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

This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 317 posts

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#101

Post by falcolas »

_zooted wrote: post #52
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #39

I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny. I am a long-time Mac user and I find myself fervently hoping that Apple has made the completely unnecessary self-own that will finally help people forget the whole keyboard fiasco. This is the most staggering example of deliberate, bad-faith arrogance that they could have come up with. If Apple is now the kind of business that joyfully thumbs its nose at regulator…

IMO the goal is to add friction to the external payment methods so that people just give up and use the built-in Apple payment method that they make insane margins on.

Well, their "commission" on out-of-app purchases is 27%, so adding friction doesn't make a ton of sense.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604

Apple's just being a dick here.

- Written from my MacBook Pro -

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#102

Post by samwillis »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #88
samwillis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny. It's possible to find something funny and be highly critical of it at the same time. Laughing at something outrageously bad is a pretty standard reaction.

This is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully picks on a kid you don't like.

No this is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully chases a kid you like but trips over his own feat and falls flat on his face.

The point is its embarrassing the lengths Apple are going to to try to maintain the status quo.

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#103

Post by scarface74 »

notyourday wrote: post #49
huhtenberg wrote: post #33

But, wait! It gets even better [1]: - Cannot also support IAP - Website links are all to a single URL specified in Info.plist with no parameters - Must submit monthly report to Apple listing EVERY external transaction All for measly 27% of the sales proceeds. A total steal. Apple's really jerking on the regulators' chain. I sure hope they continue in the same vein, because the fallout will be spectacular. [1] https:/…

Netherlands should respond with passing a law that any platform company that does that is subject to a 97% tax on the revenue generated via platform stores, payable 5 years in advance with the overpayments refunded at the end of the tax year. When a company goes to war with the government, the company always loses. It is time for Cook to learn it. He is under a delusion that he is god.

The Netherlands population is a little more than half of Texas’s population. Apple could completely pull out of the Netherlands and wouldn’t even feel the affect.

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#104

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

I think all the verbiage and display of these types of regulatory-enforced modals should be specifically defined by the regulations.

Why are these any different from nutrition labels? In the US, nutrition labels always look pretty much exactly the same, down to the font. I don't have to look in 30 different places to find the calorie count. Compare that with cookie dialogs, where each website has its own different version so you've got to figure out which of 10 different options means "no, don't track me".

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#105

Post by criddell »

breakfastduck wrote: post #73

Not sure I see the issue here - if I'm subscribing to something on iOS I expect to be able to cancel it in 1 click from my subscription settings. But apparently it should be fine to circumvent that AND not alert the user to the fact that's happening.

Is there a technical reason third part payments cannot co-exist with the requirement that subscriptions register with the iOS subscription manager?

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#106

Post by colejohnson66 »

goblin89 wrote: post #84
dessant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A store cannot dictate how much you charge for a product at a different retailer, and they have no right to interfere with your business activity, and the agreements you have with a different distributor.

> A store cannot dictate how much you charge for a product at a different retailer Isn’t this exactly what is happening everywhere you see “we price match!” or “low price guarantee”? Platforms can and do require sellers to provide the lowest price, and take whatever measures including offing violators from the platform if this means they suffer losses every time a buyer does their research. Not even mentioning exclus…

Nitpick: "We price match" is a store voluntarily taking a price cut for their customers. The other store "dictates" the price, but the first one can always end the sale if they wish.

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#107

Post by breakfastduck »

criddell wrote: post #105
breakfastduck wrote: post #73

Not sure I see the issue here - if I'm subscribing to something on iOS I expect to be able to cancel it in 1 click from my subscription settings. But apparently it should be fine to circumvent that AND not alert the user to the fact that's happening.

Is there a technical reason third part payments cannot co-exist with the requirement that subscriptions register with the iOS subscription manager?

There's no technical reason. But why would anyone use it if apple didn't require it? That's a loss to me as a consumer.

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#108

Post by [deleted] »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #88
samwillis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny. It's possible to find something funny and be highly critical of it at the same time. Laughing at something outrageously bad is a pretty standard reaction.

This is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully picks on a kid you don't like.

[deleted]

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#109

Post by lozenge »

breakfastduck wrote: post #99
lozenge wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could add an API where the app registers a subscription (or link) into the iCloud subscription settings page, they just don't want to.

I mean the developers are clearly trying to avoid this (among other things) so I can't imagine there's much point.

What do you mean? Many apps are happy to provide one click cancellation, they just don't want to pay 30% of their revenue to Apple.

Re: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system

#110

Post by criddell »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #59
FabHK wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an iPad from 2013 that works just fine. It only runs iOS 12.5.5, so some modern apps using newer APIs one cannot install. But many things run perfectly ok, just a tad slow. And, if an app doesn't run, the App store offers to install the latest version still compatible with the OS, if available. I don't see how that's compatible with your claim that: > as soon as they stop supporting it, that's it, you now have…

By contrast, your computer from 2013 is a computer from 2022 but a bit slower. The fact that you view "some stuff is broken but like, it's old" as okay is in my view an enormous concession. It should fully work, there is no reason for it not to other than them locking it down. It's fair enough that an original Motorola Razr isn't a smartphone because there are physical constraints. If the only thing preventing it fro…

I’d be surprised if your 2013 computer can install the latest version of Windows.
Post reply on HN