Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15% • Hacker News Board

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#21

Post by ethbr0 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #11

beojan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a user's perspective, the review is absolutely necessary and really needs to be much better on Android. Proactive vetoing of malware from distribution is much better than reactive malware scanning against a signature library. That doesn't really justify a slice of subscription revenue though.

> review is absolutely necessary Wholeheartedly disagree. I download software on Linux and Mac frequently without ever having it reviewed. I buy physical products that have sensors. These don't get scrutinized. If we truly need a "health inspector", then it should be a third party. Not the mafia that makes the device and frequently launches competing apps and features. And it seems totally uneven that websites can ac…

From a user's perspective, what do they want? Availability, cheapness, quality, (all other things), security, privacy

Android users don't care that they're being tracked, as long as it doesn't break their app or drain their battery too fast.

Google cares that apps track users, because (a) it allows apps to end run around their own ad offering & (b) it provides Apple with a talking point to bludgeon them about the head with.

Review is a PR measure masquerading as a user benefit, in order to technically enforce a centralized toll gate.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#22

Post by dcchambers » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other types of payment processors.

I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever price they want to charge for using their app store services. They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving you access to a massive potential userbase.

The problem is them preventing you (the developer) from allowing the user to use other forms of payment processing within the app itself. Apple is the worst offender of this. Google obviously allows side-loading of apps and other app stores for Android while Apple does not. Apple goes so far as to prevent you from linking to a website with an external payment option, or to even suggest in text within your app that there are ways to subscribe/pay outside of the app store.

They claim it's about the user experience and security, which is legitimate, but it's almost certainly about keeping those nice profit margins. It's within their right to charge what they want to use their store, but the restrictive nature of not allowing competition is wrong. If Apple would even allow sideloading of apps this wouldn't really be an issue. They could keep things as-is and just tell developers "Don't like the app store rules? That's fine, but you can't list your app here. Good luck in the free market."

Because mobile computing has become the primary form of computing for many (most?) people, the fact that these few companies have so much power about what people can and can not do on their own devices is scary.

Edit: At a minimum, they could require developers to make all payments available via the official app store payment platform, in addition to any other types of payment processing they want to do. This would let the customer decide and would get rid of any regulatory concerns about monopolies. And you know what? I bet most customers would still pay via the official app store/play store payment method, but at least the other options are there. I also think the policy of not allowing apps from outside the app store to be installed is insane. It's your device, you should be able to use it how you want to.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#23

Post by realusername » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

dcchambers wrote: post #22

I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other types of payment processors. I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever price they want to charge for using their app store services. They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving you access to…

I want it one step further, it's not called "sideloading" but just "normal install", people should be able to install anything they want without some unwanted middleman, all the restrictions are just market distortions.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#24

Post by anxrn » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

dcchambers wrote: post #22

I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other types of payment processors. I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever price they want to charge for using their app store services. They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving you access to…

Reminder that Jobs initially did not support having an app store at all for the original iPhone, IIRC for reasons of maintaining the bar on experience. His proposal was to build "apps" for use in Safari.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/10/the-revolution-st...

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#25

Post by justapassenger » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #17

sofixa wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer, i want app stores. It's million times better than the default Windows situation downloading random binaries off the Internet. Code signing and malware signature matching are at best bandaids on a waterfall. Having a centralised place with reviews categories, updates etc. is very valuable.

Not all app stores are centralized, Linux has had this figured out for years.

And yet, year of Linux on the desktop never happened.

Geeks are very different audience from general public.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#26

Post by weyland108 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

dcchambers wrote: post #22

I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other types of payment processors. I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever price they want to charge for using their app store services. They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving you access to…

As a iOS user I feel safer that all payments go through apple. I am assured of certain level of privacy and security which is very comforting.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#27

Post by mattnewton » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

weyland108 wrote: post #26

dcchambers wrote: post #22

I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other types of payment processors. I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever price they want to charge for using their app store services. They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving you access to…

As a iOS user I feel safer that all payments go through apple. I am assured of certain level of privacy and security which is very comforting.

Why not just require whether or not it is going through apple to be prominently displayed, and you can only use the apple App Store then, and allow other people to use other payment processors if they trust them?

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#28

Post by lwansbrough » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

Wow Google must have done some major restructuring to cut their revenue in half! /s

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#29

Post by elliekelly » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

weyland108 wrote: post #26

dcchambers wrote: post #22

I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other types of payment processors. I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever price they want to charge for using their app store services. They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving you access to…

As a iOS user I feel safer that all payments go through apple. I am assured of certain level of privacy and security which is very comforting.

If I can make a purchase or get a subscription through Apple I always do because I know it will be infinitely easier to cancel and I won’t have to deal with any shady billing from sites that store your card info. I don’t understand why Apple can’t require their payment methods but also allow the option for external payment. Apple should position themselves like American Express: maybe a touch more expensive but worth it for the peace of mind and ease of getting assistance.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#30

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

weyland108 wrote: post #26

dcchambers wrote: post #22

I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other types of payment processors. I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever price they want to charge for using their app store services. They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving you access to…

As a iOS user I feel safer that all payments go through apple. I am assured of certain level of privacy and security which is very comforting.

Are you also feel safer that Apple decides what apps you are allowed to run? For example, in China, iOS users aren't allowed to run Signal or Protonmail apps.

Did it occur to you that if a user is not the final authority who decides which apps should run on the device, he is not really owning the device, but merely leasing it, under some strict terms?