[madeofpalk]

I’m all in favour, as a user, for Apple IAP subscriptions. But shouldn’t “the market” be able to send a signal that they prefer that?

Shouldn’t Apple’s IAP actually be able to compete on its merits (like the better experience that we both prefer!) rather than arbitrary platform lock-in?

If, faced with actual competition, users and/or developers do not chose Apple IAP, wouldn’t this signal to Apple that they need to do better and improve their service?

[8note]

Even further than that, users should be able to set their own police's for how much they want to pay for things and when.

Remove the centralization of apple driving the policy, then again to get rid of the centralization of developers choosing

[iscrewyou]

Not OP, but market does send a signal when I prefer that. That's how I signed up for Netflix and Spotify. I saw that in-app prices were high when I tried to sign up, looked elsewhere and found out that website prices are lower and now apple doesn't get my cut. But for everything else, I am happy paying apple more because I only have trust for a few companies. If apple is charging app developers more than they should be, those apps can have their own billing page and manage the billing and let the user decide how they want to pay for it.

Yes, users know how to shop around. That's how they buy cars, groceries, gas, computers, cellphones, etc.

[madeofpalk]

> If apple is charging app developers more than they should be, those apps can have their own billing page and manage the billing and let the user decide how they want to pay for it.

The problem is that on iOS apps are forbidden from telling their users that this is an option.

It's not much of a fair market if one of the items have been removed from the shelves and you have to specifically ask for it and the price.

Is it fair if Spotify and Netflix are charged a 30% tax on Apple's platforms when Apple's services arent?

[louisswiss]

> It's not much of a fair market if one of the items have been removed from the shelves and you have to specifically ask for it and the price.

To be fair, this isn't a very apt analogy.

A better one would be to liken Apple to a smart fridge...

- Is it ok for Apple to say "only products bought through our smart fridge's grocery app can be stored in this fridge" ? --> probably not

- Is it ok for Apple to take a cut when the consumer purchases through the smart fridge's app directly? --> IMO clearly yes

- Should Apple be required to warn you that it'd be cheaper to buy the same brand of milk from a grocery store 10min walk away? --> IMO clearly no

[madeofpalk]

Should Apple be required to warn you that it'd be cheaper? Definitely not. But when you've taken the milk home the milk should be able to say "Hey, If you buy directly from us it's 30% cheaper!".

Right now Apple prohibits developers from being transparent about what the users choices are. I think it is wrong that developers are not allowed to explain the rules to its own users.

Apple should compete on the product itself, not technicalities and obfuscation. There should be pressures on Apple to lower prices for what it charges.

[dmitriid]

> But shouldn’t “the market” be able to send a signal that they prefer that?

Ah yes. "The market".

People forget that before Appstore mobile apps were distributed through stores controlled by mobile operators. With "store tax" at 70% or higher.

Then Apple came along and decided to take only 30%. It turns out that this (and superior phones) is exactly what users prefer.

But wait, now it's somehow not the proper "market", there's some other "proper market" that must make it right.

[darkwizard42]

To some degree the competition exists...you leave the iOS ecosystem. Besides all the trendy parts of owning an iPhone (iMessage, camera, "fashionable") the simplicity of not getting burned by apps (or the veneer or not getting burned as often) is clearly valuable to consumers.

What would an acceptable solution to letting both styles compete? (would it be controlled by the phone's settings and the end user can change how they manage their subscriptions? Is it at the app level?)

[gregkerzhner]

MacOS is a great example - you can buy and download software from the Apple sanctioned App Store or you can get it from other sources on their websites. The fact that I can do that on an 11 inch MacBook Air but can’t on an iPad Pro (which with a keyboard looks like almost the same device) seems pretty silly to me.

[Mertax]

I see no incentive for Apple to become motivated to do this on their own.

Google, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft all wish their app stores could be as lucrative as Apple’s, and most of these are trying to do exactly what Apple is doing.

What other product exists that is able to take such a large revenue cut from 3rd party product enhancers? Is this possible outside of software? Don’t see why Apple would give that up unless they were forced to.

[madeofpalk]

That's kind of the point, right? What forces or incentives are there for Apple to change its practices or lower its prices?

[Mertax]

The end user is not the consumer segment that cares about this. As evidenced by many comments in this thread, most Apple users value the curated app store and its payment features. App developers just enabled Apple to get away with it.

The market segment that would have to resist would be the app developers themselves, but no individual app is attractive enough to do that. Even Microsoft attempted to keep Office products off iOS for quite some time. The cat is out of the bag at this point. Ironically, it seems as long as Google/Android still commands a significant market share, it's unlikely to be viewed by the courts as a monopoly. That just means Google will try harder to become like Apple, but they're going to have an even harder time back-tracking the path they've gone down.

The thing about Apple is not only have they prevented in-app payment processing, they have also prevented side-loading. This combination makes the App store so powerful. Probably some of the reason why they don't support PWAs well etc...

From the Epic decision it sounds like the courts may be inclined to allow 3rd party in-app payment processing as long as Apple still gets a cut. It's debatable which would be "worse" for end-users -- allowing them to side-load or allowing 3rd party in-app payment processing. It's probably less debatable about which one Apple prefers.

From the developer side of things, if 3rd party in-app payments are allowed and Apple still gets a cut what was gained? If Apple is forced to allow side-loading, you better believe they're going to make enabling that feature seem as scary and obscure as possible to the end-user.