think something like 30% on the first purchase and then 5-6% for any recurring purchases would make more sense. I kno…
This is a ridiculous stance. Essentially it's the same as saying that you're scared to pay for anything online and you only trust Apple for making online payments. There are other solutions to feel secure about paying online or via an app. For instance, if the app asks you for payment, you could be first shown its rating in the store, if it's low. There could be even a separate rating judging the payment security of the app, if security is what Apple is after. You're allowing Apple to rip you off by 30% on all app transactions, it's as simple as that. (Not to mention the cost of locking yourself in their platform and hardware.)