Apple is adding a new App Store subscription option that lets developers offer lower monthly prices in exchange for a 12-month commitment. "This model will allow developers to offer discounted rates to customers in exchange for more predictable long-term revenue," reports TechCrunch. "This also caters to how many developers have already been marketing their annual subscriptions in their apps." From the report: Often, app developers will display the lower monthly price to highlight the discount the customer would receive if they purchase the annual subscription instead of the monthly option. If the user is on the fence about a longer-term commitment, the notion that they're getting a better deal can help to push them toward the annual option. Now, Apple is essentially formalizing what these developers were already doing, which allows it to also craft a set of policies around how these subscription offers are to be displayed so as not to mislead customers about the true cost of the deals. However, the option will not be available to developers in the United States or Singapore at launch. While Apple didn't offer an explanation for this, it's still in App Store litigation in the U.S. around the specifics of the court's ruling in its case with Epic Games around how Apple can charge for subscriptions. Apple likely doesn't want to complicate the matter further until that matter is finalized. Singapore, meanwhile, also has a sophisticated payments market with strong consumer rules, which is why it may have been left out of the initial release.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

California's proposed billionaire tax appears headed for the November ballot after backers said they gathered more than 1.5 million signatures, well above the threshold needed to qualify. SF Standard reports: Backers of the initiative announced this weekend that more than 1.5 million people signed a petition to bring the one-time, 5% wealth tax to a statewide vote come November. That's well beyond the 875,000 names needed to qualify the measure, and likely sufficient to account for illegible or invalid signatures. The Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West, a union representing more than 120,000 healthcare workers, pitched the tax to make up for federal spending cuts that threaten to shutter hospitals(opens in new tab) and kick millions of people off medical insurance. Proponents of California's wealth tax estimate it would raise $100 billion in one-time revenue, even if some billionaires leave because of the measure. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office forecasts tens of billions in upfront revenue, but cautioned that the tax could cost hundreds of millions or more a year if some billionaires move out of state. The proposal, which needs a simple majority to pass, would apply to assets of people with net worth of $1 billion or more who lived in California as of Jan. 1 this year. That means it would affect about 200 people, according to the SEIU-UHW.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader shared this report from Bloomberg: More than three years after acquiring Twitter, Elon Musk says he's nearing his long-stated goal of turning it into an "everything app" with a new financial services tool that he pledged to launch for the public this month... Early users testing the service have touted competitive perks, including 3% cash back on eligible purchases and a 6% interest rate on cash savings — the latter of which is roughly 15 times the national average. Musk's new product is also expected to offer free peer-to-peer transfers, a metal Visa debit card personalised with a user's X handle, and an AI concierge built by Musk's xAI startup that tracks spending and sorts through past transactions, according to reports from users with early access. Musk, who first rose to prominence in Silicon Valley by co-founding PayPal Holdings Inc, sees payments as crucial to creating a so-called super app similar to social products that have flourished in China. WeChat, for example, lets users hail a ride, book a flight and pay off their credit card... If it works, X Money would sit at the intersection of social media and finance in a way no American product has attempted at this scale... Creators who currently receive payments from X for engagement will be switched from Stripe to X Money as their payment platform, according to early users — a move that guarantees an initial base of active accounts. Some have already been testing X Money to send payments to one another through the app's chat feature or directly through their profiles, according to early participants in the rollout... X currently holds licences in 44 states, according to its website, and likely won't be able to operate in states where it hasn't obtained a licence.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"After a Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Feb. 2026, many tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were declared illegal because the president overstepped his authority," writes Slashdot reader hcs_$reboot. "As a result, the U.S. government now has to refund a massive amount of money, around $160-170+ billion, paid mainly by importers." According to the New York Times, the administration has now begun accepting refund requests, "surrendering its prized source of revenue -- plus interest." From the report: For some U.S. businesses, the highly anticipated refunds could be substantial, offering critical if belated financial relief. Tariffs are taxes on imports, so the president's trade policies have served as a great burden for companies that rely on foreign goods. Many have had to choose whether to absorb the duties, cut other costs or pass on the expenses to consumers. By Monday morning, those companies can begin to submit documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs. In a sign of the demand, more than 3,000 businesses, including FedEx and Costco, have already sued the Trump administration in a bid to secure their refunds, with some cases filed even before the Supreme Court's ruling. But only the entities that officially paid the tariffs are eligible to recover that money. That means that the fuller universe of people affected by Mr. Trump's policies -- including millions of Americans who paid higher prices for the products they bought -- are not able to apply for direct relief. The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds, something that few have publicly committed to do. Some have started to band together in class-action lawsuits in the hopes of receiving a payout. Many business owners said they weren't sure how easy the tariff refund process would be, particularly given Mr. Trump's stated opposition to returning the money. The administration has suggested that it may be months before companies see any money. Adding to the uncertainty, the White House has declined to say if it might still try to return to court in a bid to halt some or all of the refunds. The money will mostly go to importers and companies, since they were the ones that directly paid the tariffs. While individual refunds with interest could take around 60 to 90 days to process, the overall effort will probably move much more slowly because of how large and complicated it will be. There are also legal questions around whether companies would have to pass any of that money on to consumers. Slashdot reader AmiMoJo commented: "This is perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth in American history. Most of those companies will just pocket the refund and not pass any of it on to the consumer. If prices go down at all, they won't be back to pre-tariff levels. You paid the tariffs, but you ain't getting the refund."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Newly unsealed records in California's antitrust case against Amazon allegedly show the company pressured third-party sellers to raise prices on rival sites like Walmart, Target, and Wayfair so Amazon could maintain the appearance of offering the lowest price. California says Amazon used tools like Buy Box suppression to punish cheaper listings elsewhere. The Guardian reports: [...] In one previously redacted deposition, marked "highly confidential," Mayer Handler, owner of a clothing company called Leveret, testified that he received an email in October 2022 from Amazon notifying him that one of his products was "no longer eligible to be a featured offer" through Amazon's Buy Box. The tech giant, he testified, had suppressed the item, a tiger-themed, toddler's pajama set, because his company was selling it for $19.99 on Amazon, a single cent higher than what his company was offering it for on Walmart. Afterwards, Handler testified, his company "changed pricing on Walmart to match or exceed Amazon's price" or changed the item's product code to try to throw off Amazon's price tracking system. In response to a question from the Guardian, Handler criticized Amazon for tracking prices across the internet and "shadow" blocking his company's products -- tactics which he said were depriving consumers of "lower prices." "Maybe that's capitalism," he wrote. "Or that's a monopoly causing price hikes on the consumer." In another unsealed deposition, Terry Esbenshade, a Pennsylvania garden store supplier, testified in October 2024 that whenever his products lost Amazon's Buy Box because of lower prices elsewhere on the internet, his sales on Amazon would plummet by about 80%. This financial reality forced him to try to raise his products' prices with other retailers elsewhere, he said. In one instance, Esbenshade testified, he discovered that one of his company's better-selling patio tables had "become suppressed" on Amazon. Esbenshade wasn't sure why, he recalled, until someone at Amazon suggested he look at Wayfair, another online retailer that happened to be selling his patio table below Amazon's price. The businessman went online and set up a new minimum advertised price for the table on Wayfair to ensure it was higher than Amazon's. "So that raised the price up, and, voila, my product came back" on Amazon, he said, thanks to the reinstatement of the Buy Box.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Microsoft has sharply raised prices across its Surface lineup as RAM and component costs keep climbing. "Both its midrange and flagship Surface lines are now significantly more expensive than they were just a few weeks ago, with the flagship Surface Laptop 7 and Surface Pro 11 now starting at $500 more than they launched at in 2024," reports Windows Central. From the report: The Surface Pro 12-inch, which was previously Microsoft's cheapest modern Surface PC at $799, now starts at $1,049. The flagship Surface Pro 13-inch, which originally launched for $999, now starts at an eyewatering $1,499. It's the same story for the Surface Laptop lines, with the entry-level 13-inch model originally priced at $899, now starting at $1,149. The 13.8-inch flagship Surface Laptop launched at $999, but now costs $1,499, with the 15-inch model now starting at $1,599. This means that Microsoft's midrange devices now cost more than the flagships did when they launched in 2024. [...] Microsoft has raised prices for all SKUs on offer, meaning the high end models are now more expensive too. A top end Surface Laptop 15-inch with Snapdragon X Elite, 64GB RAM and 1TB SSD storage now costs a staggering $3,649. To compare, the 16-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 Pro, 64GB RAM, and 1TB SSD is $3,299, and that comes with a significantly better display and much more power under the hood.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

175 million people in Brazil now use its instant-payment system "Pix", developed by the country's central bank for real-time payments using QR codes or keys, and American Banker notes that the central banks of Argentina and Costa Rica also have developed their own widely used digital systems for instant payments. Latin America has been able to build up sleek and effective payment systems in record time because it is not held back by legacy payment technology that isn't built for instant money movement. In the likes of the U.K., U.S. and Europe, payment systems are built on infrastructure that is often decades old. The process of building new systems is therefore incredibly operationally complex. Money must continue moving, so these systems can't just be "switched off." Emerging markets, such as those in Latin America, did not have to contend with legacy technology on the same scale. Many of these communities were cash dominant until recently, due to the high fees associated with card usage and the lack of banking infrastructure in rural regions. However, while many people didn't have a local bank on their corner, they did have mobile phones... Through these digital channels, money moves instantly, via account-to-account transfers, QR codes and mobile wallets... Beyond this, real-time and traceable digital payments generate valuable cash-flow data that can transform credit underwriting for small and medium-size businesses, or SMEs. Historically, many SMEs in emerging and cash-reliant markets have struggled to access credit due to a lack of documented transaction histories, audited accounts or formal credit records... Mexico is now poised to be the next success story. In Mexico, a third of people are unbanked, but 96% of the population owns a mobile phone. This creates the perfect launchpad for a digital-first payment system that can reach those historically excluded from traditional banking systems. In fact, something already changed in 2025. Bloomberg reports that for the first time, digital payment transfers in the U.S.-to-Mexico remittance corridor exceeded cash transfers (with physical pickup locations like Western Union), according to Mexico's central bank. It's part of a Latin American market "worth more than $160 billion a year, roughly $62 billion of which goes to Mexico." And Mexico's digitalization efforts will continue, according to the country's president, who said at a March banking conference that digital payments will now be encouraged for gasoline and tolls.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: President Javier Milei of Argentina promoted a cryptocurrency last year that quickly skyrocketed in value then cratered just as fast, costing investors millions of dollars and setting off a scandal and an investigation. Mr. Milei said he was simply highlighting a private venture and had no connection to the digital coin called $Libra. New evidence is now raising questions about his assertion. Phone logs from a federal investigation by Argentine prosecutors into the coin's collapse show seven phone calls between Mr. Milei and one of the entrepreneurs behind the cryptocurrency on the night in 2025 when Mr. Milei posted about $Libra on X. The contents of the calls, which took place before and after Mr. Milei's post, are not known. But the phone logs -- which were obtained by The New York Times and first reported by a local cable news channel, C5N -- suggest a greater degree of communication between Mr. Milei and the entrepreneurs who launched the token than what the president has publicly acknowledged. Newly uncovered messages also suggest Mr. Milei received regular payments from one of the entrepreneurs while he was a congressman. Mr. Milei has not publicly commented on the call logs and other documents, and he did not respond to a request for comment. He is named as a person of interest in the federal prosecutor's continuing investigation into the digital coin, according to court documents reviewed by The Times, but has not been formally charged with any crime. The latest revelations have revived a scandal that threatens the very foundation of a president who rose to power and was elected president in 2023 by attacking a political class he called corrupt.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.