Hacker News Reader

Comment by nrmitchi | Hacker News Reader

> All of these services provide something physical. You can't buy Kindle Books, for example, on Amazon's app on iOS. This a bit disingenuous.

I don't see how it's disingenuous, the question was "are these purchases less safe". They said "No, and here are some examples".

Whether the item is physical or not, I don't see how it makes the transaction "less safe"?

View on HN

It's maybe my perception, but I don't know if 'is this cheaper form of payment directly to you less safe?' is a question many users would be having. To me anyway, it seems like an excuse to namedrop a bunch of services where direct payment is offered (again, primarily for physical goods) so users can have a list of these in their mind provided Apple cracks down on this.

That's totally possible. At the same time Apple has been pushing "We have to protect our customers, that is why everything must go through the App Store" as a reason for their policies for years.

That argument definitely implies that non-App Store methods are unsafe.

Physical goods need to be shipped somewhere that a thief can receive them. Digital goods don’t. That makes it much easier and safer to make fraudulent purchases for digital goods.

Yes, and that is a valid point if you are a thief who is looking to buy something. Ie, the cardholder is not the one making the purchase.

But if you are a valid consumer, making a valid purchase with your card, the purchase being fraudulent is not the concern.

The "safety" implication is that any company that is not Apple will lose your payment information, or your payment info will be intercepted, etc.

There are many companies who are perfectly capable of handling PCI that are not Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com