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

211–220 of 627 posts

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

#211

Post by ohgodplsno »

simondotau wrote: post #54
Hamuko wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's their code, it's up to them. Well, until the regulators step in (again).

Are you suggesting that regulators can force Apple to give away their stuff for free if they want to participate in that market? That doesn't sound right to me.

The thought that a government could force your favorite, richest, international megacorporation might feel not right to you, but that is actually how the world works. Apple does not get to dictate how its products are available, no matter how much they would like to.

They are free, however to not come sell in places it feels the rules are unfair towards it.

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

#212

Post by WastingMyTime89 »

simondotau wrote: post #139
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

My apologies, when I said "whatever terms they want" I was being somewhat hyperbolic, even if I do think the spirit of the sentence is clear when read in context. Obviously terms of any such license cannot violate law. Are you suggesting that Apple charging developers a percentage-based license fee for use of their work is unlawful anywhere, under any law current or proposed?

> Are you suggesting that Apple charging developers a percentage-based license fee for use of their work is unlawful anywhere, under any law current or proposed?

The crux of the discussion generally focus on the parts of the contract preventing developers from using competing works in addition to the fees. That seems to fall squarly into your "whatever terms they want". And yes, I do personaly think there is a case to be made that Apple licensing terms are anti-competitive, an opinion which seems shared by the EU’s competition chief.

Your opinion seems to be that Apple could just stop charging a fee for using the App Store and charge it for the use of a different but similarly unavoidable part of the system instead. But that's merely a technicality. It doesn't fundamentaly change the question.

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

#213

Post by ocdtrekkie »

cletus wrote: post #209

Good. I've been saying this awhile, most notably when Apple (of course followed by Google) introduced a discount on commission for smaller developers. This is completely backwards. I know why they did it. They wanted some positive PR that didn't cost them anything. Thing is, it's the larger publishers who are going to lobby regulators and challenge things in court. It's those same publishers who already have their ow…

The reason Apple and Google would never offer up a volume discount for large publishers without legal action is because it's 99% of the app store's revenue. Giving a discount to small developers cost them nothing, giving a discount to Epic Games and similar would cost them billions.

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

#214

Post by howinteresting »

simondotau wrote: post #199
howinteresting wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Apple advertising iPhones as game consoles? When I search for iPhone on Google, the top result is a link to Apple with the text "Explore iPhone, the world's most powerful personal device."

Can you suggest why that would be relevant? It's not like the software license model of general purpose computers is enforced under law.

It would be evidence in antitrust proceedings to demonstrate that Apple is not aligning itself with the game console market but with the personal computer market.

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

#215

Post by lotsofpulp »

fighterpilot wrote: post #200
lotsofpulp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping the governments from changing the laws to make it illegal? I do not understand the concept of expecting an entity to pay taxes they are not liable for paying.

It's a problem when small companies have to pay company tax, and large multinational companies do not, merely because the latter has the legal know-how and the funds to achieve it. As an analogy, it'd be like a road worker paying 30 percent tax on a $70k income and a company CEO paying 0-5 percent tax on a $10m income. The necessary solution is obviously systemic change rather than asking large companies to pay above…

> It's a problem when small companies have to pay company tax, and large multinational companies do not, merely because the latter has the legal know-how and the funds to achieve it.

Hence the question of why are countries not changing the rules so the large multinational companies cannot achieve it.

> As an analogy, it'd be like a road worker paying 30 percent tax on a $100k income and a company CEO paying 0-5 percent tax on a $10m income.

This seems unrelated to my question, but is there anywhere that this is true? All the examples of this I am familiar with in the US involve ignoring the fact that the CEO is not getting $10m of cash income, otherwise they would be paying a lot more tax than someone with $100k cash income. Which is stupid and invalidates any point trying to be made.

If the argument is that society needs to start collecting tax on wealth and forcing sales of assets, then so be it, but it should be stated as such.

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

#216

Post by White_Wolf »

simondotau wrote: post #110
CrimsonRain wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fall…

Would forcing Apple to make everything required to run linux on Apple hardware available to all devs be fine then? Just to keep things fair and allow for competitors and such. Maybe force all hardware manufacturers to allow OS selection when doing a factory reset? Libraries? I'm allowed to use them without selling/distributing as long as they are critical to run the hardware that I paid for(as long as they are only used for said device). Copyrighting/blocking people from reverse engineering any piece of code that is needed for hardware to function should be illegal in the first place.

Edit: A few typos and such.

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

#217

Post by stephc_int13 »

404mm wrote: post #176

Unpopular opinion: I like it the way it is now, from end user’s perspective. I don’t want to share my payment info with apps. I like all being in one place and handled by Apple. I’d be even ok eating up the difference, if it meant it stays the same.

You'll always have that option available.

End users won't lose anything in the worst case.

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

#218

Post by oceanplexian »

cletus wrote: post #209

Good. I've been saying this awhile, most notably when Apple (of course followed by Google) introduced a discount on commission for smaller developers. This is completely backwards. I know why they did it. They wanted some positive PR that didn't cost them anything. Thing is, it's the larger publishers who are going to lobby regulators and challenge things in court. It's those same publishers who already have their ow…

There’s an entire cottage industry of jailbroken app stores. You might argue that those using alternative stores are a minority (1-5%), but the act of jailbreaking a phone is quite challenging and we still have a lot of people doing it. If iPhones were able to run third party stores I think you’d see 30 or 40% of users opting in to that.

Is it a usability nightmare? Perhaps. But device makers shouldn’t make that “choice” for their users. Likewise you might not like the fact that your city has small businesses instead of a single large warehouse store on the basis of convenience and usability. But the public would not agree with you and that’s why we enact laws against anti-competitive behavior.

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

#219

Post by fighterpilot »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #215
fighterpilot wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a problem when small companies have to pay company tax, and large multinational companies do not, merely because the latter has the legal know-how and the funds to achieve it. As an analogy, it'd be like a road worker paying 30 percent tax on a $70k income and a company CEO paying 0-5 percent tax on a $10m income. The necessary solution is obviously systemic change rather than asking large companies to pay above…

> It's a problem when small companies have to pay company tax, and large multinational companies do not, merely because the latter has the legal know-how and the funds to achieve it. Hence the question of why are countries not changing the rules so the large multinational companies cannot achieve it. > As an analogy, it'd be like a road worker paying 30 percent tax on a $100k income and a company CEO paying 0-5 perce…

  "Hence the question of why are countries not changing the rules so the large multinational companies cannot achieve it."
I don't know. Probably some combination of cronyism, status quo bias, and the problem being very difficult to solve? Also it wasn't really front of mind in a big way in people's day to day political thinking in the US until about 5 years ago.

  "but is there anywhere that this is true?"
It was a hypothetical, I was trying to provide a what-if analogy. I don't know if it is true or not true in itself.

  "If the argument is that society needs to start collecting tax on wealth and forcing sales of assets, then so be it, but it should be stated as such."
That's some people's argument, but not mine. My only observation is that the company tax as it is currently implemented is extremely regressive. I'm not against regressive tax per se, but it's too regressive in this case. If large and small companies paid the same flat rate, I'd be pretty happy. How to achieve it, I don't know.

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

#220

Post by dragonwriter »

germandiago wrote: post #91
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

one of the first regulations that make sense: more free market. As long as there are regulators with a lot of power there will be incentive to corruption anyway. I like free competition. Something that Google and Apple were trying to prevent. But putting all in the hands of an ever-increasing state is not the way to go either. Though I gree with the decision.

> one of the first regulations that make sense: more free market

State regulations dictating conditions to market participants cannot make something more “free market”. They can favor more competition by artificially limiting the advantage of the most successful competitors, but that's not “free market”, which is the absence of market distortion by state regulation, not the presence of only those market distortions that you prefer.

> I like free competition.

No, clearly, you like competition with the leaders artificially handicapped by the State, not free competition. Which may be a valid preference, but don't pretend its a free market with free competition.

Post reply on HN