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

251–260 of 317 posts

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

#251

Post by scarface74 »

gkbrk wrote: post #247
scarface74 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right because more laws to govern technology is the answer to bad laws with unintended consequences. Or “why I see a cookie pop up on every damn web page I visit .” Has the government ever made a good law regarding technology? The last one I remember is phone number portability.

> why I see a cookie pop up on every damn web page I visit There is no regulation that requires every website to give you cookie pop-ups. If you are seeing that, it is because the websites you visit are trying to stalk you online and making the popups as painful as possible so you will dislike the regulations instead of asking them not to stalk you.

So now every website is doing some type of protest against regulation? It couldn’t possibly be that government is inept when it comes to understanding consequences of their legislation?

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

#252

Post by Grustaf »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #225
Grustaf wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the connection?

The connection is that Apple don't break out their P&L for the App Store business, which clearly makes them a lot of money. They prefer to leave it buried in the iOS business. It suits them for the profitability of the App Store to be hard to observe as distinct from the sales of the devices themselves, and it supports the interpretation that they fudge around things that make them **loads of money by emphasising oth…

Obviously they make lots of money from the appstore. What's wrong with that?

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

#253

Post by Grustaf »

dlubarov wrote: post #227
Grustaf wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the 27% is a troll, but the warning screen is 100% in line with how they always do things. Just like when you run an executable on your mac that you downloaded from the internet, they warn you and ask you if you really want to open it. That's not about money, it's about making it clear to users what they are about to do, so they don't have a bad experience and are put off Apple products.

A more direct comparison would be to apps that already support third party payment methods like Uber, Amazon, etc. How would you explain Apple forcing devs to include these stern warnings when buying digital goods but not physical goods?

Because physical goods is not digital. Why shouldn't they be able to choose what they charge for? They probably feel that their role is much less important when the service is delivered outside the phone. Makes sense to me. But if they wanted to do it the other way around, or only charge for things before noon, it would be up to them.

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

#254

Post by coder543 »

Grustaf wrote: post #250
coder543 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple’s policies remained the same. No… they didn’t stay the same. Apple has changed their policies, numerous times. In this specific case, it is easy to point to the changelog that added person to person classes as something that owes Apple 30% commission.[0] Many large companies' lawyers clearly interpreted the guidelines to not include such events until Apple updated the guidelines, or else Apple would not have…

Clarifying the rules is not the same as changing them, ask any hermeneutic. > Also, whether an activity is physical or virtual should be entirely irrelevant You can hold any belief you want, but there's nothing illegal or immoral about a phone charging fees for one but not the other. It's up to them obviously, and to me personally it makes a ton of sense to make that distinction. A virtual class provided through an a…

PWA means "progressive web app". You know, the vision Steve Jobs and Apple had for iPhone apps before they released the App Store.[0]

What about virtual experiences that are sold through an app that a customer uses, but are held on a different virtual platform? We’re not talking just about virtual events held through the app or FaceTime, we’re also talking about virtual events held through Zoom calls, it’s just that the app maker (for example, Airbnb) used their existing customer relationship to market virtual experiences, and Apple somehow decided that was different from the exception to selling (physical) goods and experiences that are also used outside the app.

If they aren’t using the app itself or FaceTime, how is it any different from an in-person event?

What if that in-person event includes teleconferencing equipment that links two locations together, do you suddenly need to give Apple 30%?

Apple's rules have an exception for 1:1 virtual events. So, if you suddenly bring your significant other to a virtual event that was classified as 1:1, will the app maker need to implement facial recognition DRM to ensure that there is only one participant on each side of the virtual event, or else they are in violation of Apple's rules and deserve to be banned because two people showed up instead of one?

The rules are deeply tedious, and often have no obvious rhyme or reason.

Regardless, Apple changed the rules, and I don’t have an option to opt out without giving up everything I’ve already bought. I could not have known they would change the rules in the ways they have, so to your earlier point, I could not have made a more informed decision. Would you like to offer the refunds on Apple’s behalf? Doubtful. This is clearly different from other retail relationships in ways that would benefit from being regulated. That’s the core discussion here. Apple is not just another retailer, and the App Store is not just another store.

> Clarifying the rules is not the same as changing them, ask any hermeneutic.

They did not clarify the rules. They absolutely changed the rules, and this is not the first time either. Your whole argument is invalid if they changed the rules, so of course you're holding on dearly to that incorrect point. Apple argues that some apps were accidentally paying them revenue for that already, therefore it would be "unfair" for them not to take that revenue from everyone... but it wasn't in the rules before, period. Apple added the rule so that they could add more revenue.

You may think my opinion is irrelevant, and that’s fine, but my opinion is as logically self-consistent as I can make it. Apple’s rules are the ones that hold very little self-consistency right now, and are just overreaching in any way they think they can get away with, which is getting tiresome.

[0]: https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/03/remembering-apples-sweet-solu...

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

#255

Post by coder543 »

Grustaf wrote: post #253
dlubarov wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more direct comparison would be to apps that already support third party payment methods like Uber, Amazon, etc. How would you explain Apple forcing devs to include these stern warnings when buying digital goods but not physical goods?

Because physical goods is not digital. Why shouldn't they be able to choose what they charge for? They probably feel that their role is much less important when the service is delivered outside the phone. Makes sense to me. But if they wanted to do it the other way around, or only charge for things before noon, it would be up to them.

Because the warning is about the payment method, not how tangible the goods are. You can directly add credit cards to the Uber app on iPhone, completely outside the normal Apple payment flow. Apple doesn't require Uber to provide an obnoxious full-page modal warning that is intended to discourage people from adding a credit card to their app.

This kind of double standard reveals the true nature of this warning dialog, which is just retaliation against the app makers who wanted outside payment methods and the regulators who agreed. Otherwise, Apple would have already required Uber to add such a dialog.

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

#256

Post by raydev »

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…

What Apple is doing is terrible and it is hilarious.

It's hilarious because they could act in good faith, but they don't. It's funny to watch them do this, because it is so wildly out of touch with the image they continue to project. It's funny because they repeatedly do these sorts of things, so much that it is now predictable.

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

#257

Post by raydev »

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, it's sharing the popcorn when the bully picks on everyone, and it's just someone else's turn to be bullied this week.

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

#258

Post by raydev »

scarface74 wrote: post #103
notyourday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NL would then take their concerns to the EU at large, and they have more levers they can pull at that level. This is the first step to "completely pull out of EU member countries or comply".

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

#259

Post by amcoastal »

tremon wrote: post #86
amcoastal wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me know if your 2011 car lasts 20 years.

So you're betting on Hacker News still being here in 2031? How come you're so sure this site doesn't fall under the great obsolesence plan?

I have to admit this thread is the first time Ive ever heard someone calling planned obsolescence a 'conspiracy theory'. I thought it was pretty well understood. Live and learn I guess, couldn't let the tinfoil hat folks have all the fun!

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

#260

Post by coder543 »

freetime2 wrote: post #197
vanilla_nut wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the inevitable cancellation dark patterns! I cancelled my prime membership the other day, and holy cow , I had to confirm my intent at least 5 times. Offers to “pause”, a page telling me what I’ll miss out on, plus more pages that boil down to “actually?!?!” Seems like subscriptions have gotten out of hand. Since the goverment can’t regulate meaningfully, I’m at least glad that Apple has some solution to this, ev…

I also learned recently that if you cancel a trial Prime membership early, the benefits end immediately instead of ending at the end of the trial period. I generally like to cancel trial memberships immediately after signing up to ensure that I don’t forget about it and accidentally get charged for something I don’t want. If I end up liking the service then I’ll happily enter my payment info again at the end of the t…

> I generally like to cancel trial memberships immediately after signing up to ensure that I don’t forget about it and accidentally get charged for something I don’t want. [...] Most online services (including all App Store subscriptions) are fine with this approach.

Except for Apple's own services, which includes Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, and Apple Fitness+. All of these will instantly terminate your trial if you cancel during the trial period, rather than terminating at the end of the trial period.

This goes against the way App Store subscription trials work for everyone else. Why? Because Apple isn't bound by their own rules, and I guess Apple wants people to forget and let the trial lapse into actual payment. It is certainly a proven (if unsavory) technique for making money.

Post reply on HN