341–350 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now they don't anymore. Already linked it: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines
I linked this and have read it. Where exactly does it preclude apps from charging differential pricing on subscriptions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if Amazon and Google are saints. Even if they colluded to "block" Apple (which would be illegal), millions of people would still continue using Apple.
It's not illegal or collusion to remove their apps and products from Apple phones. I disagree with you - if you couldn't use instagram / fb messenger(s) / tiktok / YouTube, wayyyy less people would buy Apple. https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-en... However, it doesn't look like this is happening anytime soon.
I've commented this elsewhere, but Apple encouraging users to only upgrade and purchase subscriptions through Apple's payment systems and hiding in-app alternatives and links to other options isn't just about the 30% fee. It also increases consumer lock-in to the Apple ecosystem. If the only thing you're using your phone for is calling, browsing, and buying apps, it's not that hard to switch to Android. You lose all…
As long as you don’t care about privacy, updates and having everything you do tied to Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just so you know, your Pixel also has a bunch of binary blobs that track you. Google Play services track nearly everything on the device with system level access. I switched to an iPhone a few years ago to get further from Google, but the crap with the App Store is getting so out of hand now. My next device will probably be a Pine Phone.
If you really want to, atleast on a pixel phone you could unlock your bootloader and put 3rd part open source OS like Graphene OS, Lineage OS or Heck even an AOSP rom
There’s a bunch of neat little things like that you get on Android if you use Google, but you can get on iOS with any server backend.
I hope Apple opens up a bit because there really needs to be serious competition in this space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really sad. On the one hand, sure Apple should be able to make a cut on their app store, on the other hand, they shouldn't be allowed to force apps to do this sort of thing. This will only drive domain prices higher on iOS in order to compensate (in the case of Automattic). If I were in a position where Apple is forcing me to pay a 30% tax, I would literally add "30% Apple Tax" to the check out screen on top…
> On the one hand, sure Apple should be able to make a cut on their app store Apple makes a cut: they charge developers a not insignificant yearly fee of 99 USD per seat, they sell iOS devices and services at great profit, they happily earn 15-30% from in-app purchases and subscriptions wherever developers choose to use those features, they earn 30% on any apps that choose to be paid, and they reserve the right to se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any discount is enticing, but I wonder how many really go through the effort of - 1. Searching, Opening the web page in Safari. 2. Signing-in. 3. Updating personal details. 4. Updating credit card details. 5. Making the payment. Instead of clicking a button to save $1? P.S. I would.
I would not, as it will cost be time and money down the road in case the company doesn’t have a proper way to deal with cancellations
This is where a credit card becomes useful, any credit card company worth its salt will seize charges to you immediately. I wouldn't even ever use a debit card online, it's far too risky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I linked this and have read it. Where exactly does it preclude apps from charging differential pricing on subscriptions?
>must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
Here's another easy disproof: YouTube Premium costs £11.99 on the YouTube website, and £15.99 IAP on the iOS app store right now.
The section you quote is entirely related to communication within the app. It is Apple saying that there is no option to either directly or indirectly push users towards your own payment methods with text or calls to action in your app.
Your argument seems to be that Apple would consider Spotify pricing at $12.99 within the app as somehow "indirectly" pushing users towards other payment options elsewhere when they have $9.99 on their website. Is that right?
Don't you think that offering no means to subscribe in-app -- which means all new users have to seek out the subscription option on Spotify's website -- is a more aggressive way of pushing users out of the app than offering a $12.99 subscription in-app and a $9.99 option on the website?
But in any case: Spotify for years did charge $12.99 in its app and $9.99 on the web. There are multiple[1] instances[2] of[3] users[4] being confused by this and complaining on Spotify's community support pages.
Spotify's anti-trust website[5] -- where they note anything and everything Apple has done to put what they feel to be unfair pressure on them regarding pricing and IAP options -- has this to say about the situation:
> So, we give IAP a try. That means we are now charged Apple's 30% tax and sadly have to increase our price for our fans
> Our users will finally be able to buy a Premium subscription directly through our iOS app. But it also means we have to raise our prices to €12.99 a month. And you guys were rightly not very happy about this
They go on to say:
> We opt out of Apple's payment system and the artificially uncompetitive price we had to charge for using it
> Because we turn off IAP, it means you can no longer upgrade to Premium through the App Store
So to be clear: there was no policy change in 2016 when Spotify disabled IAPs. They did it under their own steam.
YouTube and others persist with charging more for IAPs. Epic did it right up until they implemented their own IAP system and got booted off.
There are many, many good reasons to dislike Apple regarding the app store. You are doing gymnastics to invent a totally new one.
If you want to keep discussing this and don't want to look silly, my suggestion is that you offer direct corroboration of your claim. Try looking for a news article about a developer being told they cannot charge more on iOS than they do on their website, or an announcement of a policy change from Apple.
[1] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/12-99-iphone-charg...
[2] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/Charged-12-99-not-...
[3] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/Why-am-I-charged-1...
[4] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/Been-Paying-12-99-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
You seem to be doing real contortions to try to make this fit your argument, but it doesn't. Here's another easy disproof: YouTube Premium costs £11.99 on the YouTube website, and £15.99 IAP on the iOS app store right now . The section you quote is entirely related to communication within the app. It is Apple saying that there is no option to either directly or indirectly push users towards your own payment methods w…
It does.
>Here's another easy disproof: YouTube Premium costs £11.99 on the YouTube website, and £15.99 IAP on the iOS app store right now.
If you are Google, you get a free pass. It's simple. Look at the recent Wordpress desaster or Hey. Apple doesn't allow showing that you can subscribe somewhere else, in no app, unless you are maybe Google.
>The section you quote is entirely related to communication within the app. It is Apple saying that there is no option to either directly or indirectly push users towards your own payment methods with text or calls to action in your app.
This includes links or any other hint that there might be such a thing.
>Your argument seems to be that Apple would consider Spotify pricing at $12.99 within the app as somehow "indirectly" pushing users towards other payment options elsewhere when they have $9.99 on their website. Is that right?
This entirely depends on the insanity of the reviewer. If that person thinks that it's pushing, then it gets denied.
>But in any case: Spotify for years did charge $12.99 in its app and $9.99 on the web. There are multiple[1] instances[2] of[3] users[4] being confused by this and complaining on Spotify's community support pages.
And they get the blame for it, since they can't label that as "Apple tax" or similar. That's why users are confused. Because Apple plays the dictator there. "must not discourage". Also your links show no official response from Spotify on this matter. These are forum posts, from users ("community legend") with no affiliation to Spotify.
>There are many, many good reasons to dislike Apple regarding the app store. You are doing gymnastics to invent a totally new one.
Not really. Apple doesn't want other payment options, they prove it time and time again. They don't like you showing your users that those exist, time and time again. So yes, you need to charge similar prices, or else you get in trouble.
I've commented this elsewhere, but Apple encouraging users to only upgrade and purchase subscriptions through Apple's payment systems and hiding in-app alternatives and links to other options isn't just about the 30% fee. It also increases consumer lock-in to the Apple ecosystem. If the only thing you're using your phone for is calling, browsing, and buying apps, it's not that hard to switch to Android. You lose all…
> it's not that hard to switch to Android. As long as you don’t care about privacy, updates and having everything you do tied to Google.
The efforts on making decent Linux phones are really important here and worth supporting, but still a long way away from being usable.
A legislative effort to partially debundle hardware from the exclusive control of a single company could be very helpful in mitigating the situation you describe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be doing real contortions to try to make this fit your argument, but it doesn't. Here's another easy disproof: YouTube Premium costs £11.99 on the YouTube website, and £15.99 IAP on the iOS app store right now . The section you quote is entirely related to communication within the app. It is Apple saying that there is no option to either directly or indirectly push users towards your own payment methods w…
>You seem to be doing real contortions to try to make this fit your argument, but it doesn't. It does. >Here's another easy disproof: YouTube Premium costs £11.99 on the YouTube website, and £15.99 IAP on the iOS app store right now. If you are Google, you get a free pass. It's simple. Look at the recent Wordpress desaster or Hey. Apple doesn't allow showing that you can subscribe somewhere else, in no app, unless yo…
> Schiller says that there are a number of decisions about how to charge customers that Basecamp could have made to make the app acceptable under current rules. He lists several, including charging different prices in the app and on the web, and offering a free version with additional functions.
Oh dear. If I was discussing this with someone who actually demonstrates a capacity to incorporate new evidence into their world view I would expect you to acknowledge this and admit that you're wrong. As it is, I look forward to seeing your gymnastics continue!
In any case, you seem to be losing track of your own argument. Here's your original point:
> [Developers cannot charge more on the web than for IAP because of an excerpt from the guidelines] which essentially can counteract the uniformity, depending on how insane the reviewer is. Paying more for IAP is obviously discouraging.
What you are saying: "Apple's guidelines reserve the right to reject your app if you have differential pricing between IAP and your website, by saying that you cannot "directly or indirectly" drive people out of your app and to another payment source. This is at the whim of the reviewer."
Hopefully so far you think I'm being fair.
It was then pointed out to you that this wording is designed to prevent links and other messaging to indicate that services are cheaper elsewhere. Apple is happy for you to charge more for IAPs, but not to say* you do so.
You then used Spotify to support your argument:
> Take Spotify. You can't pay for that in the app. If they could charge more, they would. But they aren't allowed, so they discontinued IAP alltogether.
Then it was pointed out to you that Spotify discontinued IAP of their own volition, not because Apple told them they could not charge more for IAP. YouTube and other services also charge more for subscriptions on iOS than on the web.
Now that your claim has been demonstrated to be false, you're changing your argument from "Look, if Spotify could do it they would do it" to "Well of COURSE these big companies get a free pass from Apple, it's the little guys getting screwed!"
Funny that two replies ago your argument leaned on Spotify entirely, and now you want them to be ignored ;)
> Look at the recent Wordpress desaster or Hey. Apple doesn't allow showing that you can subscribe somewhere else, in no app, unless you are maybe Google.
Neither HEY nor WordPress was charging more online than in the app store. HEY is actually yet another example of you being totally wrong and contorting yourself. Look at this[2] letter from the CEO of HEY.
Relevant excerpts:
> And some people say “Why not just have a special price in-app that’s 30% more than your usual price? Just pass the Apple tax on to customers?” Because that’s not the point.
> And Phil Schiller’s suggestion[3] that we should raise prices on iOS customers to make up for Apple’s added margin is antitrust gold.
As above, Apple's Senior VP Marketing who is in charge of the app store publicly suggested that HEY should charge more for IAP than on the web. Sigh.
> This includes links or any other hint that there might be such a thing.
Yes. And it doesn't stop anyone from charging differential pricing.
> This entirely depends on the insanity of the reviewer. If that person thinks that it's pushing, then it gets denied.
{Citation Needed.} You have offered nothing to support this view.
> And they get the blame for it, since they can't label that as "Apple tax" or similar. That's why users are confused. Because Apple plays the dictator there. "must not discourage". Also your links show no official response from Spotify on this matter. These are forum posts, from users ("community legend") with no affiliation to Spotify.
Nice moving of the goalposts ;)
Looking forward to the next hilarious instalment :)
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-...
[3] https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-...