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

311–317 of 317 posts

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

#311

Post by chaosharmonic »

gls2ro wrote: post #291
horsawlarway wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a LOT closer than you seem to be painting it. Apple is a supplier to software companies (of both hardware and software). They are getting in trouble for messing with other suppliers (of both hardware and software). To quote the charges in the MS case: "the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market primarily through the legal and technica…

I don't think this is the case. Here is how I understand this: Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly in a market (PC) defined by one single software (Windows) and hardware produced by a lot of PC manufacturers. Apple could be accused of having a "monopoly" in market defined by their own software and their own hardware. So in a way, IANAL, but Microsoft had a monopoly with their product in a bigger market than th…

The bigger market in this instance is "mobile devices," of which iOS accounts for nearly 60% of users in the US.

It's not nearly as aggressive of a split as MS/everyone else, but being the larger side of a duopoly a lot of vendors don't really have the choice to just ignore them, and meanwhile their users are subjected to this.

The comparison also starts looking a lot closer when you consider the way it impacts web development as a profession that the same ~60% can't choose a browser other than Safari in any sense that has practical meaning.

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

#312

Post by goblin89 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #307
goblin89 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t this open such a platform to scams where a friend of the seller gets discounts by pointing to seller’s site with super-low prices? I’m not saying they do not take a cut voluntarily, but they must take measures if this happens too often with a particular seller.

Usually those ads have some fine print saying that their own terms of refusing a sale for whatever reason still apply. So if Store A is taking a loss on sales to force Store B to sell for cheaper, Store B can still refuse to sell you the product. "We price match" only applies if a sale actually goes to completion.

Not sure I get your point.

Imagine store A is a platform like Booking.com, and store B is seller’s site. There is a complaint every day to store A that store B sells cheaper. Store A charges the customer less but pays the seller the same, taking a loss.

Meanwhile, it turns out that those customers are friends of the seller, to whom the seller compensates the transaction plus some extra on top.

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

#313

Post by jamil7 »

ninkendo wrote: post #297
jamil7 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're going through manual app review anyway can they just enforce one-click subscription cancellation like they do with one-click user account deletion?

It’s not just that it’s one-click, it’s that there’s a single menu in Settings.app that shows you all of your subscriptions, which is helpful in case you forgot you had one, and will show you exactly how much it costs per month, how long a trial period has left, will notify when your trial period is about to end, etc. You can really only do that with third party payment processors if there’s some standard API/protoco…

Yeah, I think it's a great feature of iOS. I think long term there isn't any reason Apple could not offer a way to integrate with the Settings.app, maybe in the similar way that they allow apps to build their own settings page into the Settings.app and make it a requirement of using a third-party payment processor during review.

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

#314

Post by dariosalvi78 »

scarface74 wrote: post #274
dariosalvi78 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and Windows was a fantastic product and Microsoft the best company in the world because 90% of Americans "chose" Windows in the 90s.

Yes, people chose Windows because after seeing the other choices, Windows met their needs the best. What were they going to choose? Linux? An overpriced under powered Mac? I chose a Mac until 95. But Macs really did suck before OS X came out. But going back to the point. When the iPhone was introduced, there was Palm, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry. Did someone make users choose iPhones? Android was available on ever…

None as Microsoft didn't have any unfair advantage (well, kind of), but then things changed, and it became very unfair.

Same is happening here...

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

#315

Post by skinkestek »

scarface74 wrote: post #310
skinkestek wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think it is easy to be much smarter than law makers and lawyers when it comes to laws? There is an intersection here, but basically this - in my mind - isn't about bad laws but about big businesses fighting for their lives (or at least the lives of whole branches in their organizations) against these laws. They'll do most things they'll come up with and think they can get away with: misrepresent, plead,…

Most lawmakers aren’t lawyers… From what I have seen, when the government gets away with stuff - imminent domain, police corruption, etc., it’s a lot more detrimental than my not being able to side load. As far as the GDPR not being “hard”. It’s 11 chapters with 99 sections. https://gdpr-info.eu/

> As far as the GDPR not being “hard”. It’s 11 chapters with 99 sections.

Yet, the guiding principles are clear as day, just like the ten commandments. (Don't collect personal data without consent, store it responsibly, allow users to introspect data about themselves and remove it and you shouldn't need to worry.[1])

And it also only becomes a real problem when someone wants to get away with breaking both the spirit and the wording of the law.

[1]: And yes, I'm aware that this is mostly incompatible with the practice of hoovering up all you can get, selling it to everyone who wants to buy and generally abusing it for fun and profit in every conceivable way, but that isn't the fault of the law but a problem that companies who habe grown addicted to now antiquated business models have to brought on themselves, isn't it?

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

#316

Post by fulafel »

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.

F-Droid.

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

#317

Post by davidjytang »

scarface74 wrote: post #235
bogwog wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of losing an entire country is more than the hypothetical revenue of a year’s sales. Even ignoring the potential lifetime value of an Apple customer, that’s an entire country of children, engineers, businesses, influencers, etc who are not exposed to your products/brand. And Apple is not a money losing unicorn. They don’t sell anything at a loss, and they wouldn’t be selling at a loss even if they made a goo…

Apple has a revenue of $365 billion last year. No matter how you spin it - and I was being wildly optimistic saying every adult is going to buy the most expensive iPhone - Netherlands will never be more than 1% of Apple’s total revenue. An “entire” country that is less than half the population of Texas wouldn’t even be considered “material”.

It's called "leaving money on the table" and Apple hates that.
Post reply on HN