Apple-Commissioned Study Finds App Store Fees in Line With Those at Other Digital Marketplaces

[jlc1978]

I agree with that but it is not my concern. My concern are the customers who might not find where they can cancel the subscription. For example my Microsoft 365 subscription is currently going through the Mac App Store. And I was able to find where I could manage it but I'm not sure right now. And on Twitter it says they are in the iCloud settings, which is weird.

Is office different form other subcriptions? I mange the few I have directly from the account settings in the App Store.

And not all auto-renews are created equal. I already pay for Microsoft 365 and I'm fine with that but that the trial period goes directly into the payment is not customer friendly, it can lead to abuses.

While I agree it is not customer friendly it unfortunately is developer friendly.

Also it is completely fine, if you launch the app after the period is over and you get a window explaining that the trial period is over and you can subscribe to the app now for x euros …

And if a customer forgets to renew the subscription because he forget the app, than the app didn't have any value for them anyway. So it is essentially way too expensive for them anyway.

You can always cancel during the trial or set a calendar reminder which is what I do. I do agree it is not the best from a customer perspective.

Apple should have introduced paid upgrades instead with caveat that older versions should be supported for a while after a release of a new version. Would also have avoided that there is "1Password 7" now …

They sort of have it. A developer can keep an old version avaialble if they release it as a new app by say making it V2. IIRC they can still leave and update the old app but not sell it. My guess is most are not interested in supporting older versions.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The issue was, that people subscribed and were charged when the trial period was over. The developers thought this was a very awful consumer experience and didn't want their customers go through with this.

The “actual issue” was that Apple rejected their app because they weren’t using App Store Connect. Says right there in the tweet (and I’m sure they knew it was going to be rejected when they submitted it). They tweeted AND promoted it to make sure it gets lots of eyes quickly. Because, they knew, in a few days, Apple was going to approve the app and the tweet would lose it’s effectiveness.

BTW: Promoted tweets are ordinary tweets purchased by advertisers who want to reach a wider group of users or to spark engagement from existing followers. Promoted tweets are clearly labeled as 'Promoted' when an advertiser is paying for the placement on Twitter.

Apple is absolutely out to make money. What people seem to forget is every company, including downdog, is out to make money. And, if raising a stink about Apple got them more eyes and more subscribers, then they were successful.

Is office different form other subcriptions? I mange the few I have directly from the account settings in the App Store.

Yes, they are (not a user, just Googled it), which is part of the problem that App Store Connect is an attempt to fix. While I’m giving downdog the benefit of the doubt that they’re “thinking of the consumer” (Even though “thinking of the consumer” in this case also means “not paying subscription commission to Apple” ), for me, having ALL subscriptions in one place and not having to have a different process for different subscriptions is beneficial. I’ve recently signed up for several trials ONLY because they were using App Store Connect and canceling right after signing up is easy.

 

[tehabe]

Is office different form other subcriptions? I mange the few I have directly from the account settings in the App Store.

I found it now, it is below the nick name setting and it says I have 2 subscriptions but I only have one. Apple really lost its user experience in this case. It seems they are counting all subscriptions I've ever had but it makes no sense. This App Store really annoys me.
[automerge]1595604564[/automerge]

The “actual issue” was that Apple rejected their app because they weren’t using App Store Connect. Says right there in the tweet (and I’m sure they knew it was going to be rejected when they submitted it). They tweeted AND promoted it to make sure it gets lots of eyes quickly. Because, they knew, in a few days, Apple was going to approve the app and the tweet would lose it’s effectiveness.

They explained why they didn't want to use App Store Connect and which issues this is for their users. Also while it might be nice to have the subscriptions in one place, it might also a good idea to have them were you use them.

BTW: Promoted tweets are ordinary tweets purchased by advertisers who want to reach a wider group of users or to spark engagement from existing followers. Promoted tweets are clearly labeled as 'Promoted' when an advertiser is paying for the placement on Twitter.

Wow, thanks for explaining me promotion. Of course they did the tweet to reach the public. Basecamp did the same with Hey. The thing is, a company like Apple won't change anything without public scrutiny. Many developers don't come forward because they depend on Apple for their livelyhood. At least on macOS the App Store is currently optional and you can't cancel your subscriptions in the App Store and go directly to the company.

Apple is absolutely out to make money. What people seem to forget is every company, including downdog, is out to make money. And, if raising a stink about Apple got them more eyes and more subscribers, then they were successful.

I think the worst conclusion about this paragraph is, that Apple can do what it want to developers and customers, here everybody a lot of people will defend even the worst behaviour. And that is really sad.

 

[WordsmithMR]

And let's get this VERY BIG point across to those that have missed it, or never learned it. Businesses are in business for one reason, TO MAKE MONEY, not to benefit customers, not to effect social change, not to promote diversity, and not to be fair to the competition. That is just the smoke they blow to make you give them more money.

That varies company to company. Yes, there is this mentality that you just described. It is a bit dated. Nowadays, some companies are willing to sacrifice a few bucks to benefit their consumer, their employees, diversity, social and political change etc, because in the long run, public view does matter and that does garner them more money in the long run. People need to realize that focusing on the future of your business is better than focusing on the immediate return if you don't want to run your company into the ground in 30-50 years.

 

[jlc1978]

That varies company to company. Yes, there is this mentality that you just described. It is a bit dated. Nowadays, some companies are willing to sacrifice a few bucks to benefit their consumer, their employees, diversity, social and political change etc, because in the long run, public view does matter and that does garner them more money in the long run. People need to realize that focusing on the future of your business is better than focusing on the immediate return if you don't want to run your company into the ground in 30-50 years.

While that may be true, compensation structures rarely reward such behavior. Given average CEO or senior leader tenure is 7.2 years with a median of 5, they aren't around long enough to see the benefits of long term thinking. It's to their financial and reputational benefit to focus on short term returns. Even lower level managers aren't generally around that long as well, so they have the same incentive to focus on the short term.

If the company fails down the road the current CEO gets the blame, not the one from 30 years ago.

 

[notgonna]

delete

 

[notgonna]

delete