Yup. I fully understand the complaint from Match (and others, like Netflix). Apple's app store payment policies are obviously and blatantly anti-competitive.
But if you've ever tried to cancel an AT&T internet line or New York Times subscription, you begin to understand Apple's position. Consumers oftentimes have no recourse; Apple's (and, similarly Google's) subscription framework is the first time in history many of these companies have experienced the powerlessness their users feel when dealing with recurring payments. They don't like giving up power.
It should come as no surprise that the companies most vocal about the payments monopolies are the ones who want to abuse the freedom Governments will hand them, in the name of maintaining a healthy competitive landscape.
I think a balance needs to be struck; Apple needs to have its power reigned in, and I think that takes the form of a forced reduction in revenue share to 10% max (Visa maintains a global network of hundreds of thousands of diverse swipe terminals at ~3%; if Apple can't maintain some servers at 10%, they're incompetent and deserve to be driven into bankruptcy by this totally reasonable legislation).
I don't feel that allowing alternate payment methods / subscription frameworks would actually benefit users/consumers, across any length of time, in any fashion whatsoever. I think subscription/payment management needs to be delegated to user accounts outside of any control of the service providers taking payment, as its an intrinsic and irreducible conflict of interest. Maybe that means Visa or whoever should start a "subscription and payments portal" that service providers have to integrate with. I don't know. But the way we've done it for 20+ years doesn't work, and Apple's way is absolutely better; its just not the best it can be, right now.
This is such a bizarre response. You recognize there's a problem with cancelling subscriptions and instead of to the government to regulate the markets (which is their job) and mandate easy cancelling of subscriptions, you want Apple to do it? Do you want a government run by a corporation?
But what can California do about that problem with a company that is not cooperating, and does not have a presence in California?
What would California actually choose to do on behalf of consumers who are in this situation, even if there is a law on the books that supports the consumer?
With Apple, the company in question had to work to get on the platform in the first place, and if I as a consumer go to them and tell them I want to cancel that account, then Apple just cancels that account. I don’t have to go to the state of California and ask for assistance, I don’t have to wait for a lengthy trial that might be years in the future. With Apple, it’s just one click and done.
Laws don’t help you if they are never enforced. Laws don’t help you if they can’t be enforced against a party outside of their jurisdiction.
Apple’s solution works, and works well, for all customers who want to cancel their accounts.
But if you've ever tried to cancel an AT&T internet line or New York Times subscription, you begin to understand Apple's position. Consumers oftentimes have no recourse; Apple's (and, similarly Google's) subscription framework is the first time in history many of these companies have experienced the powerlessness their users feel when dealing with recurring payments. They don't like giving up power.
It should come as no surprise that the companies most vocal about the payments monopolies are the ones who want to abuse the freedom Governments will hand them, in the name of maintaining a healthy competitive landscape.
I think a balance needs to be struck; Apple needs to have its power reigned in, and I think that takes the form of a forced reduction in revenue share to 10% max (Visa maintains a global network of hundreds of thousands of diverse swipe terminals at ~3%; if Apple can't maintain some servers at 10%, they're incompetent and deserve to be driven into bankruptcy by this totally reasonable legislation).
I don't feel that allowing alternate payment methods / subscription frameworks would actually benefit users/consumers, across any length of time, in any fashion whatsoever. I think subscription/payment management needs to be delegated to user accounts outside of any control of the service providers taking payment, as its an intrinsic and irreducible conflict of interest. Maybe that means Visa or whoever should start a "subscription and payments portal" that service providers have to integrate with. I don't know. But the way we've done it for 20+ years doesn't work, and Apple's way is absolutely better; its just not the best it can be, right now.