> I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases.
I'm not. I think 30% is overly high. But simultaneously I don't find the original complaint all that convincing.
I bank with Chase, who makes disputing a charge take a few minutes from their website.
> Apple’s terms don’t really allow for disputing; “ALL SALES ARE FINAL”.
Disputing would be unnecessary under the scenario Apple suggested because there would be a free trial.
Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases.
Now you're no longer talking about a money back guarantee. Come on, the idea that a credit card chargeback is a valid alternative to having a free trial is ridiculous.
> Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases.
Wrong.
Non-subscription apps may offer a free time-based trial period before presenting a full unlock option by setting up a Non-Consumable IAP item at Price Tier 0 that follows the naming convention: “XX-day Trial.”
That overhead costs the business and the consumer about 2% in fees compared to Apple’s 30%.
I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases. Businesses will just mark up the price of their product and pass the costs on to the consumer. The only party that wins is Apple, so I guess if you own $AAPL you’d defend the cut.