Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nope. Contrary to popular belief, there are some people in this world who do not stoop to such levels.
There'll always be some people who are unscrupulously honest and upstanding but many won't be.

But this is the trouble with a political and economic system that often relies on honesty.

And we will never have a system that punishes that bad behaviour sufficiently to stop it.
 
Only if the prices was stated when you sign it. i.e When you first sign the contract for $4.99, they could put in the terms when renewing in 12 months it will be $9.99. Again not the case here.

Not sure why that would be required. As long as the customer is agreeing to periodic "price increases" in general (with advanced notification, of course, so they can still cancel if desired), then I don't see any logical reason why that would be unacceptable, since the customer is aware that the increase is unknown and has a chance to agree to that or not. Or they could state a percent increase cap (e.g. "price increases will not exceed 10%" etc.)
 
At least Apple does make it easy to cancel. Others let you sign up online, but require a phone call to an understaffed call center with limited hours to end the subscription. Worst case you eat one month before cancelling.
Just wait until apps can use 3rd party payment systems. Good luck getting out of any subscription or refunds.
 
Definitely not a good move. Cannot imagine why Apple is not against this feature.
if you read the article more closely you will have noticed it said 'Apple requests..' With this new pilot commerce being tested removes liabilty away from Apple and places it in the hands of the app-dev's. Thus, if an app-dev increases their prices and a customer does not pay too much attention to the price increase notice thus forgetting to change their subscription, the customer cannot then go and blame Apple because Apple can just turn around and say, 'no longer our responsibility, we put it in the hands of the app-devs, go complain to them'.

Also, countries will have different laws on how this change will be interpreted and if a person in a country falls foul of the new changes, the countries regulator cannot go after Apple because again Apple can say it is no longer their responsibility because they handed over that responsibility to the app-devs.

I can see how this is going to play out. The app-devs who have subscription services will have some form of pop up window telling the user that prices are changing. The user will most probably forget about changing their subscription in the app settings and the price increase will automatically hit the user. The user will be angry that they have been automatically billed for the price increase. The user will complain towards Apple, Apple will say it's the app-dev's responsibility now, go talk to them. Because the app-dev will be in another country, they will be reluctant to help. Users will then complain to their countries regulator to force app-devs to change their ways. Because the regulator will now be dealing with individual app-devs, this could lead into thousands upon thousands of notices being issued by the regulator, a process that will drown them in procedural red tape.

The regulator not being able to cope with the amount of procedural red tape will tell Apple to prevent the app's from operating in their country. Upon reciept of legal paperwork, Apple will remove the apps which will anger the app-devs. Apple will then say 'well, we gave you what you wanted, now you want us to remove it because it backfired on you'.
 
Wouldn’t it make more sense for Apple to charge developers for what it actually costs for them to be in the App Store and for all the SDKs/tools/dev support etc? And charge every developer regardless of whether their app is free to download with no IAP or not? Right now big companies pay Apple next to nothing while small developers have to give Apple 30% or 15% of their revenue stream.

You could ask the same of any company anywhere. Why does everyone always target Apple with issues that all large companies have?

And where you get that big companies pay next to nothing, when they pay 30%?
 
Wouldn’t it make more sense for Apple to charge developers for what it actually costs for them to be in the App Store and for all the SDKs/tools/dev support etc? And charge every developer regardless of whether their app is free to download with no IAP or not? Right now big companies pay Apple next to nothing while small developers have to give Apple 30% or 15% of their revenue stream.
Doesn’t it make sense for apple to charge fees when the dev earns revenue from the platform? Devs are free to set their price and apple earns revenue when the devs do.
 
It's immoral to raise prices???????
You make an offer. Customer accepts. You have a deal.
Wanna change terms of the deal? Go, make a new offer. Customer accepts? You have a new deal.
Customer declines? You either stick to the old terms - or are free to leave the table.

Unilaterally changing done deals isn’t seen as fair business conduct.

I mean… it’s not as if I could tell Netflix: „Yo, Netflix, been a bit skint lately. Seven quid‘s too much, but i‘ll pay you five from now and keep that sub. If I‘m not hearing from you, I’ll consider that acceptance of my offer!“ (well, technically I could tell them, but not as a simple push message. And I won’t automatically receive the lower price without their consent)
 
Last edited:
You make an offer. Customer accepts. You have a deal.
Wanna change terms of the deal? Go, make a new offer. Customer accepts? You have a new deal.

Unilaterally changing done deals isn’t seen as fair business conduct.

Exactly right..

If this gets rolled out, we will have the usual cadre of Apple defenders pointing out some version of:

"you agreed to automatic increases on subscription pricing in the legal fine print of iOS -- didn't you read all 3 zillion pages before agreeing!!???"
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: arkitect and I7guy
You make an offer. Customer accepts. You have a deal.
Wanna change terms of the deal? Go, make a new offer. Customer accepts? You have a new deal.
Customer declines? You either stick to the old terms - or are free to leave the table.

Unilaterally changing done deals isn’t seen as fair business conduct.

I mean… it’s not as if I could tell Netflix: „Yo, Netflix, been a bit skint lately. Seven quid‘s too much, but i‘ll pay you five from now and keep that sub. If I‘m not hearing from you, I’ll consider that acceptance of my offer!“ (well, technically I could them, but not as a push message. And I won’t automatically receive the lower price)

These are subscriptions. You’ll be hard pushed to find something that doesn’t increase subscription prices.

Don’t think the EU has an issue with raising subscription prices, as long as proper notification is given and the ability to cancel is easy and not hidden.
 
Exactly right..

If this gets rolled out, we will have the usual cadre of Apple defenders pointing out some version of:

"you agreed to automatic increases on subscription pricing in the legal fine print of iOS -- didn't you read all 3 zillion pages before agreeing!!???"

When one persists in using hyperbole, one can make anything look bad.

Last I checked with Apple Subscriptions, it was easy to find them, see the cost and cancel them.

You seem to have a real problem with folks pointing out logical fallacies with your argument and you then labeling them as “Apple Defenders” etc.

Meanwhile you yourself on more posts than I can count have railed against Apple’s “Monopoly” and repeated demands for third party app stores etc. Such app stores would almost certainly provide for such functionality as flexible price increases and so now Apple are probably laying the ground for such a future, you’re now complaining bitterly.

You cannot have your cake and eat it as well. People wanted more flexibility and it looks like its going to happen - I can’t imagine that Apple will maintain their walled garden forever.

Well, the new world you face will be one where just such actions will transpire - and if the app stores are small enough, they’ll get away with bigger scams and less oversight.

This could well be a case of “Be careful for what you ask for - you may not like the result”.
 
You make an offer. Customer accepts. You have a deal.
Wanna change terms of the deal? Go, make a new offer. Customer accepts? You have a new deal.
Customer declines? You either stick to the old terms - or are free to leave the table.

Unilaterally changing done deals isn’t seen as fair business conduct.

I mean… it’s not as if I could tell Netflix: „Yo, Netflix, been a bit skint lately. Seven quid‘s too much, but i‘ll pay you five from now and keep that sub. If I‘m not hearing from you, I’ll consider that acceptance of my offer!“ (well, technically I could them, but not as a push message. And I won’t automatically receive the lower price)
I wish the world really worked that way with:
- taxes
- interest rates
- utilities
- prices at the grocery store
- consumer goods in general

But alas, the world doesn’t.
 
lol I do not think that is even allowed, at least in the EU
Why not? If a subscription is raised in price, the company needs to inform you. And you can cancel without penalty within 3 months. But if you don’t respond your insurance or internet provider subscription will go up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiggrToo
You make an offer. Customer accepts. You have a deal.
Wanna change terms of the deal? Go, make a new offer. Customer accepts? You have a new deal.
Customer declines? You either stick to the old terms - or are free to leave the table.

Unilaterally changing done deals isn’t seen as fair business conduct.

I mean… it’s not as if I could tell Netflix: „Yo, Netflix, been a bit skint lately. Seven quid‘s too much, but i‘ll pay you five from now and keep that sub. If I‘m not hearing from you, I’ll consider that acceptance of my offer!“ (well, technically I could them, but not as a push message. And I won’t automatically receive the lower price)
The customer is free to decline the price increase by cancelling the subscription. Where does it say they can't cancel?
 
The service provider is free to unilaterally cancel the service - unless the customer explicitly agrees to to continue the contract at the higher price/fee. What's the problem with that.

In the EU, it depends upon member states, their laws and case law.

That said and as an example, in Germany, the most populous EU member state, the Federal Court of Justice recently decided against German banks that silence doesn't mean consent to increases in fees or changes in T&C. As a result, millions of bank customers could demand fee increases paid for years.

The same court also recently rendered invalid a clause in Netflix' Terms and Conditions that allowed the company to arbitrarily increase prices.
 
as an example, in Germany, the most populous EU member state, the Federal Court of Justice recently decided against German banks that silence doesn't mean consent to increases in fees or changes in T&C.

Imagine that -- some rules that skew against the favor of big business and actually consider the consumers..

Must be nice..

(USA resident here)
 
It's bad, but "hell" is an overstatement. Go hang out in Ukraine this week, and let us know if automatic price hikes is worse.
We're not unsympathetic to Ukraine's plight, but if "first world problems" are going to get invoked on websites that aren't for this sort of discussion (save for specific boards that allow politics, religion, sex, etc.), then that'll turn EVERY TOPIC into that sort of divergence.

"My iPhone crashed and I can't use major features!" --- Well, there was a flooding somewhere that killed thousands
"An app switched to a subscription model!" --- There's always a war going on somewhere
Etc., etc.
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
I subscribe to Netflix, Shudder and Spotify; none of them through Apple. Thanks to the information provided by this article, I’ll make sure that I do NOT subscribe to anything through Apple.

Doesn’t affect me but I think it is obscene behaviour.


Tom
I don't agree with this change either, but none of those services you listed give you an Opt-in choice. If you were subscribed to Netflix, then you automatically experienced a price change to your subscription. Sure they emailed you, but they changed the price they charged and your only recourse was to read the email ahead of time and choose to unsubscribe before the price change. That is no different from what may occur with App Store subscriptions with this change. I would love for Apple to continue the Opt-In policy but it won't be any worse from what everyone else does right now.

If you don't like it, www.apple.com/feedback. I've already sent in my opinion about this potential change, if you all don't like it, give feedback.
 


Apple appears to be testing a new feature that would allow developers to automatically charge users when a subscription price goes up, according to TechCrunch.

iOS-App-Store-General-Feature-Clorange.jpg

Right now, Apple asks customers to explicitly agree to subscription pricing increases when the cost of a subscription goes up. If a customer does not tap on the presented "Agree to New Price" button, their subscription is automatically canceled. But if the new functionality that Apple is testing rolls out, customers may simply be notified of an upcoming change, rather than being given the choice to cancel. Essentially, Apple is testing an opt-out system rather than an opt-in system for subscription pricing changes.

When Disney+ recently increased its prices to $7.99 per month, some developers noticed that the Disney+ app sent out a notification that was more of an alert about a price increase rather than a clear opt-in choice. Disney+ subscribers received a notification with a large "OK" button letting them know about the change, but there was no built-in opt-out button, with the app instead providing a link to change the subscription.

Other developers noticed similar behavior for different subscriptions, and an Apple spokesperson confirmed to TechCrunch that it is running a pilot test on a new subscription system.If this change rolls out more widely, App Store users will need to keep a closer eye on their subscriptions, as it will be easier for a pricing increase to go under the radar without the express opt-in system that's currently in place.

Apple would not provide more details on the pilot test, and did not offer information on the apps that are currently involved or when the feature might roll out more widely to all developers.

Article Link: Developers May Soon Be Able to Automatically Charge Apple Users for Subscription Price Increases
Shady. Just goes to show how corporate processes can rationalize the immoral.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.