221–230 of 627 posts
A possible outcome of this regulation: all Android and iOS payments get disabled in South Korea, paid apps become unavailable.
If anything is going to shake up law enforcement and regulators it's these megacorps holding things hostage because they don't want to comply.
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
A somewhat faster response would have been nice though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe Google should have to pay Oracle for duplicating the layout of standard Java classes.
Indeed, though here we're talking about developers literally including Apple proprietary code in their build process.
But pretending the current cut isn't supported only because of their platform control is crazy.
Form an open market for app distribution, and then see what the market sets competitive rates at.
We have Epic to thank for this!
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…
> Of course this should force them into binding arbitration and otherwise challenging the discount should void that discount.
So you want apple and google to act as even more monopolistic bullies ...
I see that you're taking this position as what you would do if you were Apple or Google, not what is the best course of action for all stakeholders. But you then opine that this is justified because the status quo is better for consumers.
The thing is, we already know that it's not. Apple and Google allow third party payment processors for _some_ of their apps. Would it be your best interests as a consumer to pay 40-50% more then you currently do for Uber and GrubHub? There's a reasonable argument to be made that those businesses simply would not be economically viable if they had to pay a 30% apple/google tax on every transaction. How many other apps or services went under (or were never made in the first instance) because Apple decided that their business needed to pay them a 30% cut of everything.
Which brings us to another salient point. Apple claims that they need to charge their 30% cut to pay for the cost of running the app store and for the developer tools they provide. But if this is the case, why should Uber and Facebook get to use them for free?
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 big players are the ones that will switch, amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Hulu, etc. And beyond that, competitors like Square and Stripe will release SDKs that make purchasing just as easy as the system IAP, and will actually force Apple to improve their system.
If Apple thinks hosting costs are of any consequence, then charge people for hosting if they don't actively use IAP. For 99% of apps hosting is pennies on the dollar, but for games like Fortnite it may actually cost a decent amount, especially for the binary size.
The end point is that there are no technical limitations to anything here, it is all political and Apple has the ability to change this at any time. There just isn't any point when they can continue to rake in 30% of every digital subscription service on the internet that wants to exist on their platform.
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.
These companies paying them not to.
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
I very much agree that this app stores market abuse thing needs to end, and I am also really glad to see that at least one country is responding like this. > a reasonable (single percentage) fee for facilitating payments. I want to point out, though, that the service Apple provides is not merely payment processing. They offer total customer management. Which, when integrated with their entire developer offering (Test…
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
I very much agree that this app stores market abuse thing needs to end, and I am also really glad to see that at least one country is responding like this. > a reasonable (single percentage) fee for facilitating payments. I want to point out, though, that the service Apple provides is not merely payment processing. They offer total customer management. Which, when integrated with their entire developer offering (Test…