Exactly. It's not that Spotify can't do in app purchases. They just don't want to pay for the privilege.

Because they exist in a highly competitive market where Apple Music can provide in app purchases without paying the extra tax.

I think I feel similarly, to be honest. While I don't think I'd be less likely to buy something I wanted if an in-app purchase wasn't available, I've always been thankful when I realized I bought something or set up a subscription via Apple because I feel their incentive isn't to make managing that purchase difficult, so their UX for control over subscriptions has been great.

Though, at face value, I do see the argument for giving folks the option to make the purchase how they want, which may mean doing it in the app but not using Apple's APIs. I dunno, I don't have strong feelings about any of this, so it always surprises me when companies try to make such a big deal of it. Sure, it affects their bottom line, but let's not pretend like I should care about that.

Are you also willing to pay the extra Apple tax for this convenience instead of expecting the subscription provider to eat those costs?

Depends on the product and the tax.

Looks like I'm paying more via IAP for Youtube ($16 vs $12/mo) and Audible ($16 vs $8/mo ???) according to the prices listed on their website.

Half of the services out there probably charge you extra just because you don't have to go through their scummy "cancel subscription" website pipeline. They probably lose millions on that along with the fact that I get an iOS notification when my IAP subscriptions renew.

One crappy autorenewing service charging my credit card directly has cost me more than IAP taxes ever will. As far as I'm concerned, IAP saves me money and the status quo for rebilling in the USA only benefits the bad actors.

Especially when trying a new service, I rather pay slightly higher fee than risk dealing with scummy cancellation process. But I may switch payment method if I decide to keep the service longterm.

YouTube is very easy to cancel and not at all scummy, you just need to click one button and it works. Easy 4$ saved per month. I cancelled and then resubscribed at least 5 times this year and it was never an issue (I'm trying to cut down on YouTube which is why I cancelled so many times).

> Half of the services out there probably charge you extra just because you don't have to go through their scummy "cancel subscription" website pipeline

Or because Apple charges 30% for IAP which is huge when your base price already is 10-15 dollars.

Apple could enforce a clean cancel sub process. They do not. So, instead of making things better for you, the user, you just pay more for them to do nothing.

iOS will remind you you've got an active subscription going if you delete the relevant app too, that's a nice touch

Fine if you prefer that, but this is no reason for Apple to enforce it as the only allowed option.

If apple opens the floodgates allowing these purchases outside of this option, why would a company give apple's option to consumers?

Apple enforcing it is the only reason as a consumer I don't have to deal with park patterns for many of the apps I use. Which is a good thing for consumers

You mean Apple would have to be competitive regarding their own services for once? Actually have it make financial sense and provide a seamless experience for companies so they're encouraged to use it rather than forced? No... that can't be a good thing for consumers.

Honestly, after getting screwed over by so many companies making one jump through so many hoops to cancel a subscription, I rather have Apple's way.

Perhaps when law or credit card processors force companies to provide an easy way to cancel a service, as easy as it was to sign up for it, then I can worry about competition in IAP space.

That already exists, if all hell breaks loose for some reason you can talk to your credit card company and request that subscription be stopped. Asking for a new card does the same. Chargebacks also exist and is actually a handy way to get your account removed entirely as lots of companies hate chargebacks.

Also both Visa and Mastercard have their own rules that apply to subscription services, for example Visa requires services that allow signing up for a subscription to be easily cancelled online. So if you run into great issues there, call up Visa!

Nobody is stopping you from using Apple IAP.

The difference being discussed is between <Apple enforcing Apple IAP as one of the options for IAP> and <Apple enforcing Apple IAP as the ONLY option and banning any communication on the subject>.

Are we talking about the same thing here?

I am talking about payment services. Most companies will do everything they can to screw over the consumer. Especially once they have you in a subscription.

As a consumer I would rather these companies be forced to not do shady practices and have to conform to a uniform way of purchases and subscriptions.

I have been in too many meetings about "User Retention", if given the chance very few companies will choose to loose the ability to bash the user over the head with "are you sure you want to cancel" or "please call to cancel".

Apple forces it.

Edit:

Put Another Way: Apple giving developer the choice of wether or not to use their system removes MY choice as a consumer to avoid scummy business practices (Which are often not on display until you no longer want to do business with them).

Apple doesn't have to charge 30% to also offer you convenient payment management APIs. They choose to, and they use it as a justification for their, as you say, "scummy business practices".

You're right - you don't have a choice if you support scummy business practices with Apple. When you use an iProduct, Apple demands it. Every dime you spend on the App Store gets taxed by the richest company on Earth.

Let's work with your assumptions, hopefully you can realize why they don't really make sense when it comes to consumer rights or healthy competition.

So companies "will do everything they can to screw over the customer". Apparently excluding Apple for some reason who can never do wrong or suddenly start demanding apps charge subscriptions instead of a flat fee in the first place, but let's continue.

Companies that have their own infrastructure to support their own payment systems will switch to it, but have to create a justification for consumers to switch as Apple isn't going to do that work for them. So maybe they cut the fee, maybe they throw in a bonus whatever. Some consumers switch, finding this new method acceptable.

Then there will be other consumers, like you, who value Apple's system too highly to switch. If the above hypothetical company does not support both Apple and their own systems, this group of consumers will opt not to continue subscribing.

Now tell me, how is this so bad? How are you unable to avoid scummy business practices?

> Apple giving developer the choice of wether or not to use their system removes MY choice as a consumer to avoid scummy business practices (Which are often not on display until you no longer want to do business with them).

No it doesn't. If you use Apple IAP (or any 3'rd party IAP) you cancel there and the 2'nd party can't do anything about it. What you are claiming is just a lie, a strawman.

The difference being discussed is between <Apple enforcing Apple IAP as one of the options for IAP> and <Apple enforcing Apple IAP as the ONLY option and banning any communication on the subject>.

Simply solution: enforce IAP as an option whilst allowing alternatives. The other option would be to not tax 30% on value Apple did not produce.

Apple does produce value though.

They built the platform that allowed Spotify to even exist.

And then they built the distribution channel that directed customers to Spotify.

No different to Spotify itself.

Spotify also adds value to the iPhone, before the App Store it was pretty but kind of useless. Make them give both options, people can decide whether easy cancellation etc. is worth 30%, Apple can make up any losses it needs to continue the platform from the iPhone sales price (or they can charge for App Store access or whatever, we should make them allow third-party stores/sideloading regardless), people can then decide whether that platform is worth it over Android.

The iPhone before the App Store was exactly the same as all of the other phones on the market at the time, none of which were useless.

Wrong, Spotify's existence does not depend on Apple and their platform. Spotify works on all platforms.

Apple is rent-seeking by abusing their natural monopoly on app distribution on iOS platforms (their platform, their rules) which is leveraged to create a monopoly in IAP channels.

Apple already does enforce having their option alongside other external options: Sign in with Apple is requires if you also offer sign in with google etc.

I think this would be a great solution. I also prefer using apple for purchases, but they should at least be allowed to point the user to another purchase option.

I'm even OK with apple preventing taking payment through the app, however disallowing companies from describing how to do so is too much.

> why would a company give apple's option to consumers?

Because it cares about its customers, who are paying for the service.

This is 100% how I feel.

Too many of these companies have dark patterns for canceling your subscription (or hoping you forget you have one) that I actively stay away from most services that I can't just use an IAP with. This is largely thanks to all of this being consolidated in a single UI where with just a couple clicks (without ever needing to open the app and dealing with their marketing or 20 questions) I can cancel a subscription.

Apple will email me when a yearly subscription is about to bill, clearly telling me how I can manage or cancel it (again outside of the app).

I understand why businesses may not like this, but as a consumer I value this heavily (and yes I do find myself annoyed by what I often hear also being in the tech industry).

At the same time for individual digital purchases I don't want to give every company my credit card. I would much rather that go through Apple.

I understand the concern about the "30% cut" but I wish these companies would also realize that I (and I assume many others) spend more money though my phone because I can do it through Apple where otherwise you would not be getting my money in the first place. So its 70% or nothing from me. Especially when there are alternatives that will be more than happy to take that money from me.

That doesn't mean that I don't use my credit card in some places. But those are for physical items. Likely at stores that already have my credit card in the first place.

At the end of the day, it is Spotify that is choosing to make customers jump through hoops. They chose to enter this market knowing that this will be an issue (if they did not expect this issue... honestly fire whoever decided to go into this market).

This so much, specially when I think of my parents and older love ones, 30% is nothing compared to being in the wild west of dark patterns.

Reputation have a price, Apple may not be perfect but I can trust that they aren't going to deceive my parents or make their life more difficult when trying to use technology.

At least personally, I would much rather pay a bit more than opening the door to cheaper prices at cost of Apple losing one of their big advantages, trustworthiness.

We should have regulation on dark patterns. Not paying 30% more abs giving more power to monopoly. Why is it so hard.you can literally sue companies for dark patterns and hey more money.i did that once with ATT and got more than they said I owe them for dark subscribing to tv when i only wanted internet. I didn't had to spend a single penny nor visit any court.all out of court settlement. You make them accountable for such practices.and as a consumer you should fight against apple to lower subscription fee if the seller can sell at least price

We have regulations. If you think the cops enforce spam calls and texts, think again. Or the millions of scam calls and other blatant internet fraud.

I don’t get iMessage spam. Period. That alone is valuable. Politicians who make these regulations continue to spam me and there is no way to block them with a do not call list.

Apple is so valuable in part because they do enforce some rules.

Looks what EU did go apple change their USB c policy. At least they have guts unlike politicians here. Do you not get spam calls on iPhone. Pixel phones are much better at call screening and blocking spam calls and texts. you are in walled garden my friend. Most of my iOS friends get so many spam calls everyday.even if i get ,they are detected as spam and I can screen them in case I suspect it's not spam. I don't hey iMessage.are they end to end encrypted? They are not. And fb commenting on it. Wait for apple getting into ad business. It's just matter of time their ad revenue skyrocketing

It could be 10% instead of 30% though.

Your reply looks like "tell me you work for apple without telling you work for apple" or "tell me you are apple fanboy without telling you are one". Why so much bashing on Spotify. I never bad problem cancelled free trials of Spotify outside any app store. Honestly, people are ok to pay 30% premium for convenience.no thanks.i would gladly pay 20% less if the purchase is less than any app store. Honestly, i feel like there should be more competition among app stores to benefit customers.this is clear monopoly. Hacker news is very sensitive about negative sentiment on Apple. Maybe more people who work take pride in protecting the brand. I know I will be bashed to speak my mind here.but I speak anyways. I vote for freedom of choice.

> Your reply looks like "tell me you work for apple without telling you work for apple" or "tell me you are apple fanboy without telling you are one".

Why are you making this so personal?

I am sorry.I don't mean to. The comment felt so biased. I am biased too. but just opposite.thats why it came out that way.

Then choose a different phone.

Apple clout let’s it literally force companies to allow easy subscription cancellation because apple handles it. I never have to worry.

Then they can force apps not to cross track (sorry Facebook)

You should watch this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-iZxNFMmQo&feature=share&ut...

I use pixel. I can probably guess you screaming why I am using Google shit.no privacy and all. But I use so many privacy tools likd DNS level blockers, next DNS etc.I dont see single ad, tracking happening.

You must not be from here. Never once did I have trouble cancelling anything, maybe it's a Dutch or even a European thing? I keep hearing of "retention department"s and such. Completely foreign to me.

Paying 30% more for all your subscriptions sounds like an interesting way of dealing with that problem.

For subscriptions, 100% agree

For buying one off products. Don’t wan to be using in-app purchase.

I seem to suddenly be able to buy audiobooks in audible now though? Or at least use my credits. When did that happen?

I too mostly prefer subscribing to services via IAP, but I’d also like the option to do one-time purchases without the 30% markup.

While you could argue enabling the purchase justifies this markup, forbidding the mention of alternative methods seems like an artificial constraint.

Sure, but I'd rather pay a 2% PayPal tax for that ability than a 30% Apple tax.

Apple could just mandate IAP but also allow the app publisher to offer their own methods. It would force competition in pricing. IAP fee ultimately is passed to the consumer. Companies need to make their margins.

This is clearly the best option. Apple would be pressured to reduce their prices and/or increase the app store value, app publishers would be incentivized to not use sleazy subscription cancelling practices.

As a consumer, I'd prefer competition to exist, so that I don't pay 10x higher markup on digital payments for no reason other than Apple being able to get away with extortion and price gouging.

Apple forbids informing users about the extra cost they're paying for using IAP.

Apple forbids informing users that any competing payment method may exist anywhere else.

Apple forbids having cheaper prices elsewhere.

So, none of that has anything to do with IAP.

It simply requires that the person be able to cancel easily and in a standardized way. And Apple could enforce that. That's the whole point of having a review process, an app review, all that.

Apple could enforce that, but they choose not to.