“App Store Monopoly” Discussion

I only went ahead with this knowing Apple had my back. As they would have done the first time it happened too.

The issue I’m raising here is what happened the first time I got out by it.

The second instance, where I went for it willingly, I knew I was safe. And I’m presenting what happened here that second time as an example of what would have happened the first time, compared to what actually happened paying direct. In that I would have never been out of pocket.

1 Like

Apple and their consumer focus for things like this is a bit reason I have an iphone.

Google has not been great:

Neither Apple or Google are spotless in this area. There are lots of stories re: both firms and refusing to refund app purchases.

1 Like

That sun one doesnt make sense, she must have given the itunes password to her kid, when you change fingers or add a finger for auth you are required to enter your itunes password again on the next purchase to reauthorise finger print easy purchase.

I dont know what google does by default but normally iphones use the password unless you enable finger/face authorisations for purchases and if you add/change those it wants you to reauth with your password again to re-enable it, probably to stop kids adding their fingers because they have the pin and using that to auth the purchase which is why it seems silly that they even gave their kids their itunes password.

1 Like

It’ll be interesting to see if apps have to have IAP if they want to link out.

Would be kind of self defeating for the likes of Netflix / Spotify that currently only run their own system outside of IAP (at least at the current rates).

I think if apps are going to be allowed to process their own payments, I’d want paying via the App Store as a mandated option. So we keep choice, and both parties have an incentive to compete.

Else, the promised lower prices will never come, and buying through the App Store will gradually cease to be an option. We, as users, don’t win here.

See, I don’t know how much I believe these stories. How does one not notice such a large amount of spending until 4 weeks later? Apple’s refund policy is already very lenient in favour of users over developers.

Furthermore, there’s a lot of spin doctoring going on in those articles to shift the blame.

2 Likes

Or Apple could lower their cut and attract more devs to use IAP!

To be fair both now offer mobile billing as a payment option which is very delayed until the bill comes through but I dont why parents have given kids their itunes passwords to allow purchases in the first place.
Like I said I dont know how google defaults its play setup with payments though but apple makes it auth by default.

Fixed that for you…

1 Like

I feel like it’s the parents’ fault for giving their kids their password.

I’ve very recently set up two new iPads under child accounts and the purchase approval workflow works really well.

There’s no way I’d just be letting my kids buy whatever they like.

Yeah I still know parents who use their itunes account on all their kids devices because they cant be arsed. One had her whole phone book deleted after her kid removed the numbers on his ipad.

I keep calling it itunes account, I should call it icloud though.

These external links for payments needs a parental control option to block without parental authorisation depending on how they do the billing. I could see apple adding an api devs have to use.

I think some will try and go solo and not let Apple take 30% so you can via their website or not at all.

Then they’ll realise they now make a huge amount less and realise the grass isn’t really greener after all.

2 Likes

Yes I see the extra hassle causing a lot of resistance to using it consumer side.

1 Like

Exactly. Just like I’d never shop directly with tkelectronics69 but I’ll happily use them on Amazon Marketplace.

But I still welcome the choice.

So interestingly, from what I’ve read*, one of the points that the judge in the US case clarified is that while Apple’s anti-steering rules (you can’t link outside of the app for payments) were illegal, they’d be well within their rights to claim 30% of any linked-to external payments.

Which I found amusing.

*Obviously I’m not a lawyer, much less a US one, so relying on third party interpretations on this.

1 Like

I did notice that Epic have to pay 30% of what they got while doing it themselves!

I’m calling :ox::poop:

That’s because they were in breach of their contract and the judge didn’t find their Free Fortnite antics amusing / justified.

I’m seeing this from p.68 of the ruling referenced to support this

Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.335 Payment processors have the ability to provide only one piece of the functionality. There is no evidence that they can provide the balance. Thus, the Court finds Epic Games has not shown that IAP is a separate and distinct product.

1 Like

Oh sorry. I think this relates to Epic circumventing IAP, for which they’re being made to make Apple whole on their missed commission.

But there’s no way Apple will be taking a cut from others developers revenue linked to outside the App Store.

1 Like