Apple was ordered to allow developers to redirect users to browser checkout. It tried to get a stay for that order, but it just failed. This mean that until/unless Apple wins appeal, they will have to keep allowing devs to link-out.
I think there are pros and cons on this move.
Using Apple’s payment processing infra provide better protection on users’ financial details and easier refund handling.
Con is defInitely higher cost and allow apple to have total control over payment / app purchases.
How does it compare to Stripe ?
IMO Stripe is decent but many companies apply questionable practices that request and retain those information for themselves.
Not a lot of people here discuss this problem actually. Does it make more sense to support a monopolist that (somewhat) protects your personal data? Or should we break it up but risk security breaches from third-party data processors?
Companies like Apple and Google are exceptionally great at developing secure products and solutions for said products. We already see how that excuse is used to retain their market dominance, but that comes at a great cost for privacy.
1 Like
The same arguement goes to all payment processing platforms acrually. The reason they exist and thrive is due to the malpractice of most online merchants.
Even every merchants run their own payment processor, it does not mean we could assume they would keep our financial data safe, nor they would not monitize such data. In fact it is quite the opposite.
I think that most apps will retain Apple Pay in the near-future, so this wouldn’t be a problem right-away.
I think Stripe is as secure as Apple pay. But if websites have their own indie system that is more problematic.
That is where Revolut or other systems come in place, make a unique credit card (with a payment limit) for EACH susbcription.
BTW, there is also some case where it is more private to pay trough website, I can think of cash/crypto payments for Mullvad.
I think the discussion here is missing the mark.
This is not about privacy. This is about information.
You can already buy/rent/subscribe directly with providers. For example, you can subscribe to YouTube Premium directly right now through the web (to avoid the 30% Apple tax) using Safari (or any other web browsers) and you will immediately enjoy the “premium” in your native iOS app.
It’s that whether you can state that information in your native iOS app.
You can already do that on iOS. Just use a web browser. The problem here is that if Mullvad wants to remind users that they can do business directly with it on the web, Apple will take down its app.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s the point, most users will not even think of going trough the website, so…
So this news is good. It doesn’t increase or decrease your privacy. It just that Apple can’t gag app developers anymore.
Which can be fixed by inserting a link to your website in your app. Of course, the users can still choose how they want to pay.
They want to pay through Apple? Good! They want to pay directly to app developers? Also good. Which is more private? It depends on what the app developers use to process your payment.
For services like Proton and Mullvad, for example, you can already pay them with cash before the court order.
1 Like
You couldn’t even before do that before this court order
I think we have a misunderstanding here, the point is Mullvad couldn’t advertise it.