Live data from Hacker News

Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

old.reddit.com

211–220 of 228 posts

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#211
post #171
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to cancel an apple sub after moving to android.

It's pretty easy, so long as you're either using a Mac or are on Windows and able to install iTunes. The subscription-billing-reminder email includes a "review your subscription" link, which opens up Music / iTunes to the relevant buried section. Really, I feel it should be available through icloud.com, but I couldn't find it anywhere. That'd avoid any of these issues where you need access to a non-phone device. ...v…

Provided that you have a Mac or a PC with Windows installed first. Then you'll have to sully your Windows installation by installing iTunes.

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#212
post #9

Apple's approach isn't as bad as this title makes it sound. Mostly because they're aggressive communicators about subscription billing -- they send emails well in advance of any subscription renewal, telling you when you'll be billed, how much for, and giving you a link to cancel the subscription. Makes me feel this isn't them hoping you'll just forget and be billed. In fact, I'd suspect this is intended as a user-fr…

The emails can definitely be a good thing for reminding someone about billing, but they're not entirely effective. Most people would ignore emails such as these or they would read them and forget the information as something else is more important, or just rarely check their emails (like weekly, fortnightly, etc).

So the default behaviour matters most in this situation, as evidenced by opt-in vs opt-out for things such as organ donation. When it takes action to opt in most people don't do it (even though it's a good thing), and when it's opt out then most people don't take the actions of removing themselves from being an organ donor.

In this case with all the emails that Apple sends having the default behaviour be opt-in would actually still work. People that want to continue using the application should take the necessary steps to subscribe. If not then they either didn't want the subscription, don't use the application, or they didn't read the messages and are relieved that they're not spending money unnecessarily.

Therefore having opt-out be the default for subscriptions means that Apple is doing it explicitly because it makes them more money than the reverse situation. It is actually user hostile but with the thin veneer (typical of T&C or Privacy Policy) that they "told you so".

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auto charging someone at the end of a free trial is a scam. I don't care that it's commonly accepted, it's still a scam.

Not the way Apple does it, pricing and cancellation instructions up front. Some would argue tricking users into a free trial without telling them the subscription price is a scam. Once they start to depend on the app, it’s much harder to not subscribe.

I don't care if they're up front with the info, they should display the price when i start the trial but ask if i want to pay AFTER i evaluated the app not before.

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#214
post #9

Apple's approach isn't as bad as this title makes it sound. Mostly because they're aggressive communicators about subscription billing -- they send emails well in advance of any subscription renewal, telling you when you'll be billed, how much for, and giving you a link to cancel the subscription. Makes me feel this isn't them hoping you'll just forget and be billed. In fact, I'd suspect this is intended as a user-fr…

So, forcing me to supply payment information for a free trial, then forcing the developer to make my free trial an auto subscription unless I opt-out is supposed to be user friendly? In what way is assuming you can take my money unless I say otherwise just because I used a free trial supposed to be user-friendly? I'm so unbelievabley tired of these anti-consumer practices being labelled as 'user friendly' or 'working…

What Apple is forcing is NOT a free trial. It is first-month-free, which is altogether different. Using the phrase free-trial is a lie.

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#215
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 5 cents. Regardless if this is Apple or any developer, subscription service etc., I consider giving my credit card number / paypal for testing any trial software as directly abusive. Maybe, it is just me but from my perspective this is a try to force buying from me by whatever means possible and doing me is like rejecting me as a potential customer: I will just never do it. I hate the need of thinking about some m…

The point is to filter out people who are unwilling to put up money. Why waste money on a trial for someone who is unlikely to convert. You sound like someone who is hard to sell to, so it is in the interests of most companies to discourage you from participating.

I see that HN has devolved into Reddit where downvoting is used for disagreement instead of replying. It was a good run, but every site eventually jumps the shark.

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to filter out people who are unwilling to put up money. Why waste money on a trial for someone who is unlikely to convert. You sound like someone who is hard to sell to, so it is in the interests of most companies to discourage you from participating.

I see that HN has devolved into Reddit where downvoting is used for disagreement instead of replying. It was a good run, but every site eventually jumps the shark.

"devolved into"? Unlike reddit, the official position on HN (although a good chunk of the community disagrees with it) has always been that downvoting for disagreement is ok, back from when pg did run the site.

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#217
post #209
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you haven’t been reading along. Opt-out is only user hostile when it is used as a scam. Whether it is hostile depends on the implementation. Apple’s implementation is a friendly one. Firstly there is an email confirmation with a link to cancel, and secondly there is a single screen with all of the subscriptions aggregated and cancellable. If you are someone who generally purchases subscriptions to thin…

This comment breaks the site guidelines which asks Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment would be just fine if shortened in the way the guidelines recommend; it's a fine comment otherwise.

I didn’t make any comment on whether the person read the article.

By ‘reading along’ I was referring to earlier places in this thread where the issue is already addressed, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705338

If you have counted this as a violation of the site guidelines, please decrement the counter.

What shortening is recommended in this case?

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#218
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 5 cents. Regardless if this is Apple or any developer, subscription service etc., I consider giving my credit card number / paypal for testing any trial software as directly abusive. Maybe, it is just me but from my perspective this is a try to force buying from me by whatever means possible and doing me is like rejecting me as a potential customer: I will just never do it. I hate the need of thinking about some m…

The point is to filter out people who are unwilling to put up money. Why waste money on a trial for someone who is unlikely to convert. You sound like someone who is hard to sell to, so it is in the interests of most companies to discourage you from participating.

Someone who's easy to sell to would just pay - free trials are there specifically to target people who are hard to sell to.

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about the App Store in particular, but the approach of most companies in Quebec is to simply not have free trials. (e.g. and to have the fist 13 months of service cost the same as the first 12 months of service in other locales.)

What companies based in Quebec do the "add an extra month to the first subscription cycle" approach? I haven't experienced that from any local company. I've only seen foreign companies use that as an attempt to hand-wave past Quebec public policy here without having to program anything different, by simply rephrasing the fine print. For example, even though Amazon's systems have plenty of information that my ISP and…

Sorry, can't answer your questions - I don't live in Quebec, so my exposure is purely from reading the fine print notes for Quebec and seeing how they differ.

They may very well not actually be compliant with the laws. I'm a bit surprised that Amazon hasn't even bothered to adjust the billing for their 13-month cycle, that can't be the case for every company offering 13-month first yearly cycles, can it?

Most recently I was looking at credit cards (HSBC, is particular) - it seems they can't waive the fist year's annual fee in Quebec, so they instead offer Quebec customers an additional welcome bonus of points equivalent to the annual fee.

Re: Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial

#220
post #217
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment breaks the site guidelines which asks Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment would be just fine if shortened in the way the guidelines recommend; it's a fine comment otherwise.

I didn’t make any comment on whether the person read the article. By ‘reading along’ I was referring to earlier places in this thread where the issue is already addressed, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705338 If you have counted this as a violation of the site guidelines, please decrement the counter. What shortening is recommended in this case?

Well, that's a distinction without a difference. That guideline isn't technically just about reading an article vs. something else. HN is a spirit-of-the-law, not letter-of-the-law place. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

I would recommend just leaving out the first sentence. It's not clear that the comment loses anything by it. Alternatively, you could say "This issue is already addressed upthread, for example ". That would be the equivalent of "the article mentions that". Yes, that's not shorter, but the intention here is to make one's points without personal swipes. And linking to the other explanation also adds information.

By the way, once I read your explanation of what you meant, it seemed like a much lesser violation than it did when I read it without that. The trouble, though, is that other readers encounter such a comment without knowing what you meant either.

Post reply on HN