The comments here read like people with Stockholm syndrome.
The main thing is I do not like assigning myself future decisions, especially about money, and I don't like ongoing financial obligations.
I'm not saying this is strictly rational; I'm sure there are times I've paid way more for software than a sub for the duration of my use would have been.
But it is true - the friction of the ongoing obligation means software has to cross a much higher bar before I don't go find a different way to solve my problem.
I realize the switch makes software companies more stable, etc. All true, and it has zero to do to my decision making.
These days a lot of consumers don’t want to deal with file management or having to think about their data, so it’s increasingly the case that “the app magically works via the cloud” is table stakes.
I agree, though, I don’t like it and I buy less software as a result. This especially frustrates me with things like the Adobe creative suite and Creative tools in that category. I used to keep a fairly robust collection of image editors, sound editors, etc. but so many of those things have gone subscription that I just don’t bother anymore.
There isn't a thread on HN about Apple without this behaviour. Either this is an unofficial Apple PR guideline or a symptom of cult membership...
Can you provide examples of these people who are saying Apple products don't have bugs or problematic behaviour ?
What I really don't understand is why Some Random Hacker feels the need to jump into a thread and defend Apple, one of the wealthiest companies in the world.
As opposed to minorities (race religion) or people without any means (poor, non-wealthy).
But why do you bring race or religion in here? I was talking about a company. A company has no race. It has no religion. Well, maybe, seeing people in HN threads defending apple, it does have similarities with religions.
But it does not explain all the anecdotal (I've never had o cancel. For me X is not an issue. I don't know anyone ever coplaining about Y) arguments. Or personal attacks. And so on.
It really reeks like a tribal war. The scorched smell of flamewars.
It is akin to the Golden Rule on HN that we must actually presume that.
> insinuation: That which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion, innuendo or intimation by distant allusion
"Brand affiliation tribalism" is not an 'insinuation of shilling' as I understand those terms. It's a plainly stated description of 'fanboyism.'
Per the golden rule and principle of charitable assumptions, should I assume it wasn't your intent to mischaracterize my above comment? Should I expect an apology for this presumed misunderstanding? Try as I might, I can't bring myself to believe I'll get one.
My apologies. It was definitely not my intention of mischaracterizing your above comment.
I didn't think a shill necessarily had to be paid. My working definition was more along the lines of;
"an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler [e.g. Apple] who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others."
Brand affiliation tribalism seems to me closely aligned with that definition. An accomplice acting as an enthusiastic customer. Therefore I read your comment as demeaning the honest support of Apple's policy here as insincere, i.e. shilling. It sounds like you believe that those supportive of Apple's policy are merely disillusioned [fanboys], but not insincere.
But let's not make it about us personally, and again I apologize for taking the first misstep in that direction.
I don't think it's fair to characterize support of Apple's policy here as shilling, or brand affiliation tribalism, or fanboyism.
I think there are valid technical and usability reasons for demanding that all products within a store all conform to the same billing policies. For Apple, providing a consistent user experience is absolutely paramount. They want all apps to act the same and bill the same. If the baseline/standard experience is sub-optimal, then they would say let us fix or improve the baseline experience for everyone, not deal with it piecemeal and leave the user guessing how an app will end up billing them.
However I still believe that if any other corporation were forcing developers wanting to offer free trials to use the "billing details up front, autobilling" scheme, far fewer people here would defend it. I see those sort of schemes as incredibly scummy, similar to the sort of tactics gyms or used car salesmen might use. It's a form of 'dark pattern.'
If this is truly about a consistent user experience, Apple has gone about it in the worst possible way. They should instead forbid collection of payment details when signing up for free trials and require auto-renewals to be opt-in. That would make for a consistently positive user experience, rather than a consistently hostile one.
There are things to criticize Apple and the App Store over but trying to reduce subscription scams by making subscription terms consistent doesn’t seem like one of them.
Why are you taking the word of a butthurt yogi instead of hearing Apple's side of the story?
Some would argue tricking users into a free trial without telling them the subscription price is a scam. Once they start to depend on the app, it’s much harder to not subscribe.
(Note: I'm not saying I can't see the issues with AMP, too.)