Apple forcing app developers to implement auto-billing after free trial
old.reddit.com
old.reddit.com
Mostly because they're aggressive communicators about subscription billing -- they send emails well in advance of any subscription renewal, telling you when you'll be billed, how much for, and giving you a link to cancel the subscription. Makes me feel this isn't them hoping you'll just forget and be billed.
In fact, I'd suspect this is intended as a user-friendly feature. It means you had to be presented with the cost up-front before you began the trial, avoiding letting shadier developers do a bait and switch when the trial expires and the user needs to sign up again. (Not saying there aren't other ways this could be done, but...)
And you invested your time on a training, later surprised by the cost, but as you were invested timewise, you are more likely to pay.
From my experience, even with due diligence and setting up calendar event notifications, I've missed a few subscription cancelations I intended. On the other hand, whenever I use something free, I always proceed under the assumption it can shift to a pay for service/product at some point in the future of unknown cost and assess risk accordingly. I don't think I've ever been surprised by a fee or lost time investment because of this.
As far as one time purchases vs subscription charges, I think there's a better argument for this case. It should be made very clear up front during the purchase that there's a time subscription model and what services are or aren't included in that service. The model used in Google Play makes it pretty difficult to confuse what services are or aren't subscription based from my experience which seems reasonable (can't say I've looked into the details, just know I haven't been surprised by what is or isn't a monthly subscription).
Forcing all subscriptions to auto-renew doesn't fix this.
I've seen plenty of apps/services where the selling point is the fact that they _don't_ require a card for their free trial. And people renew their subscription because they've found the product to be worthwhile; not because they used it for 30 minutes then forgot to cancel.
If you're forced to go through a process to renew something, you're more likely to question why you're going through the process and if the service the process exists for still maintains value to you worth continuing payment for. Businesses are aware of this and attempt to avoid those situations. Minimize friction of revenue, limit any barriers for money flowing in.
It's very intentional and I've yet to see a good argument for trial-to-subscription auto opt-in that is not a strategic money grab based on a probability of unintended customers. Many decades ago, magazine subscriptions were notorious for this exact same predatory subscription lock-in model, even making it difficult to cancel (while incredibly easy to enter).
For example, CBS All Access had a free trial a few months back which had Picard on it. The monthly fee was nominal and it looked like they had a few shows I might like so I entered the free trial period. After finishing Picard, I tried a few other offerings from the service during the free trial and realized none of them were to my satisfaction. Therefore, I intended to cancel but forgot. Surprise, next monthly billing cycle I see a charge on my card.
So, if the point of the use case of a free trial period is to offer a free trial to evaluate a service and decide if you'd like to continue but prevent you from paying a fee to "test drive," then the upfront payment authorization fails at this for many people who don't instantly cancel the second they decide they don't or may not want the service (but aren't sure yet), or be sure to do so before the free trial ends.
All and all, I would argue the up front authorization free trial case often grabs a subset of the free trial accounts into a full cycle of payment. It also likely grabs those less attentive to longer periods of payment for services they're not using. So free trials are often crafted to prey on these situations, which I typically tend to avoid.
I know I got wrapped up with a few project deadlines for a few weeks and didn't even have time continue exploring shows before canceling. I'd completely forgotten I even had the service. I guess I wasn't being clever enough.
It appears more to me like opt-out recurring subscription is actually the model trying to be clever. These practices are largely business friendly, not consumer friendly.
There’s nothing unique about a free trial period in that situation.
Another alternative is to allow an opt-in subscription service with a free trial up front that doesn't automatically setup a recurring subscription you have to remove. A lot of services use this model, successfully.
You downloaded CBS All Access, they made you free trial member, you have no idea how much it costs. You may even don't know it costs
You started watching Picard etc, 1 week later, when new episode came, you logged in, you saw your trial has ended, subscribe to continue, lets say 20$ / month.
Apple is trying to prevent this behaviour, actually in comments one developer explaining they made similar flow.
There is no issue about misleading customers here, because many apps promise features that don't work well or have other problems and the only ways for the user to figure out if an app is worth it is by (a) reading reviews and (b) trying it, and that will result in an informed decision. What's the difference between misleading users about functionality and misleading them about price? In both cases you're wasting your users' time and in both cases they'll ultimately choose not to buy.
What Apple is doing here is moving the purchase decision forward, to the point where the user knows practically nothing about the product. How can you make an informed decision if all you've seen are a couple of screenshots and some vague list of features on the App store page?
And what if say, a Sasquatch, steals your phone, and your wallet, and he's using the app and delighted by it, by you've never used that app but you're still going to be charged?
What happens if the universe ends?
Apple must account for this scenarios!
What were you hoping to prove here?
Since you can't be guaranteed to be able to bill someone forever, an expired CC being an obvious example, how does an app not break the rule of "Because Apple forbids an app to be disabled or not function".
I mean, the app surely doesn't uninstall itself or give you free access forever.
The rule must be "Apple forbids an app to be disabled or not function without displaying Apple's subscription chrome" which makes sense then.
No, what they're doing is they turn:
"I tried this app and I want to keep it, so I click before/after trial ends to be charged with the subscription"
into:
"I tried this app and I don't want it, so I click to cancel the trial anytime before it ends, not to be charged for a subscription".
In other words, they don't forbid trials.
Actually this whole thing is not even about auto-renewal or not, it's about apps using their subscription methods/apis. Tomorrow they might chose to forbid auto-renewal across the board just as well, but they will still insist apps use their subscription method.
Is this your personal experience? I’ve previously received refunds for purchases and movie rentals. It required an email but also gave me confidence that if I ever bought an app that was junk that I’d get a refund.
Never a hassle... That said this is definitely a user hostile approach pretty much banking on the fact that people will forget or just not have time/energy to go cancel (and remember where/how).
I was double subscribed to a service. Same device, same account, literally within seconds of each other (double tap maybe?). I was billed twice a quarter for 2 quarters. When I raised this their response was (quoting from the email): "We've thoroughly reviewed your case with our Support Team, and I’m afraid to say that we are unable to proceed with the actions requested."
I replied, restating the problem. They did not respond. I contacted them again 2 days later. No response. Again 5 days later. No response. Again a month later - no response.
There is no way to communicate with them once they have decided they aren't going to deal with your enquiry, so I have had to swallow the loss as they are known for blocking accounts who perform CC chargebacks :/
Heck, most people don't read their work emails in a timely matter, if my coworkers are anything to go by... ;)
* Walk up and tell me (grandpa, tell us about the days before Covid..)
* Phone call
* Slack/Discord/Workplace IM
* Git comment @me
* Social Media
* Paper Mail
Also, in terms of consent and automated systems generally, explicit opt in is really the only way to go. Humans just can’t deal with the mental overhead of the hundreds of “contracts” their “services” require now
With saas offerings, I won’t even sign up for a trial if it requires billing information from me.
The least the App Store could do is give notifications (not just email) for monthly billing and notifications for "You are now paying $7/week and will be charged <Date>" (Click to go to a screen that will let you cancel).
Not to mention, the hostility of having to notice it's $7/week, not $7/month. I literally have never seen weekly billing like that, and I had to look three times to notice it said "week". Just gives scummy tools to scummy people that make rebillware on the App Store, like a game for cats you can make after any Swift tutorial charging $7/week.
At least all apps go through Apple billing, so you get an itemized list of which apps are billing you. Really needs an on-device notification system to help people see that screen though. My mom isn't going to find it, yet she should see it every month she's ever getting billed.
Imagine if Apple was enforcing opt-in (with a free trial). None of that would have happened.
More importantly, can you get a refund? assuming your mother was tricked and didn't understand she was being charged and for what (this voids the contract in some jurisdictions).
This is some twisted logic that tries to make a customer hostile feature look friendly.
In what way is assuming you can take my money unless I say otherwise just because I used a free trial supposed to be user-friendly?
I'm so unbelievabley tired of these anti-consumer practices being labelled as 'user friendly' or 'working as intended'. They are not user friendly and sure they're working as intended, to extract money from you. At least tell it like it is, an accountant realized they made more money this way and told the marketers to sell that shit.
There is zero benefit to me as a user by making me opt out of paying a company money.
Try to cancel your newspaper subscription - you have to call in and jump through hoops.
Try to cancel your cable or internet, you didn't realize the rate you got was a "promo" rate that required a two year contract?
I guarantee that if apple used the approaches others use, subscription revenue would be a LOT higher.
They send you an email saying, here's what will be renewing soon, click here to cancel. I end up canceling about 80% of what would auto renew.
And I hate the developers who are not upfront with the subscription price. If there is a free trial, what does it cost after. Even NY Times did this ($1/month in big print - fine print said something like $54/month after 1 month or maybe it was just in a link burried etc).
A lot of shady companies thinks customers will not chase after 5 dollars a month and even if they are right %50 of time, they make a pretty penny.
Really, I feel it should be available through icloud.com, but I couldn't find it anywhere. That'd avoid any of these issues where you need access to a non-phone device.
...vaguely possible that you could get to it through the Apple Music app on Android. I can't easily check that from where I am now, though.
It took being on the phone for over 8 hours before someone figured it out (I didn't know that was the issue) and they ended up writing off $12 to let me make the switch.
Apple prides into protecting customers, but when such issue appears you can’t do anything in the usual case deflection UI.
I can do that online with a few clicks. (I do not subscribe to the NYT or WSJ). This is the same with most newspapers that are not the NYT or WSJ.
Try to cancel your cable or internet, you didn't realize the rate you got was a "promo" rate that required a two year contract?
I can do that with a simple call. My rate was not a promo that required a two year contract. I know this because they said so in big letters on the contract, which they're legally required to do in most states...
I guarantee that if apple used the approaches others use, subscription revenue would be a LOT higher.
TIL that if Apple didn't force trial periods to become auto-billed, revenue would somehow be higher. Instead of the more obvious result, which is that revenue is higher because people are being auto-billed after they forget to cancel. That is the business model of quite a few scams, and it's disappointing but not surprising that the Cooks-era Apple has embraced this business model.
If the app does not deliver what it claims with the subscription, I can trust Apple to dispute it. For example, there are a couple of apps that offer subscription and amazing deals out of in-app purchases, but I simply refuse to subscribe that kind of applications, because there are a lot of shady companies want to take your money.
Sure, and that's great. But why can't subscriptions be opt-in after a free trial, instead of opt-out? They can still send an email with a "Subscribe" button instead of a "Cancel" button. I would argue that's much more user-friendly.
Also, the opt-in vs opt-out could be configurable.
Opt-out is only user hostile when it is used as a scam. Whether it is hostile depends on the implementation.
Apple’s implementation is a friendly one. Firstly there is an email confirmation with a link to cancel, and secondly there is a single screen with all of the subscriptions aggregated and cancellable.
If you are someone who generally purchases subscriptions to things you actually want, then opt-out is clearly more friendly.
If you are someone who likes to try a bunch of stuff but isn’t likely to want to keep much of it, then you would likely prefer opt-in.
Whether a given implementation of opt-out is a scam or not is orthogonal to whether it matches your personal style.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Your comment would be just fine if shortened in the way the guidelines recommend; it's a fine comment otherwise.
By ‘reading along’ I was referring to earlier places in this thread where the issue is already addressed, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23705338
If you have counted this as a violation of the site guidelines, please decrement the counter.
What shortening is recommended in this case?
I would recommend just leaving out the first sentence. It's not clear that the comment loses anything by it. Alternatively, you could say "This issue is already addressed upthread, for example <link>". That would be the equivalent of "the article mentions that". Yes, that's not shorter, but the intention here is to make one's points without personal swipes. And linking to the other explanation also adds information.
By the way, once I read your explanation of what you meant, it seemed like a much lesser violation than it did when I read it without that. The trouble, though, is that other readers encounter such a comment without knowing what you meant either.
It’s also simply not reasonable to say I made a distinction without a difference.
We know that a lot of people engage with the comments on HN without fully reading the source material, and this is now expected behavior. This makes the guideline as written a good way to avoid a common and unproductive antipattern.
However there is a clear difference between not fully reading the source material and not reading the comments you are replying to.
If you want the rule to cover both cases, then you should update it to do so.
A rule like ‘don’t make inferences about other commenters knowledge or understanding of the post or the thread - but rather address this through commenting on the meaning of their statements’ would cover this and a host of other issues, but the one you have used simply does not.
Your suggestion - “This is addressed unthread” can be a dismissal (especially if inaccurate) that is significantly more offensive than “sounds like you aren’t reading along”.
“How can it be objectively user hostile, if someone such as csunbird loves it?”
Would fit this rubric.
In any case, something seems off about this particular moderator intervention.
I’m sure you’re familiar with gym membership cancellation? That’s not limited to gyms. This may not be the absolute best, but it’s way, way better than the worst.
I don’t think this is correct. I only ever get emails coincident with the renewal letting me know what my credit card was charged. Never in advance.
I wouldn't like renewal reminders every month for my services but I think it makes sense to do something similar to iCloud renewal notices in a few scenarios: for long-term (e.g., annual) subscriptions, for expensive subscriptions, and for the first few billings of a user's first subscription (so they get used to it).
It's also easy to "report a problem" from the receipt e-mail for the renewal, and while there's no stated policy of doing so, I think they would refund an undesired renewal. They even have an option on the form, "I did not intend to renew subscription(s)."
But for third-party subscriptions, I get an email with subject "Your Subscription is Expiring" a few days before each billing, then a receipt after each billing.
Sure, apple is usually pretty customer oriented if contacted. But this is nothing more than a greed.
Maybe, it is just me but from my perspective this is a try to force buying from me by whatever means possible and doing me is like rejecting me as a potential customer: I will just never do it.
I hate the need of thinking about some money will be taken from me, unless I perform some action - I consider it as a huge violation of my trust as a highly fishy tactic.
Why waste money on a trial for someone who is unlikely to convert.
You sound like someone who is hard to sell to, so it is in the interests of most companies to discourage you from participating.
Doesn't Apple take a cut of app subscription revenue? So could requiring auto-renewal just be a way of increasing profits, while deflecting the negative PR for the subscription dark pattern onto individual app developers?
How would that be a bait and switch?
So the default behaviour matters most in this situation, as evidenced by opt-in vs opt-out for things such as organ donation. When it takes action to opt in most people don't do it (even though it's a good thing), and when it's opt out then most people don't take the actions of removing themselves from being an organ donor.
In this case with all the emails that Apple sends having the default behaviour be opt-in would actually still work. People that want to continue using the application should take the necessary steps to subscribe. If not then they either didn't want the subscription, don't use the application, or they didn't read the messages and are relieved that they're not spending money unnecessarily.
Therefore having opt-out be the default for subscriptions means that Apple is doing it explicitly because it makes them more money than the reverse situation. It is actually user hostile but with the thin veneer (typical of T&C or Privacy Policy) that they "told you so".
That functionality was live for a few versions before we got an App Store reviewer who noticed and rejected us for it. At the time I couldn't find a specific guideline that disallowed the practice, but anyone who's spent a few years releasing iOS apps knows that's not necessary for a rejection.
The guidelines now include these lines, mentioned by the OP's rejection:
> Auto-renewing subscription apps may offer a free trial period to customers by providing the relevant information set forth in App Store Connect.
> Apps that attempt to scam users will be removed from the App Store. This includes apps that attempt to trick users into purchasing a subscription under false pretenses or engage in bait-and-switch and scam practices will be removed from the App Store and you may be removed from the Apple Developer Program. Learn more about Subscription Free Trials.
Our approach did alert the user that they were on a free trial, but the pricing wasn't related in that alert, nor were the premium features easily identifiable during the trial. I think "bait-and-switch" would be a fair appraisal.
I assume that is what apple is avoiding here.
From twitter they say:
“ We've experimented with auto-charging trials in the past and they lead to (1) fewer users trying the product (2) a huge number of refund requests by users who forget to cancel and (3) complete disbelief from those users when we explain that Apple won't allow us to issue refunds.”
By they are also not showing any pricing in the beginning. If they would show try for 15 days free then it is X usd / month. It would be more honest.
or is it easier to force trials to be on apple subscriptions, and don't have any problem.
Is it anti-consumer to make all subscriptions behave the same? Suppose half of apps managed their own trial period and half of them used auto-renewing App Store trials.
Also worth noting it is really, really trivial to cancel an app subscription from within your Settings, and to see much of the trial period is remaining.
I think for most people it's pretty hard to find.
It's not actually in Settings. You have to open the App Store, click your face, and that screen has a "Subscriptions >" menu item. I don't subscribe/purchase that much stuff on iOS, so it always takes me a while to find it.
EDIT: thanks for the reply, TIL it's _also_ in Settings :)
> You’ve purchased the following subscription with a 1‑week free trial:
Subscription Apple TV+
Date of Purchase May 16, 2020
Introductory Offer Free for 1 week
Renewal Price $4.99/month starting May 23, 2020
Payment Method Store Credit
> To learn more or cancel, [review your subscription](link to unsubscribe).
And yet people still miss it and send us angry emails when they're billed, and we have to tell them to ask Apple for their refund since we don't have the capability to refund them ourselves.
That would be superior in every way.
"Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself."
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-dev...
I hate that it's hidden behind four clicks in "Settings", but, once you find it, it's very nice to be able to have one place to go "oh yeah I should unsubscribe from that crossword app I haven't opened in three months". By comparison, for other sites, I have to go find my username/password in a login manager...
How does Apple's policy allow for that? They can't claim they can ignore Quebec law, as they have both an Apple Store and a corporate office in Montreal and already acknowledge another provision of the same Quebec law on their Canadian online store website.
(Quebec has no problem with requiring payment information at the time of sign-up, per se, whether as an anti-fraud measure or to make it easy for the customer to subsequently opt in for paid service.)
For example, even though Amazon's systems have plenty of information that my ISP and my main shipping and billing addresses are in Quebec, Amazon markets 30-day Prime free trials to me and then notes in the fine print that Quebec residents get a 13-month first yearly cycle or 2-month first monthly cycle instead. But they also don't charge Quebec consumers for the 13-month or 2-month subscription until the end of the first month, and they don't charge us at all if we cancel during the first month. Smells just like a rebranded free trial with auto-billing.
I'm not convinced Quebec courts would uphold that as legitimately different from a free trial with auto-billing if challenged. The law isn't in place just to force a change in language, it's to force a change in billing or pricing behaviour. This isn't that. Do you know if the compliance of this approach has already been ruled on?
Additionally, the same law covers cancellation penalties and Amazon is noncompliant. Even after the free trial, Amazon is not supposed to charge a cancellation penalty more than the lesser of C$50 or 10% of the pro-rata remainder contract amount.
So, with the annual plan here still costing C$79/year, cancelling right after the first charge should cost Quebec residents at most C$7.90, possibly less since part of the first charge is officially allocated by the fine print to the initial month for Quebec residents. In practice Amazon keeps 100% of the cost in this scenario.
Article from 2015 discussing this:
https://ricochet.media/en/519/amazons-quebec-users-could-fac...
They may very well not actually be compliant with the laws. I'm a bit surprised that Amazon hasn't even bothered to adjust the billing for their 13-month cycle, that can't be the case for every company offering 13-month first yearly cycles, can it?
Most recently I was looking at credit cards (HSBC, is particular) - it seems they can't waive the fist year's annual fee in Quebec, so they instead offer Quebec customers an additional welcome bonus of points equivalent to the annual fee.
So now, I lose control over the process and can't even refund the customer if they forget. And people won't try the app.
People who try my app end up liking it, but needing to provide payment up front is a deal breaker for most.
Moreover, technically it requires quite a bit of rework, as you need a user + IAP record together. And testing IAP is a huge PITA.
I'm slightly encouraged to see this happen to a major app[2], to see if Apple responds or rethink this. It's terrible.
[2] Which, incidentally I used and love. And only tried because of the free billing-less trial!
There was a good discussion of App Store billing practices and how they're abused in this podcast episode: https://www.relay.fm/radar/176
The only way an app can charge an in-app subscription is by asking iOS to prompt the user. This shows a system-controlled prompt telling you the price and that it is a recurring subscription. The prompt only allows you to purchase if you authenticate via Touch ID / Face ID / password, or if you have recently authenticated and have enabled the setting that skips this. Additionally, the App Store rules require that the screen that triggers the subscription also includes details on the subscription. Apple can and do reject submissions to the App Store if apps don’t comply with this.
There simply isn’t an API that lets apps set up an in-app subscription without going through the system-controlled prompt. There isn’t an API that lets apps "convert" a one-off payment to a recurring payment. Apps have no access to set up payments themselves, everything has to go through Apple-controlled, user-visible prompts. If somebody is being charged unexpectedly for a subscription, there’s something else happening, e.g. a partner who knows your password set it up, or you just forgot.
As far as Apple’s motives are concerned, they put a lot of effort into enforcing the rules around in-app purchases, reject a lot of apps on that basis, and err on the side of caution. I’v seen a lot of incorrect and overly strict rejections for apps that follow the rules. If Apple were in any way keen on accidental subscriptions, this would not be the case. They go out of their way in the opposite direction.
Right, nothing new here.
So interesting to read the HN folks trashing apple relative to their competitors even though they are almost certainly a leader on almost every trust based metric that matters to the average user.
Apple is not just dictating how customers will pay but when they should be charged which is ridiculous.
What's important to me above all is a consistent billing experience.
And no you don't understand consumers better than Apple since I spent thousands on the phone and a few dollars on your app.
I guess apps I’ve used already have this auto-billing implemented because I don’t think I’ve confirmed my subscription after the free trial ended and billing began.
That said, they should definitely allow this, especially if (as claimed in the twitter thread[1]) they don't allow apps to refund accidental subscriptions.
[1] - https://mobile.twitter.com/downdogapp/status/127804886274623...
I don't think Apple's auto-billing practices are predatory, like many other companies are, but I'm not sure I can agree that they didn't even think of this possibility.
In this case I think some users are looking for a double opt-in in the case of a free trial, or at least a native reminder in the iOS user interface that a trial is ending and the first subscription charge is about to be run.
For example, if the day before a trial expired, you could receive a push notification from Apple notifying you that the trial period is about to expire, and how much you will be billed if you do not cancel before the end of the day. Alternatively, the push notification could require active user consent before allowing the trial to convert to a paid subscription.
The first option could be done by Apple with zero required action by developers, but since it's definitely going to increase the cancellation rate, probably developers aren't going to be very happy. It is customer-focused which Apple claims to be, but it's also messy/cluttered to be getting billing notifications
The problem with the second option is that it opens up a new state in the state machine, and three new transition functions. Going from trial -> pending approval is a mid-state which would require some sort of shutting off functionality in the app or even preventing the app from opening, or reverting back to the unpaid / non-trial state. Now the user is in a new limbo 'pending approval' state. Then from there somehow the user has to either approve the charge or indicate that they do in fact want to cancel, so going from pending -> unsubscribed or pending -> subscribed are new transitions that would have to be coded for every app.
The current solution is to simply provide a centralized place to see all your subscriptions and when they will renew and how much they cost, and making it single-tap simply to cancel them. I'm not sure a better way they can surface the Subscriptions UI other than within the App Store settings. That top option within 'Settings' always seemed misplaced to me, it looks more like a header than a button, and especially as it is encompassing "Apple ID, iCloud, iTunes & App Store" it's kind of a jumble. They added it into the App Store app as well on the top-right profile-picture button which leads to 'Account' and then 'Subscriptions'.
What I really don't understand is why Some Random Hacker feels the need to jump into a thread and defend Apple, one of the wealthiest companies in the world.
As opposed to minorities (race religion) or people without any means (poor, non-wealthy).
But why do you bring race or religion in here? I was talking about a company. A company has no race. It has no religion. Well, maybe, seeing people in HN threads defending apple, it does have similarities with religions.
But it does not explain all the anecdotal (I've never had o cancel. For me X is not an issue. I don't know anyone ever coplaining about Y) arguments. Or personal attacks. And so on.
It really reeks like a tribal war. The scorched smell of flamewars.
It is akin to the Golden Rule on HN that we must actually presume that.
> insinuation: That which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion, innuendo or intimation by distant allusion
"Brand affiliation tribalism" is not an 'insinuation of shilling' as I understand those terms. It's a plainly stated description of 'fanboyism.'
Per the golden rule and principle of charitable assumptions, should I assume it wasn't your intent to mischaracterize my above comment? Should I expect an apology for this presumed misunderstanding? Try as I might, I can't bring myself to believe I'll get one.
My apologies. It was definitely not my intention of mischaracterizing your above comment.
I didn't think a shill necessarily had to be paid. My working definition was more along the lines of;
"an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler [e.g. Apple] who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."
Brand affiliation tribalism seems to me closely aligned with that definition. An accomplice acting as an enthusiastic customer. Therefore I read your comment as demeaning the honest support of Apple's policy here as insincere, i.e. shilling. It sounds like you believe that those supportive of Apple's policy are merely disillusioned [fanboys], but not insincere.
But let's not make it about us personally, and again I apologize for taking the first misstep in that direction.
I don't think it's fair to characterize support of Apple's policy here as shilling, or brand affiliation tribalism, or fanboyism.
I think there are valid technical and usability reasons for demanding that all products within a store all conform to the same billing policies. For Apple, providing a consistent user experience is absolutely paramount. They want all apps to act the same and bill the same. If the baseline/standard experience is sub-optimal, then they would say let us fix or improve the baseline experience for everyone, not deal with it piecemeal and leave the user guessing how an app will end up billing them.
However I still believe that if any other corporation were forcing developers wanting to offer free trials to use the "billing details up front, autobilling" scheme, far fewer people here would defend it. I see those sort of schemes as incredibly scummy, similar to the sort of tactics gyms or used car salesmen might use. It's a form of 'dark pattern.'
If this is truly about a consistent user experience, Apple has gone about it in the worst possible way. They should instead forbid collection of payment details when signing up for free trials and require auto-renewals to be opt-in. That would make for a consistently positive user experience, rather than a consistently hostile one.
There are things to criticize Apple and the App Store over but trying to reduce subscription scams by making subscription terms consistent doesn’t seem like one of them.
Why are you taking the word of a butthurt yogi instead of hearing Apple's side of the story?
Some would argue tricking users into a free trial without telling them the subscription price is a scam. Once they start to depend on the app, it’s much harder to not subscribe.
(Note: I'm not saying I can't see the issues with AMP, too.)
The main thing is I do not like assigning myself future decisions, especially about money, and I don't like ongoing financial obligations.
I'm not saying this is strictly rational; I'm sure there are times I've paid way more for software than a sub for the duration of my use would have been.
But it is true - the friction of the ongoing obligation means software has to cross a much higher bar before I don't go find a different way to solve my problem.
I realize the switch makes software companies more stable, etc. All true, and it has zero to do to my decision making.
These days a lot of consumers don’t want to deal with file management or having to think about their data, so it’s increasingly the case that “the app magically works via the cloud” is table stakes.
I agree, though, I don’t like it and I buy less software as a result. This especially frustrates me with things like the Adobe creative suite and Creative tools in that category. I used to keep a fairly robust collection of image editors, sound editors, etc. but so many of those things have gone subscription that I just don’t bother anymore.
There isn't a thread on HN about Apple without this behaviour. Either this is an unofficial Apple PR guideline or a symptom of cult membership...
Can you provide examples of these people who are saying Apple products don't have bugs or problematic behaviour ?
It is interesting to see how quick the Apple fanboys are to react, and explain how every move Apple makes is "user-friendly" and incorruptible.
I am just patiently sitting in the corner and hoping Microsoft enters the market so that developers have more alternatives.
Would love to see developers abandon iOS, and then for people to see how "user-friendly" Apple is with only Safari and Facebook on iPhone :)
I won't argue auto-billing is user-friendly, but users being able to manage their subscriptions in a single place, not to mention having the subscriptions explained with a consistent language, and presented with consistent UI across every app, is definitely user-friendly.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/22/21298552/apple-hey-email-...