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.