Apple requires developers to offer sign-in with Apple if they use other sign-in systems (like FB). They could have the same requirement with payments.
Users should be given the option of using Apple's system if they want to.
After all, It's Apples' argument that their payment system is light-years better for consumers. If true, then users will naturally gravitate towards Apples' payment system. Right? This would result in a cycle where Apple (and other payment systems) are incentivised to continuously improve. What's wrong with that? Why not let the consumers decide what is best?
Let Apple's payment system compete on its actual merits. Apple says it's a much better system after all. I say - let them prove it. They should "put up or shut up", so to speak.
But then if you force every option to be priced the same, despite how much it costs the developer, then you're distorting everything again.
For example, I can pay $0.99 to buy a game using Square or Apple, but Apple takes a 30% cut and will give me a full refund if I don't like the game. I chose Apple every time, but not because it's "better", it's just better for me and I'm not the one paying for it.
How is this different from credit cards that have "rewards"? If you think of the independent software vendors as the corner store where you buy groceries and Apple as Visa or some payment processor...
Actually now that I think about it the difference is the walled garden. I think pretty much the only compromise I can accept is something like Apple and Google must be required to add something like F-Droid that is run at arms length from Apple and Google and accepts third party software repositories.
This way users can download and use any software they like from any repository anywhere. The benefit for Apple and Google is we won't shut them down and really they have inertia behind them so many if not most people will stick to the default stores, and Google can forbid OEMs from adding applications or repositories. A user must do so deliberately and manually.
The benefit for users is applications installed from F-Droid will be able to auto update.
The benefit for independent software vendors is they can publish their stuff outside of app store and play store and not have to adhere to any policy by the app store or play store and not have to pay any money to the default stores.
In the US, rewards are usually 1-2% on most credit cards, and up to 5% for certain purchase categories on a few credit cards. These rewards are funded by interest income, annual fees, penalty fees, and interchange fees. Interchange fees are typically between 1.3% and 3.5%: https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card...
The Durbin amendment allows merchants to offer lower prices to customers who choose a payment option that incurs lower fees (such as cash or debit card) at the point of sale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment
Compare this to Apple, which takes a 30% cut. Developers must raise their prices by 42.9% to compensate for that 30% cut. Apple does not allow developers to offer alternative payment options for most categories of in-app purchases.
For a long time, the standard rate for payment processing for small businesses has been 2.9% + $0.30 for credit cards. Larger businesses with higher transaction volumes are able to negotiate lower rates. If Apple allows developers to offer payment processing options that take smaller cuts, and allows developers to offer lower prices when customers choose those options, I'm certain that most developers and customers would prefer the third-party payment processors.
Being able to get a refund is quantifiably better. What do you mean?
Are you suggesting other vendors would be unable to compete with that for some reason?
As an aside: I don't think the same pricing among different vendors is necessarily a requirement. If one entity offers more security or other benefits, then their pricing should reflect that.
The point of Apple’s payment system isn’t to compete on merits with other systems. Sure they want it to be the best. The purpose, however, is to collect fees from app developers.
Apple “puts up or shuts up” with the phone itself. Thats the product and the consumer choice they focus on.
Users should be given the option of using Apple's system if they want to.
After all, It's Apples' argument that their payment system is light-years better for consumers. If true, then users will naturally gravitate towards Apples' payment system. Right? This would result in a cycle where Apple (and other payment systems) are incentivised to continuously improve. What's wrong with that? Why not let the consumers decide what is best?
Let Apple's payment system compete on its actual merits. Apple says it's a much better system after all. I say - let them prove it. They should "put up or shut up", so to speak.