Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 627 posts

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#101

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

mrtksn wrote: post #40
stirlo wrote: post #4

Finally. This is exactly how regulators should respond to the market abuse of these technology monopolies. If they wanted to head this off all they had to do was pay a reasonable amount of tax in the country where the revenue was generated and offer a reasonable (single percentage) fee for facilitating payments. They chose not to so they reap what they sow

It's going to be a hell for the users and the smaller developers. Devs will have to support multiple platforms, different API and options. Also different legal arrangements would be needed as each country has different laws and processes. Remember the agreements and forms we fill for different countries when we want to sell paid apps/features on App Store? I also can't wait to pay account fees for many app stores and…

You realize that you don't have to deal with "boring complexity" when you use plenty of other payment processors, like Stripe, right?

And instead of being charged 30%, you get charged a transaction fee, plus ~3%.

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#102

Post by stirlo »

mrtksn wrote: post #67
keithnz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw nothing saying you can't still use them.

Sure, you can do dev work for Windows Phone Store. That doesn't mean that it's as rewarding as doing work for Apple AppStore. The fragmentation will not open the floodgate for all the users out there who were holding off because they didn't want to use App Store or Play Store. It's going to be the exact same userbase but there will be more gatekeepers to deal with.

> but there will be more gatekeepers to deal with.

They’re not mandating support for alternative payment providers merely saying Apple and Google cannot prevent you as a developer offering an alternative to your users. Whether you decide to support alternatives is up to you but when you can use stripe for a 2% fee or Apple/Google with 30% how can you be worse off?

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#103

Post by pcr910303 »

It’s not usual for news on my country to be on top of HN. Very unexpected.

I’m guessing though that the South Korean market is be significant enough for Apple and Google to not just pull out it’s business from South Korea and call it a day. I guess this is, in some kind, a victory against the huge companies.

But… personally I do find sad that this would be detrimental to South Korean app UX. Stripe isn’t a thing here, and most of the home-grown web-based payment systems have… like super shitty UX that require (on the desktop) native plugins running a server on some bespoke port. It did come a long way since from when we were the country that required IE6 for web banking, but the UX is still not really there.

I’m hoping that Apple will provide APIs for showing payment screens and Apple will still control the ability to show all subscriptions, cancel them in one single place, etc… but I don’t think Apple will ever do that. Unfortunate…

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#104

Post by IsoldesKnight »

MDWolinski wrote: post #78

I'm wondering how this will eventually play out if most companies start requiring Apple/Google to allow third-party apps to use their own payment system. The commission fee that Apple charges, 30% is partially to cover operating/marketing etc. Obviously, Apple makes a good profit off the App Store these days, even though Jobs said he'd be happy if it was break even at best. Here's an analogy I've been thinking on abo…

> The iPhone (or whatever phone you want) is the equivalent of a Walmart store.

The major difference here is that while I don't own the Walmart store, I do own my phone. What is allowed to be sold in the store is determined by Walmart, just as what's installed on my phone should be determined by me, the owner.

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#105

Post by ubermonkey »

sumedh wrote: post #94
MDWolinski wrote: post #78

I'm wondering how this will eventually play out if most companies start requiring Apple/Google to allow third-party apps to use their own payment system. The commission fee that Apple charges, 30% is partially to cover operating/marketing etc. Obviously, Apple makes a good profit off the App Store these days, even though Jobs said he'd be happy if it was break even at best. Here's an analogy I've been thinking on abo…

> If you want your product to be sold in Walmart No one is forcing you to go through Walmart. The problem with IOS is that you are forced to go through Apple. A user cannot pay, download and install the app directly from a developers website.

Nobody is forcing you to sell to iOS, though.

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#106

Post by mrtksn »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #101
mrtksn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be a hell for the users and the smaller developers. Devs will have to support multiple platforms, different API and options. Also different legal arrangements would be needed as each country has different laws and processes. Remember the agreements and forms we fill for different countries when we want to sell paid apps/features on App Store? I also can't wait to pay account fees for many app stores and…

You realize that you don't have to deal with "boring complexity" when you use plenty of other payment processors, like Stripe, right? And instead of being charged 30%, you get charged a transaction fee, plus ~3%.

It doesn't work like that. Here is the Stipe page with description of what you need to do: https://stripe.com/docs/tax/registering

Essentially, you need to register with the authorities of all the markets you would like to support.

Different trade agreements with each country, different documents, different language.

So you pay %3 instead %30 and then give the rest to the lawyers and accountants.

Good luck with that.

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#107

Post by jaywalk »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #92
jaywalk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Net Neutrality just meant that Google got to shovel YouTube streams onto ISP networks without having to pay. Let's not pretend there were ever any noble intentions behind it.

What do you mean “without having to pay”? Google pays for its connection to the internet, right?

No, in most cases they don't.

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#108

Post by mrtksn »

stirlo wrote: post #102
mrtksn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can do dev work for Windows Phone Store. That doesn't mean that it's as rewarding as doing work for Apple AppStore. The fragmentation will not open the floodgate for all the users out there who were holding off because they didn't want to use App Store or Play Store. It's going to be the exact same userbase but there will be more gatekeepers to deal with.

> but there will be more gatekeepers to deal with. They’re not mandating support for alternative payment providers merely saying Apple and Google cannot prevent you as a developer offering an alternative to your users. Whether you decide to support alternatives is up to you but when you can use stripe for a 2% fee or Apple/Google with 30% how can you be worse off?

No one mandates to support AppStore or Google Play in first place. That's something you do if you want to reach the users of that service.

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#109

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

simondotau wrote: post #39
simondotau wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the FSF, the distribution of a binary computer program which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would require you to abide by the terms of the GPL license. Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon (and must be compiled with) Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license. Of course Apple is…

To the people down-voting this, I realise that my post espouses a controversial opinion for Hacker News. But could you please explain what you disagree with?

> To the people down-voting this, I realise that my post espouses a controversial opinion for Hacker News. But could you please explain what you disagree with?

The issue is not that your argument is controversial. It's that it falls flat because it's based on an incorrect assumption.

> Apple could choose whatever terms they want. It would be perfectly within Apple's right to require a revenue share for use of those libraries

No they can't.

There are a broad set of laws restricting how companies can or can not do business. These laws severely limit the terms Apple can set. Laws restricting anticompetitve behaviors would be part of this set, same for the new regulations in South Korea we are currently discussing.

Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares

#110

Post by simondotau »

CrimsonRain wrote: post #81
simondotau wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone else doesn't want to pay 30% to Apple, then they should have that right That right? Are you saying developers should have the right to all of Apple's stuff for free, no matter what? Is Apple not allowed to distribute their tools and libraries under a license of their choosing? Should we ignore licenses altogether? Perhaps I don't want to pay the "cost" associated with use of a GPL-licensed library in my…

Apple has no right to restrict any API usage in the iOS that is running on MY hardware that I fully paid them for.

I'm not talking about restrictions placed upon the end user, but rather on the developer who is distributing an application which uses these libraries. If they're not willing to accept the license terms for those libraries, that is a license violation.

Do you know who would agree with that? The FSF. They will argue that an application built against an API licensed under the GPL is a derivative work and therefore falls under the terms of the GPL.

This was the case back when Qt was quite infamously licensed under the GPL rather than the LGPL.

Post reply on HN