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

211–220 of 317 posts

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

#211

Post by viktorcode »

aeonflux wrote: post #10
sschueller wrote: post #4

It's really time to do what needs to be done. I want the EU to force Apple and Google to allow 3rd party app stores with the exact same rights as theirs (auto updated etc.). Just like back in the day when Microsoft was forced to let users allow other browser when it wasn't even being blocked. Just theirs was pre-installed! The security excuse doesn't cut it, sorry. 3rd party app stores can be just as secure if not ev…

Supported side-loading is a thing on Android since day one? What innovation came out of this? Thousands of rip-off apps, all sort of malware pushed upon clueless users? I know, that some of those things are still a problem on iOS, but just imagine how worse this can gen, if they would be forced to open up the system for additional app stores.

To be fair, iOS jailbreak scene was the birthplace of many UX innovations. However, since them the capabilities of iOS were expanded and jailbreak lost its popularity.

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

#212

Post by dessant »

causi wrote: post #136
dessant wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Products on the App Store can be sold at a different price, companies often do this to recoup some of that 30% App Store commission. Edit: this is a fact, though feel free to downvote. Apple tries to hide this from the user by not letting publishers mention that the app or service is cheaper when purchased outside of the App Store or Mac App Store.

I must be misunderstanding this. Since Apple doesn't support sideloading, how is any product offered both on the App Store and somewhere else, let alone for a different price?

Some apps are sold for a different price on the App Store and the Mac App Store, than if you'd buy it directly from the developer or a store on a different platform. On iOS you can obviously only buy an app on the App Store, with some exceptions.

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

#213

Post by scarface74 »

justapassenger wrote: post #183
makerofthings wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yep. I bought a Mac…

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

#215

Post by unfocussed_mike »

scarface74 wrote: post #202
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I'm misinterpreting that he appears to be gleeful at the trolling. He thinks it is funny.

Seeing that he is one of the most popular indy app developers, I assure you he isn’t happy with Apple’s App Store policies. https://marco.org/2021/06/03/developer-relations

I well understand that he's a popular indy developer. He can still be wrong.

I also understand that he's _laughing_ at Apple trolling a regulator by messing with other developers.

It's a fairly toxic addition to the discussion.

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

#216

Post by Grustaf »

coder543 wrote: post #193
Spivak wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. That’s a very strong statement to lack any citation. The intent of the regulators was clear. If a Apple is going to be petulant, the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board, which will inevitably hurt Apple mor…

> When it comes to other businesses, consumers have choice. If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. If I go elsewhere from Apple, I lose access to all of my purchased items.

Well Apple has always charged 30%, so it would be strange if you suddenly wanted to change platforms now because of that. It's reasonable to ask you to do your research before buying it.

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

#217

Post by huhtenberg »

Spivak wrote: post #188
jsiepkes wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

That's Apple's spin on this and it's as greedy and unreasonable now as it was when they just started.

The fair setup - as far as the owners of expensive devices are concerned - is to:

1. Be able to install arbitrary software capable of running on the device.

2. Be able to pay for it in whatever way that is supported by the software vendor.

This are reasonable expectations.

If Apple provides a way to install pre-approved software through their Store - excellent. As an option.

If Apple provides a way to pay using their super pro-consumer payment system - ditto, as an option. Possibly as a required option (option!) for programs distributed through the Store.

You want convenience for either aspect - you go through Apple, pay them extra, be happy. You don't want to pay them - install yourself and pay directly.

Voila. It's not very complicated.

All the arguments against this is not a "meme", it's Apple guarding its profits in ways that are explicitly and aggressively anti-consumer.

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

#218

Post by viktorcode »

999900000999 wrote: post #22
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 actually agree with you. On Android, you can side load, but you're warned if you destroy your life via some strange binary you found on the internet, that's on you. On iOS, it's more than a reasonable to say you're using an third-party payment service which is not subject to Apple security. If your tech savvy, you know that this is just fear-mongering on Apple's part. And if you're not tech savvy, then stick to usi…

I'm tech savvy and that's exactly why I'll be avoiding third-party payment systems on iOS. But yeah, I don't need an explicit reminder to do that.

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

#219

Post by viktorcode »

onepointsixC wrote: post #189
makerofthings wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 duolop…

I envision a third option: Apple successfully appeals the regulator decision in Netherlands. It's not far fetched: Apple successfully appealed EC fine on Irish tax break (pending new appeal from the regulator), Intel successfully appealed older fine for anticompetitive behaviour. It seems to me that many laws in the EU are built on shaky legal grounds.

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

#220

Post by coder543 »

Grustaf wrote: post #216
coder543 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That’s a very strong statement to lack any citation. The intent of the regulators was clear. If a Apple is going to be petulant, the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board, which will inevitably hurt Apple mor…

> When it comes to other businesses, consumers have choice. If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. If I go elsewhere from Apple, I lose access to all of my purchased items. Well Apple has always charged 30%, so it would be strange if you suddenly wanted to change platforms now because of that. It's reasonable to ask you to do your research before buying it.

Why would it be strange to want the freedom to choose again when Apple is expanding the set of things that are covered by a 30% commission?[0]

Are you suggesting I should have illegally acquired information about Apple’s future business plans so that I could make informed choices as a consumer?

I certainly never agreed to their expansion of the commission, but what power does a consumer have over that now? That’s what monopoly power feels like, even if it may not meet the legal definition of “monopoly” that was set many decades ago before a smartphone was even imaginable.

Apple seems intent to expand their 30% commission to cover all aspects of daily life nowadays. I certainly didn’t know this years ago, and years ago when many consumers bought into iOS, the 30% commission was really just a commission on Angry Birds and similarly casual apps. It wasn’t impacting more serious parts of life, but now the smartphone is the place where the average person does some of the most important transactions in life. It’s a completely different situation from when the App Store first launched, and it should be treated as such. Do you recognize the validity of any of that?

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor...

Post reply on HN