From what I've read the bill would not prevent Apple from forcing developers to use their payment system. It would prevent Apple from mandating devs use it as their only option. So, any developer could put any other payment system in their apps, but that wouldn't block you from still using Apple's if you don't trust that developer.

Devs have enough UX dark patterns in their toolkits to funnel the vast majority of their non-technically savvy userbases into the their favored payment systems and away from Apple's. It is way easier to enforce a blanket ban than trying to play whack-a-mole with those.

Apple doesn't even do a great job enforcing its blanket ban either. Lots of shady developers will skirt the rules around subscription apps still being functional without subscription by having it function while under review and then flip something on the server side to lock it down once approved.

> Devs have enough UX dark patterns in their toolkits to funnel the vast majority of their non-technically savvy userbases into the their favored payment systems and away from Apple's. It is way easier to enforce a blanket ban than trying to play whack-a-mole with those.

If my interpretation of the bill is correct, then Apple could just say "You need to list Apple IAP in the same screen as the other payment methods, and you can't make it harder to find than the custom methods you implement." And knowing Apple, that's what they would do.

Every single big company will only allow their payment method. None that can afford to change will want to pay Apple's cut if they don't have to. If this passes, for any big successful app, using Apple payment will not be an option.

Small developers will likely still use Apple because it is easy. The cut is likely less than the hassle of using a different system.

After an update took away the required login setting for a purchase, Twice I have called Apple and received a refund when my kid spent hundreds of dollars in a couple hours. What is going to happen when that is a malicious game developer? They are not giving that money back. The cable monopolies show how monopolies will make it exceedingly hard to cancel a subscription.

As a mere consumer, that is no longer developing for a living, I do not want this option. I do not really care if companies have to pay Apple a cut. I want easy. I want to trust who has my credit card.

> Every single big company will only allow their payment method.

Did you read the comment you replied to?

Even if this passes, Apple will still be able to require that all apps offer Apple pay as an option for in-app payments.

They just won't be able to prevent developers from offering additional payment options, or from informing users about Apple's 30% cut, or from charging a different price to users who opt to pay using another method.

> Even if this passes, Apple will still be able to require that all apps offer Apple pay as an option for in-app payments.

Not possible if the developer only offers their app via their own competing app store, which won't be subject to forced Apple Pay nor Apple's in-app payment system integration.

Don't allow your kid to have a device which also saves your credit card to the device.

iOS Apps (at least the ones downloaded via Apple's App Store) have a pop-up for children to request their parents purchase an app or an in-app purchase. To add, this will probably not be possible if third-party developers start only offering their own payment methods.

Apple could provide a way to communicate with the parent of a given account if they wanted to.

As a business owner. The principle policy I despise in this is that Apple won't let me charge iOS users differently than other users.

If I could just mark up the iOS version to cover the additional fee, I would find it much less onerous. You like the walled garden? You are welcome to pay for it.

I also find Amazon's similar policy equally disturbing. I don't think players in such powerful positions should be able to dictate pricing in such a manner.

Sure you can, but you’re not allowed to mention that it’s cheaper if you buy it elsewhere.

Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause the outcry that lead to this?

Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me.

Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me.

They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.

Generally, I agree with you. I don't care about what you don't care about. I like the way Apple implements things, I've mostly liked their privacy-protecting moves until this latest fiasco.

But I'm not sure this is bad. With Apple being the only app store, all the possible apps are in their App Store. If there were other stores, perhaps Apple could actually clean all the garbage out of their store. Give them the opportunity to hawk their wares on less reputable stores. This also can potentially lead to Apple touting the "luxury-brandness", or simply the exclusivity of their app store -- they seem to really like that.

I'd also love to see an app store that's entirely focused on open source apps, perhaps with no payment method required. I bet there'd be no end to the types of storefronts we would see. As long as you can continue to opt-in to what you want, this doesn't seem too bad.

Yeah, personally I feel that this bill is a bit too broad in some ways, too narrow in others.

Too broad because I'm fine with walled gardens so long as there's a way to opt out of them. If Apple wants to force apps distributed through their store to behave a certain way to ensure a consistent user experience, that's fine with me. If Apple wants to force _me_ as the device owner to remain within that walled garden though just because I bought their hardware I'm very much against that.

Too narrow because I think the principle that _users_ should control their own devices is sufficiently generalizable that it should apply to more than just "App Store[s] for which users in the United States exceed 50,000,000" on "general purpose computing device[s]".

Overall though, I think I'd much rather have this bill pass as written than not have it pass at all.

So don't use other app stores, which I suspect a majority of people won't do. I doubt app developers are going to leave the apple app store in large numbers for some other thing you have to search for and install first (meaning your app also by default won't show up on search at all)

if you don't trust the developer, don't buy it just like on web.

the more likely scenario is Paypal, Amazon etc. are going to provide SDKs and developer can use that for checkout instead of going through App Store.

Tell that to a parent of a kid who wants to play Fortnite on their iPhone. Make no mistake, this isn't a matter of consumer choice. Whether or not people trust Tencent/Epic, they will install their app store because they want to play their games.

So you can keep using Apple's app store. That was always allowed.