Patiently waiting for a mandatory 30% fee on every transaction made with iOS banking software. Maybe that'll put a definitive stop to forcing mobile "apps" with jailbreak detection on customers and have banks think twice before crippling the functionality of their websites.

Please Apple, make this happen.

▲

cdrnsf 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I just use the bank's website.

▲

carlosjobim 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Many banks require you to two-factor authenticate with an app on your phone.

▲

cdrnsf 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've yet to encounter one in the US, but I suppose that would make me install it.

▲

digitalPhonix 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Which banks do you use? I’m looking to switch away from Chase (which does this).

It’s a surprisingly hard thing to search for online…

▲

AdamN 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're all going to move that way - it's sort of fundamental to PassKey. It can be done with just a laptop and their built in hardware but I suspect that since everybody has a mobile phone the UX will be built around that more often than not.

I quite like it though. At one of my banks I don't even use a password. My browser has the right material (from a prior authn) and then it pushes a validation request to my phone and with FaceID I'm in.

	▲	digitalPhonix 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> then it pushes a validation request to my phone and with FaceID I'm in. That’s exactly what I don’t want though. I don’t want to be tied to a bank app that requires a non-rooted device/whatever other checks it does.

▲

cdrnsf 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Capital One now for a while and a local credit union. Amex does provide this as an option but supports SMS as well.

▲

cookiengineer 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Within the EU, there is a law that mandates accessibility without a smartphone. The banks will sell you some proprietary dotcode scanners then which are all manufactured by the same crappy UK company (as a sidenote).

But the upside is: they work offline, and makes your 2FA app unhackable because it's not an app and instead a physically separate device.

If you're as serious about your opsec as I am, I heavily recommend to not use apps on smartphones for banking.

▲

scirob 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My chase only allows sms or call 2fa. Wish they would add passkeys or other options

▲

alterom 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Which banks do you use?

My local credit union (TechCU) does none of that nonsense, and I highly recommend a credit union over any of the big banks in any case.

▲

nobody9999 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Which banks do you use? I’m looking to switch away from Chase (which does this).

Do you mean SMS codes or a Chase Bank App?

I have to deal with the former because I auto-delete cookies when I close tabs and use Multi-account containers on Firefox.

I've never been required to install any application (Chase branded or otherwise) on my phone in order to use the Chase website. I'll note that I've been a Chase customer since they acquired Chemical Bank in 1996.

Am I missing something important here? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

	▲	digitalPhonix 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Chase allows both SMS and their app to be the 2nd factor; I dislike both of those options and would much rather TOTP

▲

philipallstar 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

2-factor auth is free, so it doesn't incur the 30% cost.

	▲	cookiengineer 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> 2-factor auth is free, so it doesn't incur the 30% cost. The all new modern push notifications! Pay only 99ct per 2FA message, that's a steal deal!
	▲	sethops1 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		For now.

▲

viktorcode 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They will, the moment your bank starts selling media inside the app.

▲

Noaidi 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A nickel for each iMessage…

▲

dyingkneepad 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some countries still charge for SMS. That's why WhatsApp is so popular in many places of the world.

▲

KellyCriterion 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

in a lot EU countries, still today telco contracts are marketed with "...and unlimited number of SMS into all networks..."

Its still widely used :-D

▲

apples_oranges 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No way really .. amazing in 2026 if true

	▲	bandrami 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There's basically two mobile worlds in India. The middle class has mobile plans basically like the rest of the world, while the poor (especially the rural poor but also to some extent the urban poor) have a pay-per-use account that also functions as their bank. So sending a text might cost 2 rupees, and an MMS might cost 6.

▲

tokioyoyo 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Honestly… if we implemented $0.01 charge on every message, post and etc. the world would become an amazing place.

▲

anonymous908213 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1. This would not deter bad actors in any way, spammers already have no issue paying for junk mail. An 0.01 cost means nothing if the action they're taking generates more than 0.01 for them (it generally does). In fact this essentially incentivizes bad actors; you get punished for not profiting off your messages, so people would be more inclined to find ways to monetize their posts.

2. The costs for this would be ridiculous. I have probably sent over a million public messages on Discord in the decade I've been using it. $10,000 is a pretty steep fee to do some chatting.

3. This is essentially a digital ID scheme with extra steps, and requires ceding privacy completely to communicate on the internet.

I understand your comment was probably an off-hand joke and not to be taken seriously but if you think about it for very long it becomes apparent that it would actually make the problem worse.

▲

tokioyoyo 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was talking about good actors as well!

	▲	sneak 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. Now you have to dox yourself to the platform to be able to talk to anyone, because payment cards are linked to strong ID.

▲

johnnyanmac 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>spammers already have no issue paying for junk mail.

Junk mail isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. And I'd be surprised if the margins for this was so high that a mere 1 cent transactions wouldn't deter so many of them.

I see it the opposite. You will never stop truly motivated propaganda from spreading its messae. They put millions into it and the goal isn't necessarily profit. But you stop a lot of low time scammers with a small cost barrier.If only because they then take a cheaper grift.

▲

rationalist 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It costs to mail physical letters, somehow I still get "spam" addressed to homeowner/resident in my physical mailbox.

▲

lwhi 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was Bill Gates' idea with regard to a bit-tax, and goes someway to explaining why Microsoft initially didn't believe the internet would take off (and tried to push their own MSN walled garden as an alternative).

▲

18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

metabagel 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that spammers would happily pay that rate.

	▲	Imustaskforhelp 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Today out of curiosity, I tried looking at what is the cost of one PVA (Pre-verified account) of google. I found it to be around ~$0.03 (3 cents) or it could be an amazon account idk or maybe an youtube account Like my point is that atleast for amazon/yt, these bots usually cost this much ~$0.03 to buy once. Then we probably see a scammer buy many of these accounts and then (rent it?) on their own website/telegram groups to promtoe views/ratings etc./ comment with the porn ridden bots that we saw on youtube who will copy any previous comment and paste it and so on. So technically these still cost 3 cents & scammers are happily paying the rate.

▲

_alaya 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean...that's how SMS used to work? Or still works?

Once upon a time it was expensive to send messages and now it's cheap.

▲

thewebguyd 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah. Iirc, I used to have to pay $0.20 per SMS message, sent and received, before unlimited plans became a thing. Also had a limited amount of minutes for phone calls.

I remember Verizon wireless at the time had a plan with unlimited nights and weekends for calls and texts, so my friends and I would message each other like crazy on the weekends when it was free. Got grounded when I got my first girlfriend in high school for racking up the phone bill from text messages and promptly got my phone taken away.

▲

johnisgood 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You had to pay for receiving SMS?

	▲	thewebguyd 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, in the early days, at least in the US, carriers used to charge for both incoming and outgoing SMS unless you had a plan that included it, usually with a limited amount of messages and they were quite expensive for the time.

▲

barbazoo 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That would totally amplify the voice of people you want to hear more from, not less /s

▲

DANmode 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Never.

Popular apps have been exempt from these rules since the beginning of time - not that I agree with this.

▲

wmf 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is Patreon not popular?

▲

DANmode 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If their app didn’t exist on iOS,

would it be weird/embarrassing for Apple?

That’s what “popular” means, in this context.

That’s how they make their decisions.

▲

Imustaskforhelp 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I feel like it would definitely be weird.

But Patreon does have a web version but I am not sure how many people prefer web sites in Apple ecosystem especially on Ios so I do find the whole thing to be a bit weird because this ~30% cut essentially seems to rip off of creators in some sense.

▲

Nextgrid 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Patreon is a very niche app in the grand scheme of things. There's the saying that only 1% of web visitors ever stop by and actually contribute, and I'd expect that number to drop to 0.001% when it comes to contributing monetarily through a tool like Patreon. This is an absolutely tiny minority.

Hell I'd argue more people are upset about the lack of an OnlyFans app than Patreon. OF has way more brand-recognition (outside of tech) than Patreon.

▲

barnabee 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I follow a number of creators on Patreon and have never once thought I want/need a Patreon app.

▲

DANmode 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It rips off everyone.

Epic Games went to federal court over this with Apple like 40 fuckin times - a related fun read for you.

▲

simondotau 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I’d be cheering on Epic Games if they were going after Sony and Nintendo with equal fervour. Personally, I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform when it comes to the selling of games and virtual hats.

Personally I think Apple should have two pricing tiers: one for interactive entertainment, and one for everything else. For interactive entertainment, a flat 30% on everything. For everything else, Apple lowers their margin to cover transaction costs only (in the realm of 5-10%).

▲

fc417fc802 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform

Is it a "platform" the way a console is or is it a public marketplace? I'd think the distinction comes down to size relative to the rest of the market. If I run a private club that caters to a only a few people I'm not impacting anyone else. Whereas if I run a giant chain of so called "private clubs" that in reality 50% of the town purchases their groceries from then perhaps some scrutiny by the regulator is in order.

▲

simondotau 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You quoted a sentence fragment that, when read in isolation, conveys a position I emphatically reject.

To answer your question directly: I contend that when it comes to operating a marketplace for interactive entertainment, an iPhone is no different from a Nintendo Switch, and if you want to impose rules, they must be imposed equally. For all other apps, I think Epic made some valid points.

▲

fc417fc802 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The quote was not intended to frame your position in any particular manner. Simply to provide context so it was clear what I was responding to.

I take two issues with your response.

First and foremost, the point I raised was specifically about the size of an operation relative to the overall market. You haven't addressed that. You say you see no difference but don't explain why. It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players due to having different effects on the market.

Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market that includes apps for anything and everything. Compare a 1000 sq ft mom and pop game shop to a 400k sq ft big box retailer that sells groceries, liquor, clothing, home goods, yard tools, just about everything except for literal building materials. It wouldn't be reasonable to treat them the same way.

▲

simondotau 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players

I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that principle applies here. Apple is not a uniquely large vendor of games. There are multiple ecosystems operating at similar orders of magnitude in games sales, at around $10B or more. Against that backdrop, portraying the App Store as some singular 400-pound gorilla with respect to games is not accurate.

> Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market

That distinction cuts the other way. A general-purpose market does not escape product-specific regulation; it applies it selectively. A store that sells liquor must comply with liquor laws when selling liquor, but selling liquor does not prohibit it from selling candy to children. It is normal and reasonable to attach rules to the product being sold, not to the fact that the venue also sells other things.

Perhaps if Apple were willing to exclude games from the App Store and move them to a newly created Game Store, it would be easier to imagine how they could be made subject to different rules. But I don't think that should be necessary for the government to impose different rules on different product categories.

To be clear, another acceptable outcome IMO is for the Epic Games argument to prevail with respect to all major gaming platforms. If they believe Apple deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on iOS, then Sony deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on Playstation.

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It seems to me that you're cherry picking a product category while I am taking "mobile app market" as a whole.

I did not suggest that Apple could escape laws that apply to a given product category. Quite the opposite - that I think it is reasonable for a behemoth to be subject to _additional_ regulations that cut across _all_ product categories. That was the point of my analogy. In physical retail big box stores are subject to additional regulations that mom and pop shops are not. The fact that Walmart happens to sell games and happens not to be the largest retailer of those is not going to get them out of being treated as the giant that they are.

I don't think it matters that in any given product category Apple isn't the largest. The issue is that they are one half of what is effectively a mobile app store duopoly in most of the western world. That fact carries serious implications for developers and consumers alike. Developers in particular, regardless of product category, are effectively forced to do business with Apple. On that basis I believe that either the app stores of both Apple and Google should be subject to _extremely_ stringent regulations or alternatively that the platforms should be forcibly opened up by law (ie no more locked down devices).

▲

simondotau 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree with stringent regulations with respect to apps other than interactive entertainment. I disagree about interactive entertainment because I don't think that moral arguments for marketplace regulation extends to video games. Especially when it comes to cross-platform games like Fortnite. Nobody is forced to make games for iOS. Epic Games were certainly not forced to do business with Apple any more than Bungie or Naughty Dog weren't.

	▲	fc417fc802 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Is this distinction you're drawing based on a categorical difference such as entertainment or art? Or is it related to the size of the vendor relative to some metric? Given that the service operator gates access to the customers and that most customers are unlikely to switch just to do business with a particular vendor, then shouldn't policy be determined solely by the size of the service operator? Why should the type of good or size of the vendor enter into it? In the west Apple is approximately half of mobile. That's massive. Saying a vendor isn't forced to do business with them is like saying that a vendor isn't forced to sell their products competitively. All things being equal if you publish software for mobile then you will be selling through Apple regardless of the terms they might impose. Your remark about Bungie and Naughty Dog seems to me like saying that the local city doesn't need to tax a chain restaurant at the same rate as an independent one because it has storefronts in other cities with more favorable terms. The idea being that if they don't like the city's terms they can just close that storefront; it won't kill them due to their size and reach.

▲

troupo 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's what Apple already doing: applying arbitrary categories and charging arbitrary amounts of money because "transaction costs and platform or something".

1. Where the hell is the notion of "using the platform for free" even coming from (it's coming from Apple of course). I didn't know that iPhones are free, or that dev fees are waived for everyone.

2. Why the hell can't I use a different payment processor tham Apple and tell people about it? Then I'm neither using Apple's platform "for free" nor paying Apple's transaction fees.

▲

simondotau 7 hours ago | parent [-]

For interactive entertainment, I see no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.

For all other apps, I agree that alternative payment processing should be permitted for one-off transactions. And I can agree for subscriptions as well, provided the developer can meet a high standard for simple, frictionless cancellations.

▲

troupo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.

Why? iPhones are not gaming consoles.

▲

simondotau 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Liquor stores are not candy stores, yet they are allowed to sell candy to minors while being prohibited from selling liquor. The principle is straightforward: regulation should follow the product, not the venue.

	▲	troupo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		All pained analogies are both pained and invalid. iOS is not a liquor store, and allowing people to use other payment processors or even other stores on the platform is not selling liquor to minors. Note how your analogies immediately fall apart for other platforms like, for example, Apple's own MacOS.

▲

speed_spread 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As an app? No.

▲

solarexplorer 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Have they? Netflix, Spotify, Kindle, ...