Hacker News Reader

> But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams.

Give me a break. It doesn’t take 15-30% to implement a secure payment system. This is proven by Apple itself: Apple Pay charges very little for secure payments for physical goods.

Sure Apple makes money off their share of the payment system. Why shouldn't they? They built the whole thing from scratch, including the phones it runs on.

Also Apple doesn't just support the secure payment system, they also handle distributing the money and providing customer support to the end user and the developer. That isn't free either.

If you don't like the Apple model, there are alternatives.

Apple's argument (which seems compelling if we judge it on the result) is that their model is the best solution for customers and developers.

>If you don't like the Apple model, there are alternatives.

What alternatives? Without allowing developers to create 3rd-party payment systems, all payments must be routed through Apple.

>Apple's argument (which seems compelling if we judge it on the result) is that their model is the best solution for customers and developers.

Apple's model does not seem to be compelling for developers/content creators. Developers need to pay a large (for some) amount of money and give Apple a large cut of their profits.

It's also unclear why Apple's model is best for consumers. While it seems good because it protects consumers from scams on third party sites, for reputable companies like Spotify or Netflix, there doesn't seem to be a risk, except for increased prices to the end user because companies need to compensate for losing a third of their earnings.

But it's quite interesting that Apple seems okay with not taking a cut of e.g. Uber, but does want to take a cut of Spotify. Why should they be treated differently?

>>if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system.

No they cant, that is a violation of Apples Policies and would result in the App being removed, Amazon tried that with ebooks years ago. You can not redirect a user for payment inside the app, to a payment system outside the app.

>Regarding the walled-garden App Store policies of Apple, it's not friendly to enthusiasts and some developers, but it is good for most Apple consumers, and helps less tech-savvy users trust Apple's App Store.

It is not an either or option. I think Google has struck a good balence, Their App store is pretty locked down today, but if you know the "hidden" menu and what steps to take you can easily unlock the device and install alternate stores and apps.

There is zero security reason why Apple could not supply this type of hidden unlock for people, it is pure monetary control that they desire

> as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams

And, just coincidentally, that 'protection' is very lucrative for Apple.

IMO apple’s subscription management is greatly undervalued. When I go there and cancel a subscription, it just cancels and that’s it. No intentionally buried links to hunt down, no “But why are you leaving? :(“ guilt trip modal, no convoluted payment method removal process.

I would be much more supportive of efforts to push Apple to allow third party payment systems of the practices I mentioned above weren’t so common.

It's not an even playing field though. Apple has a competing music service and they can undercut their competition by avoiding the 30% transaction fee, squeezing competitors into submission.

I think this is the cleanest seam to cut on. If Apple had to compete fairly in the ecosystem the 30% cut would much more likely be something Spotify could stomach -- not an existential threat to their business, just the cost of doing business on iPhone.

As things stand, Apple has mixed priorities. They want to enable developers where those developers add uniquely to the platform, but they want to outcompete developers where they cannibalise sales from Apple's own products.

This dual remit doesn't help consumers. If Apple's music offering had to pay the 30% tax "for real", they might have to charge $13 too, and that might make the iPhone an expensive platform for music-listeners, and they might be incentivised to cut their margins to compete with other platforms. We could all agree, "Sure it's expensive, but it's their turf and they can run it badly (to their own detriment) if they want."

Not sure where you draw the line between first-party app and OS functionality though. I imagine in some cases it'd be less clear than here.