Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 231 posts

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#161

Post by webmobdev »

ev1 wrote: post #146
Terretta wrote: post #127

> When people buy access to a service via a subscription in an iOS app, they are essentially Apple’s customers. For privacy reasons Apple does not provide much information about them to the apps or businesses that run the apps. That means it’s hard to do customer service, address issues, or solve any problems. > “The user experience is much worse,” a marketing executive from one company told me. “When you buy with th…

As an iOS user, I do not want the publisher knowing anything about me. I'm happy to pay for the app, but I do not want to tell the publisher a single thing other than the fact that it is paid. Nothing else. I do not want to share my email, I do not want to share any form of cardholder data. I want to cancel in one tap for any subscription. I do not want to go through shitty, abusive retention flows.

It is quite sad that most Americans see Apple's exploitation of a lacunae in their law (not allowing easy cancellation of subscriptions) as some benevolent act from it.

Two questions:

1. Are you fine (edit) as a consumer (/edit) paying 30% more for this, especially when you are just trading data collection from the App maker to Apple?

2. Wouldn't you rather that everyone had this protection, and not depend on the mercy of corporates for this?

I absolutely am not fine allowing Apple to charge 30% extra, especially when other payment processors only charge around 2 to 5%. And Apple forcing themselves as a middle man is more of a concern here as they have more potential to exploit me commercially, using my data, than some non-BigTech app maker. The 2nd question is more pertinent to all of us as consumers - thanks to Indian laws and regulation, I can easily unsubscribe to any service, and that protects me from exploitation both from Apple and any unscrupulous service. That is what we should all be working towards (more consumer rights). Any support for Apple on this is totally misguided - if they genuinely cared about your rights here, they wouldn't be gauging 30% of you in in-apps payment, without even telling you that money goes to Apple.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#163

Post by webmobdev »

wlesieutre wrote: post #147
Terretta wrote: post #127

> When people buy access to a service via a subscription in an iOS app, they are essentially Apple’s customers. For privacy reasons Apple does not provide much information about them to the apps or businesses that run the apps. That means it’s hard to do customer service, address issues, or solve any problems. > “The user experience is much worse,” a marketing executive from one company told me. “When you buy with th…

> The user experience is much worse Spoken like someone who has never tried to cancel anything where they had a direct relationship with the publisher

Or rather - spoken like an American? Outside the US, it is quite easy to cancel such subscriptions as the consumer laws are in your favour. Apple's exploitation of this lacunae in US laws is sadly being interpreted as some benevolent act from them. If the US has similar stronger consumer laws, both Apple and other companies wouldn't be able to exploit Americans.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#164

Post by madeofpalk »

asimilator wrote: post #158
offtotheraces wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobile app operator here - let me clarify some things: 1. Until June it was impossible for a developer to issue a refund to an angry customer - Apple simply did not allow developers to do that, despite the app store being around for 13 years. This has led to untold frustration among developers - angry customers email us, leave horrible reviews, leave screeds on social media about how we “won’t” refund them, when in a…

> Apple doesn’t allow subscriptions priced at less than $0.99. Why not? What if I had a product that i wanted to sell for $0.50 a month? I’d pay $0.50 more. I just had the unpleasant experience of canceling a non-Apple controlled service. It sucked. Pages and pages of “are you sure you want to cancel” dark patterns. You guys did this to yourselves with absolutely shitty customer experience. Could not care less if App…

I’m all in favour, as a user, for Apple IAP subscriptions. But shouldn’t “the market” be able to send a signal that they prefer that?

Shouldn’t Apple’s IAP actually be able to compete on its merits (like the better experience that we both prefer!) rather than arbitrary platform lock-in?

If, faced with actual competition, users and/or developers do not chose Apple IAP, wouldn’t this signal to Apple that they need to do better and improve their service?

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#165

Post by nhumrich »

I am curious how this plays out from an antitrust and insider trading point of view. Apple could potentially use it's massive marketing budgeting to "determine the winner" in a specific market, after buying some stock in said company, (or just having good business arrangement with them).

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#166

Post by EGreg »

Terretta wrote: post #127

> When people buy access to a service via a subscription in an iOS app, they are essentially Apple’s customers. For privacy reasons Apple does not provide much information about them to the apps or businesses that run the apps. That means it’s hard to do customer service, address issues, or solve any problems. > “The user experience is much worse,” a marketing executive from one company told me. “When you buy with th…

Can someone here confirm what info the app gets when you get a subscription?

What if a person would sign up to a dating site under two separate names - would the App Store out them somehow?

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#167

Post by webmobdev »

javajosh wrote: post #122

That Apple would do this is interesting, but more interesting to me is Google's position, and obligation, here. There was a throw-away line in the article about Google "not doing anything about it". What could or should Google do about it? Has Google mediated between competitive ad-buyers in the past? I am not sympathetic to goog in general but it seems like that line puts them in a no-win situation: either they err…

Indian laws are quite clear that Google has an obligation not to allow ads on trademarked terms (used as keywords):

> Justice V Kameswar Rao also observed that allowing individuals who are not owners of a trademark to choose a keyword which is a trademarked term or use parts of the trademark interspersed with generic words in the Ad-title or Ad-text may constitute an infringement of a trademark or it's passing off. The Court also opined that the use of trademarks as keywords amounts to "use" in the course of trade in terms of the Trademarks Act.

( https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/google-not-absolve-liabi... : )

Something similar is happening here - it seems clear that Apple is also bidding for the trademarked keyword "HBOMax" to show their ad to mislead the user to their app store. As per the indian courts, this can make Google liable if they don't act on complain from the trademark owner.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#168

Post by bagels »

offtotheraces wrote: post #150
Terretta wrote: post #127

> When people buy access to a service via a subscription in an iOS app, they are essentially Apple’s customers. For privacy reasons Apple does not provide much information about them to the apps or businesses that run the apps. That means it’s hard to do customer service, address issues, or solve any problems. > “The user experience is much worse,” a marketing executive from one company told me. “When you buy with th…

Mobile app operator here - let me clarify some things: 1. Until June it was impossible for a developer to issue a refund to an angry customer - Apple simply did not allow developers to do that, despite the app store being around for 13 years. This has led to untold frustration among developers - angry customers email us, leave horrible reviews, leave screeds on social media about how we “won’t” refund them, when in a…

There are minimum per transaction fees for most processors, so if you go at this alone, and you'd find that charging very small increments may not be feasible.

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#169

Post by darkwizard42 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #164
asimilator wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple doesn’t allow subscriptions priced at less than $0.99. Why not? What if I had a product that i wanted to sell for $0.50 a month? I’d pay $0.50 more. I just had the unpleasant experience of canceling a non-Apple controlled service. It sucked. Pages and pages of “are you sure you want to cancel” dark patterns. You guys did this to yourselves with absolutely shitty customer experience. Could not care less if App…

I’m all in favour, as a user, for Apple IAP subscriptions. But shouldn’t “the market” be able to send a signal that they prefer that? Shouldn’t Apple’s IAP actually be able to compete on its merits (like the better experience that we both prefer!) rather than arbitrary platform lock-in? If, faced with actual competition, users and/or developers do not chose Apple IAP, wouldn’t this signal to Apple that they need to d…

To some degree the competition exists...you leave the iOS ecosystem. Besides all the trendy parts of owning an iPhone (iMessage, camera, "fashionable") the simplicity of not getting burned by apps (or the veneer or not getting burned as often) is clearly valuable to consumers.

What would an acceptable solution to letting both styles compete? (would it be controlled by the phone's settings and the end user can change how they manage their subscriptions? Is it at the app level?)

Re: Apple buying Google ads for high-value subscription apps

#170

Post by ev1 »

webmobdev wrote: post #161
ev1 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an iOS user, I do not want the publisher knowing anything about me. I'm happy to pay for the app, but I do not want to tell the publisher a single thing other than the fact that it is paid. Nothing else. I do not want to share my email, I do not want to share any form of cardholder data. I want to cancel in one tap for any subscription. I do not want to go through shitty, abusive retention flows.

It is quite sad that most Americans see Apple's exploitation of a lacunae in their law (not allowing easy cancellation of subscriptions) as some benevolent act from it. Two questions: 1. Are you fine (edit) as a consumer (/edit) paying 30% more for this, especially when you are just trading data collection from the App maker to Apple? 2. Wouldn't you rather that everyone had this protection, and not depend on the mer…

I'm fine paying another relatively neutral party provided they do not pass ANYTHING on to the final publisher. No name, email, country, anything. Too many bad experiences. If the alternative was to subscribe with Stripe or Braintree, I would just not subscribe. Sure, I might trust Stripe, but I do not trust the end-company to be reasonable or safe stewards of the data that can be exported. Time and time again, repeatedly, this has been proven.

There is a difference between trusting a single company to run all your transactions through them and giving your card out to the 20+ places you subscribe to.

I trust Apple (and Google) on data security several orders of magnitude more than any generic publisher. While I may not like the privacy part, at least they tend to hold it better than any other generic app.

Post reply on HN