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

181–190 of 317 posts

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

#181

Post by jamil7 »

JimDabell wrote: post #167
jamil7 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also don't provide a view controller or something you can present to display the warning as they do with other things like this, you have to build the view yourself according to their silly specs... Phil Schiller needs to go.

That’s totally reasonable. A new view controller would require a new version of iOS to provide that view controller, which would lock out all the people on older versions of iOS from the alternative payment methods. Any iOS developer can put together a screen like that in no time, it’s not a meaningful hurdle and it means more people can get the alternative payment method.

That's true I forgot that it needs to work retroactively plus it's only in NL so it makes less sense to be available to everyone. Yes you can put it together quickly and no-doubt a package will appear on GitHub for those who don't want to but normally these things defer to an OS control.

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

#182

Post by Aldo_MX »

mbreese wrote: post #176
Aldo_MX wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree 100% with you, but here's the thing: That peace of mind has a price. As long as Apple lets me charge you twice the price I'll play by their IAP rules.

But that's one of the things Apple is selling - peace of mind. The customer knows they will be able to cancel subscriptions, get refunds, security, etc... And if those are conditions the customer and developer are okay with, then everyone wins. I agree -- easy has a price. But it's one of the benefits of the walled garden. And it's one that a lot of customers are willing to pay, just to avoid the hassles involved wit…

Yeah, but Apple is already charging twice the price for the hardware, let me charge twice the price for the software instead of insisting that I charge the same in every platform.

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

#183

Post by justapassenger »

makerofthings wrote: post #77
drcongo wrote: post #6

I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but I think this is good . As a consumer, I want to be warned if there's something that's going to deviate from my system's norms, especially if it could take money from me.

I think this is great, too. I just wish all the folk on hackernews that want to trash what apple have built would just go buy an Android phone and leave it alone. If you don’t like the AppStore, don’t buy an iPhone.

Should people who didn’t like Microsoft forcing Internet Explorer 20 years ago, also just go and not buy Windows?

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

#184

Post by capableweb »

jaywalk wrote: post #128
capableweb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that holds up in practice. The "fix" for the anti-trust claim (or what it was called) was for Microsoft to add a popup asking the user what browser they wanted, and Internet Explorer (or whatever it's called today) is still as embedded into the OS as it was in the past.

IE isn't embedded in the OS in any significant way any more, and hasn't been for a while. Windows Explorer used to basically be a wrapper around IE, for example.

Nowadays the Windows default browser is called Microsoft Edge (based around Blink engine), and you still cannot remove it from the OS as it's "essential component of our [Microsoft] operating system", at least according to Microsoft themselves:

> Microsoft Edge is the web browser recommended by Microsoft and is the default web browser for Windows. Because Windows supports applications that rely on the web platform, our default web browser is an essential component of our operating system and can’t be uninstalled. To provide our users with compatibility, compliance, accessibility, and performance, we'll continue updating Microsoft Edge through the browser installer or Windows updates.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/why-can-t...

I still click on links in some parts of the OS or other applications on Windows 10 that opens in Microsoft Edge, even though I've set Firefox to be my default browser.

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

#185

Post by onepointsixC »

disgu wrote: post #132

I'm probably in the minority here but I'm at a point where I'll simply not purchase any service if I cannot use the in app form of payment. I'm just done with everything else. If I miss out on something then so be it. Have you ever bought an Adobe subscription, ever tried to cancel a New York Times subscription? Or Audible where they say "Well, you can cancel but then we'll also take the tokens you've already paid fo…

Sure I agree that dark patterns which try to prevent your from canceling are awful and the iOS App store comparatively makes that easy.

But that's great argument for regulators to step in to prevent dark patterns. Cancelation should be just as easy as signing up.

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

#186

Post by scarface74 »

bogwog wrote: post #179
scarface74 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of those 17 million (which when Apple was still giving out number of iPhones sold was about a quarter’s worth of sales in a low quarter)… - not all are buying iPhones - roughly 3 million of the population are under 15.

That doesn’t make a difference. The long term growth opportunities in a country are huge, and for a company the size Apple, any opportunity for growth is extremely valuable.

If Apple sold a $1500 maxed out iPhone Pro to everyone above the age of 15 in the Netherlands, that a little over $2 billion in revenue - or 1/8th the amount that Google reportedly pays Apple every year to be the default search engine on Apple devices.

Growth at all costs regardless of margin is what money losing unicorns do. Not what companies do that are worth 3 trillion dollars.

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

#187

Post by pwinnski »

disgu wrote: post #132

I'm probably in the minority here but I'm at a point where I'll simply not purchase any service if I cannot use the in app form of payment. I'm just done with everything else. If I miss out on something then so be it. Have you ever bought an Adobe subscription, ever tried to cancel a New York Times subscription? Or Audible where they say "Well, you can cancel but then we'll also take the tokens you've already paid fo…

I 100% agree that I am not interested in establishing new relationships with payment systems other than Apple's. Absolutely true.

BUT two things:

1. I already have relationships with some payment systems other than Apple's which I trust. Not many, but some. I mean, Amazon happens to be big enough that they are immune from this requirement, even for digital purchases, but there are plenty of other companies I would happily pay directly and trust as much as Apple.

2. This messaging requirement is just petty. It makes Apple look small and childish. It should embarrass them that this ever saw the light of day.

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

#188

Post by Spivak »

jsiepkes wrote: post #156
disgu wrote: post #132

I'm probably in the minority here but I'm at a point where I'll simply not purchase any service if I cannot use the in app form of payment. I'm just done with everything else. If I miss out on something then so be it. Have you ever bought an Adobe subscription, ever tried to cancel a New York Times subscription? Or Audible where they say "Well, you can cancel but then we'll also take the tokens you've already paid fo…

Fine, but apps should be allowed to let you pay via alternative methods and also allow you to pay via Apple and charge you the 30% extra costs which Apple wants. I highly doubt you would pay 30% more just so you can pay via Apple.

Apple's 30% charge isn't for payment methods. I hate that this meme has persisted through the Epic case and the Netherlands regulations.

Apple charges the seller 30% (well 27% but w/e) as a sales commission for being able to sell digital goods through any means on their platform. Harping for allowing alternative payment methods is the wrong angle if you don't want to pay 30%.

It's not about the payment methods! If you can force Apple to drop their commission then IAP would be a 3% charge and nobody would really care.

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

#189

Post by onepointsixC »

makerofthings wrote: post #77
drcongo wrote: post #6

I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but I think this is good . As a consumer, I want to be warned if there's something that's going to deviate from my system's norms, especially if it could take money from me.

I think this is great, too. I just wish all the folk on hackernews that want to trash what apple have built would just go buy an Android phone and leave it alone. If you don’t like the AppStore, don’t buy an iPhone.

You understand only one of two things are going to happen here:

Either the Netherlands government ignores the fact that the spirit of their law was completely ignored and allows Apple to set the precedent of subverting the demands of lawmakers and regulators for Google to follow.

Or the Netherlands pass a new laws in retaliation to target this.

Telling users to just use phones by the other member of the mobile duolopoly doesn't address anything here. If Apple can get away with this, Google will follow.

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

#190

Post by Spivak »

coder543 wrote: post #162
Grustaf wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean of course it's indirectly about money, they want people to have a good experience with their Mac so they stay in the ecosystem. But when you sideload an app like that there is no question about losing app store revenue (developers can just notarize their app for free), it's only about the user experience. No doubt on iOS it's about both, but my point is that it's reductive to think it's ONLY about losing app s…

> Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway. I believe Apple is being forward-looking here. They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators, since it defeats the entire purpose, so they're planning for a future where they're forced to lower that. They want the option to be presented to consumers as being scarier tha…

> They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators.

I actually think I'm 100% with Apple on this one. The Dutch regulators made the same mistake Epic and so many devs across the internet and hitched their "I don't want to pay 30% wagon" to "Apple is disallowing 3rd party providers" which have nothing at all to do with one another. The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit.

I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things.

And hitching the wagon to "sideloading" or "alternative app stores" is equally as stupid because you're just trying to find a workaround to things that aren't the core issue. Even with sideloading and other app stores Apple can still demand a sales commission.

Post reply on HN