Hacker News Reader

It's nothing so sinister as that. It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users. It has some negative effects but as a user it makes you feel safer buying something through an app if you know you're not being charged more than you would if you did it through the same supplier's website.

View on HN

>It's actually more simple: they're protecting their own users from being ripped off, by being charged a premium because they're iOS users

Apple is trying to protect their own users from being ripped off by Apple? That's some _really_ twisted logic there.

That rule is in place to safeguard their 30% cut. I don't see how the user benefits from having to pay 30% extra instead of getting a 30% discount on the same supplier's website instead of paying Apple the tax.

It prevents suppliers from price discriminating (changing iOS users a premium) based on the fact that iOS users are more willing to pay up.

No. It prevents suppliers from price discriminating based on the fact that iOS has an associated 30% cost that the other platforms do not.

That cost goes directly to Apple. It protects Apple, not their consumers. Their consumers see no benefit from 30% of their cost, whether larger or smaller than the alternatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com