Hacker News Reader

Comment by dskloet | Hacker News Reader

Just curious, would you pay 40% more for the convenience of being able to cancel in one place?

When the alternative is a game of “find the cancel link”, slog of retention attempts, or gauntlet of phone bots it starts to become tempting.

If services universally had an obvious cancel button that did exactly what it says it does without a runaround, then yeah the premium makes zero sense.

There's the other alternative which is similar to this App Store Bill: get the government involved. In California if you signed up with a button, you've got to be able to cancel with a button too. I like that way more than paying 20% to Apple just because they offer the same thing.

As it stands all of the apps I have subscribed too are only available to subscribe too this way.

So I assume given the price that the extra 30 (or 15) is calculated into the price.

So my answer would be yes, if they said I could lower it by going through their website I would continue to do it through the app. If they removed the option completely I would stop using it and find an alternative.

I will not support shady business practices and hurdles to unsubscribe is one of the worst in my opinion.

I just decided to do some quick number crunching to see how much this actually would impact me.

Not including Apple One, I spend $432 a year on subscriptions on the App Store. All of those are not available via any other means. So if I saved 30% I would be paying $302 a year... Yeah I would happily continue paying $432 to be able to easily drop something if they start a behavior I don't like and feel like I am in control of my own money.

Thanks for your answer. I agree making it difficult to unsubscribe is bad, but I honestly cannot imagine myself paying extra recurringly for saving myself 10 minutes once at the end. So it's interesting to see people making different trade-offs.

TBH for me it is the principle than the time savings.

If I have to call and cancel, that is basically a guarantee I will never use you again and will warn everyone to not use you.

If I have to jump through a bunch of screens, I will be mildly upset but will probably forget about it.

I just don't want to support that behavior, so these companies basically being forced to do so on "my" (really apple's but I am making a choice to use them) terms is worth some financial cost to me.

If I had thousands of subscriptions, maybe I would be saying something different. But the yearly additional cost in this theoretical situation is minimal and to me it sends a signal. If I actually was given that choice then the company can see those metrics and hopefully see why.

Of course not, I also wouldn't pay 20-40% more for free two day shipping or 30% more for free food delivery over $12, but nonetheless Amazon and DoorDash are able to take that much of a cut from sellers and restaurants.

You miss the fundamental thing which is that the charge is specifically for publishers for a reason. It's because it absolutely is worth 30% to every business who wants to reach a lucrative market.

> DoorDash are able to take that much of a cut from sellers and restaurants

You are building a perfect argument against Apple here. As DoorDash rates grew I stopped using them less and less and started driving to the restaurants myself. And DoorDash rates are still far cry from 30%.

You have it wrong. In addition to the fees DoorDash charges you they also charge the restaurant ~20% revenue behind the scenes. Amazon charges ~8-45% (depends on the product) behind the scenes to the seller in addition to your prime membership.

The argument “would you pay some percent more” is somewhat meaningless because if Apple thought you would pay 40% more they would already be charging that and charging the publisher 30%. Two sided markets mannnn.

> In addition to the fees DoorDash charges you they also charge the restaurant ~20% revenue behind the scenes.

I don't think the point is wrong though. You can bypass DoorDash both as a customer (using other service or going personally) and the restaurant (by having online ordering on another platform).

Reminder of the risks of generalizing from one's personal experience, quite especially if one has an HN account. DoorDash revenues & delivery volume show that more people are placing orders, and for more money.

And this is for basic delivery, where many buyers will be a short drive away and could in theory have placed a 1985-style pickup order. There's no captive element like an App Store.

https://s22.q4cdn.com/280253921/files/doc_financials/2021/q3...

From your link: "30%+ M12 Customer Retention"

If I read this correctly, at least 60% of users stop using DD after 1 year.

Strongly disagree. 30% cut is a robbery that only a monopoly can get away with.

The Windows store charges 15%/30%, Xbox in-game purchases are a 30% cut for digital games. PlayStation in-game purchases are a 30% cut for digital games. Google Play IAP is a 30% cut. Same with Nintendo digital games. Same with Steam.

Surely they all can’t have monopoly power? Is 15% of revenue suddenly not monopoly power? Would you still feel forced to pay it if it was 50% or 75% or would you just leave iOS?

There is no difference between the customer paying extra and the seller paying extra. There is an amount the customer pays and an amount the seller receives, and the difference is what is paid extra.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com