You know credit card security lays with the banks not card holders, right? Fraudulent charges will be reversed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Letting 'Reader' Apps Offer Links for Account Sign Ups Outside of the App Store to Close Japan Investigation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I thought it was pretty obvious right from the start that this was never about money for Spotify, but about trying to get more power in the App Store than what Apple allows them.
Credits on Android TikTok is cheaper than iOS. The difference is about 30%.
If developers can direct users to purchase in another platform like Alipay, WeChat or Amex redemption, then it will be a win for both the developers and the consumers.
Anticompetitive “guidelines” will cost Apple billions in fines.
I think there's a distinction between the IAPs as we know like (eg: freemium games letting you purchase addition credits in-game), and apps offering a continuous service that allow you to subscribe from within the app.
Parsing Tim Cook’s Opening Statement From Today’s Congressional Antitrust Hearing
It is prima facie wrong that one of the rules is that an app is not allowed to explain the rules.
daringfireball.net
This 2020 post by John Gruber does a fairly good job of explaining the history of reader apps, which ironically was a category created by Apple to (apparently) avoid having to police apps like Netflix and Spotify.
If you think this is a win you’re ignorant they just want your data they don’t care about you
I'm affraid it doesn't work like that. Small, shady developer much like any small to medium developer or should I say selfpublisher needs to setup (purchase) merchant account services (credit card processors). By doing so you as a developer will not have access to user's payment data, as a matter of fact any customer complaint will go through merchant account provider first before it reaches you. I mean you can try it yourself. There is a sole reason why game developers don't sell their video games on their websites but they easily could. They all do sales through Steam or similar stores because they don't want to deal with stuff that direct sales comes with as a baggage.
Nothing would happen. What you are talking about is Windows pretty much. And what happenes on a proprely maintained Windows computer? Nothing. All of the malware comes fom a web browser and browsing the web, as long as you know how to behave on the web you are safe. I mean you recieve fishing emails now and then right? Do you click on the links inside? Of course not. So why would you click on a fishy link on a webpage and then run the app?
How much original content did it have back then and how much does it have now? I would say way too much, it's overwhelming with original content to a degree that I can't evenw watch what I want. They will keep raising prices as much as people continue to pay for it. Much like Apple right?
Point is that user had two different prices for the same thing. While on the web it costs you $19 on appstore it would costs you $25 for the exact same thing.
If Netflix is too expensive there are other services which cost less. Vote with your money and that will keep them in check. The same thing happened in appstore, people refuesed to pay the Netflix subscription inside the iOS app and Apple has changed the policy. Albeit one decade later and after goverments all around the world started kicking theif butt but still.
I do agree with this proposal. Have both or all methods outhere but with a disclaimer that price may vary depending on the method. That would be fair. Let users investigate themselves what's best for them.
Paypal can suck, but this is not true, I had two disputes and they sided with me as “customer”. I got two times my money fully back…
banning developer who breaks developer agreement is not anticompetitive. sorry if it makes you sad, but thats what it is.
Companies are not at liberty to set any rules or enter any agreements as they please.
Just like you are not allowed to have whatever you want in your prenuptial agreements, even if they are consciously signed by both parties with independent attorneys advising both parties. If a judge thinks that a prenup is unjust 30 years after the fact, the court will throw it out.
Cry me a river.
I guess it depends. If I had to give out my credit card and email to (virtually unknown) apps who didn't offer IAP, I would think twice about using those apps. Not to worry about the hassle of credit card fraud, would make me want to use IAP.
It's not that anything has changed except the ability to advertise a website.
How many of those "customers" are on the free tier?I just find it funny that Spotify has twice as many paid customers as Apple Music... and four times as many total users as Apple Music.... yet they still take Apple to court complaining that Apple is hurting them.
Paypal almost always sides with the customer provided there any evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of the seller, their ease of reversals is something sellers take real issue with and why a great deal of them don't like to use it.
Good news for these particular app developers. I prefer paying directly through apple, as I have to share my card details only with apple, instead of giving it to multiple companies/apps.
I just find it funny that Spotify has twice as many paid customers as Apple Music... and four times as many total users as Apple Music.... yet they still take Apple to court complaining that Apple is hurting them.
Spotify are babies.
Nope. They are competing using all the tools available to them.
Apple also uses litigation when it serves a purpose.
The idea Spotify is winning any kind of war against Apple though is laughable. They are far closer to going out of business than winning any kind of battle against Apple.
It certain does, although those costs are almost certainly a tiny, tiny fraction of what they rake in from their take of the App Store revenue. I don't really care though. Apple created this ecosystem, they came up with the App Store concept, and Apple should be free to cash in for as long as developers CHOOSE to participate - without government interference in private enterprise.
Ultimately if the biggest developers all chose to pull their apps and support a more open system, it would be interesting to see how the market would react. Would people still buy iPhones with no dedicated Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Snapchat, Tiktok, etc. apps? If they really believe they are vital cogs in the chain, support an alternative platform and leave. We can let the market decide.
It’s sad because we know Tim Crook would sell his soul for some extra money.
CSAM to scan your files and yesterday the news about adding you ID and biometrics to your phone. Totally safe, lol
This is a great win for humanity. Apple or any other company should not control something so critical to our lives. This will start with Reader apps but should definitely extend to others / all apps.
At the end of the day consumers and developers deserve choice, rather than 1 (or 2 including Google) companies controlling access to the only marketplaces the majority of the world uses.
At the end of the day consumers and developers deserve choice, rather than 1 (or 2 including Google) companies controlling access to the only marketplaces the majority of the world uses.
They definitely do. Almost every developer I've encountered simply passes on the 30% extra cost for in-app purchases to the user, so buying directly is cheaper.
Netflix already doesn't offer IAPs anymore, so the only added benefit here is avoiding awkward wording about "you can't sign up from the app" and making it much easier to go to the signup page on their website with one click.