Not US. I have no idea why Macrumors supporters have "never" suggested to pull out of the US market.
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.
Dutch Regulators to Meet With Dating App Providers to Assess Apple's Plan for Alternate In-App Payment Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not US. I have no idea why Macrumors supporters have "never" suggested to pull out of the US market.
And I find it has its share of drawbacks compared to the App Store. Just because something has always been done that way doesn’t mean it’s all that great, just that it’s possible.
And customers have a chance to decide
And considering the state of the Mac App Store, it doesn't seem to provide so many benefits
If this fight had occurred five years ago, Apple would have been much more accommodating !
But since then, iPhone Unit Sales have completely stalled-out, & the Game part of the App Store has been booming !
And IMO, that's the gist of the BIG picture.
But since then, iPhone Unit Sales have completely stalled-out, & the Game part of the App Store has been booming !
And IMO, that's the gist of the BIG picture.
That's one way to look at it. Another way is that Apple allowing it to get to the point where a government has to do this is incredibly stupid.
The only one insisting Apple have an App Store is Apple.
They can start charging developers of "free apps" for something tangible that Apple is involved in, such as the bandwidth and resources used in downloading the app. Or they can stop allowing free apps.
Or they can allow side loading.
All of these are things Apple can do without demanding 30% of services Apple doesn't actually have a hand in providing, other than a mob-protection of their app.
The annual fee is for access to the development resources that Apple makes available, which are substantial. It isn't just a nominal fee.
FYI: there is not a single argument on the planet against Apple taking a cut of App Store sales that holds up under any scrutiny.
Incentive being, if there is no App Store, there won’t be an iPhone, while competitors continue to subsidize app developers.
Yes, I know that. The point I'm trying to make is that there are people here who either aren't aware of that or aren't acknowledging it because they keep saying that Apple needs their cut because Apple is not a charity and cannot host apps for free when they clearly have been doing so since 2008.
Last edited:
Or apple doesn’t have to do any of the above. It’s their own store and Apple is entitled to charge for their services even though they allow free apps. Even in this case Apple is allowed to charge for their services. Or the dating apps can use a website, problem resolved.
USA is the largest economy in the world.
If California was a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world as a country, just to put things in perspective.
Likewise, pulling out of China is also not an option.
Connect a rider to a driver - Apple takes no cut of the fee charged, no issue with alternate payments methods.
Connect two random people for whatever other reason - Apple charges 30% and you must use Apples payment method for the fee charged.
Seems somewhat arbitrary
Connect two random people for whatever other reason - Apple charges 30% and you must use Apples payment method for the fee charged.
Seems somewhat arbitrary
and yet governments around the world seem to disagree, Apple is not winning this fight.
I had to get a refund on a sub. In app I was advertised a discounted price, but the charge came through at full price. The refund process was frictionless.
"The only one insisting Apple have an App Store is Apple."
I thought that would have been obvious to everyone. Apple provides a service people want. And charges a fee. However, I see loads of benefits as a consumer, so therefore I support Apple on this.
30% is very reasonable.
I did the same thing, on a sub upgrade.
Ends up Apple charges the full amount of the new subscription, and then refunds the remaining of the old one.... which results in a several day delay of your credit card having the correct balance. I find that misleading from Apple, they should show on screen that its going to do that in two transactions... or just charge the subscription delta which would be more user friendly. Letting Apple run all this crap without any checks and bounds and competition results in this stupidness and a lack of a need to improve the App Store.
Oh yep. Was yours an Apple specific sub? Mine was a third party. At the time I wasn’t subscribed to the service at all, so there was no refund due.
People have been warning about companies that sell hardware and software forever. There were reasons then, and it seems, reasons today.
People have been warning about dating through dating apps too, but that's just a non sequitur
People have been warning about dating through dating apps too, but that's just a non sequitur
3rd party app....
The app advertised it as "Upgrade for $75 more".... then on the payment screen the price was "$150", a full year of subscription.
I subscribed thinking it was mistake, but then saw the higher price, so i reached out to apple and had them cancel it.
Then i did my research, and that is "normal" and that Apple will refund the difference like a week later. No where does the app or Apple's payment system show that to you up front. I ended up upgrading again, but its a STUPID system.... and if they had competitive pressures they would solve stupid issues like this.
Then again, with how buggy their software as a whole has been lately, they just don't seem to have enough pressure to fix anything other than add emojis people don't need.
Especially, if government officials are the ones using said "dating apps." Although "dating" may be legal in the Netherlands, I'm sure their significant others would not be so keen on the idea.
Can anyone say "Ashley Madison?"
Ashley Madison - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Right, but compare malware, viruses, and overall phishing on a Mac vs an iPhone. Then get back to me.