News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by Spivak on Friday September 10, 2021 @01:51PM (#28484953)
I mean everyone's assuming that non-IAP subscriptions are going to be 30% cheaper but I don't really buy it. If the market has proven that someone will pay $10 for a thing, suddenly offering it for $7 seems like a bad business move.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by jclardy on Friday September 10, 2021 @02:08PM (#28485133)
Most likely Apple subs will increase in price. This was the case for Netflix/Spotify for a while until Apple banned the practice (7.99 direct, 9.99 via IAP.)
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by benhurmarcel on Sunday September 12, 2021 @04:42PM (#28504709)
It’s still the case for Youtube Premium and Dropbox for example.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by heavyset_go on Friday September 10, 2021 @04:01PM (#28486275)
> If the market has proven that someone will pay $10 for a thing, suddenly offering it for $7 seems like a bad business move.

The mobile app payment market hasn't been competitive for a decade, so Apple has never had to compete with companies that are more efficient than they are, and can offer the same or better service for less than a 30% cut.

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by fennecfoxy on Monday September 13, 2021 @06:30AM (#28509701)
No the problem here is that a business wants X money, to sell thru Apple (and similar) they have to add 30% to what they want, whereas other payment platforms offer a much lower cut.

However Apple does vet apps and focus on security somewhat (altho Google's project 0 seems to do a better job at finding bugs for Apple), however 30% is far too much even for what Apple are offering their customers.

In an ideal world, Apple customers need to be told: "you will be charged extra buying through Apple to help pay for the protections/quality that our platform offers you".

However, Apple explicitly disallows both telling users that they're being charged more and why, and that they could get it cheaper elsewhere.

Regardless of whether Apple are still allowed to charge x%, the first step it to get Apple to allow developers to tell the customer about other payment options and for Apple to explain to their customers why it costs more, then customers can make the decision for themselves.

Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by NineStarPoint on Friday September 10, 2021 @02:17PM (#28485256)
It’s a good move if you want to get more business than the people still charging $10. It’s very much an equilibrium between profit and competition.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by wvenable on Friday September 10, 2021 @02:05PM (#28485117)
Many apps already have non-Apple-taxed pricing. So they can just keep price consistency without losing 30%.
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by whoisburbansky on Friday September 10, 2021 @03:52PM (#28486197)
Which apps do this?
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by hoveringhen on Friday September 10, 2021 @06:15PM (#28487512)
YouTube Music / Premium does this if I'm not wrong
Re:Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case by whoisburbansky on Saturday September 11, 2021 @02:55PM (#28494755)
Huh, I was under the impression that the App Store guidelines didn’t let you do that, but maybe that doesn’t apply if you’re Google.