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

241–250 of 627 posts

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

#241

Post by cletus »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #213
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.

I think it's certainly heavily weighted to the big publishers but 99%? I'm not so sure.

But you know what's expensive? Private lawsuits, government lawsuits, a court or legislature deciding the outcome, compliance with legislation, compliance with consent decrees, compliance with judgements, etc.

The biggest issue is that third parties will end up deciding the outcome. You're almost always better off heading off government action by instituting the least bad solution for you.

What if the outcome of governent action is completely independent third party app stores? Apple and Google certainly don't want that. I would argue that neither do end users actually. A vocal minority thinks they do but they're wrong. That could happen if the wheels of the US or EU regulators start turning against you.

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

#243

Post by kryptiskt »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #213
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.

Google's Project Hug that was revealed in the Epic trial shows that they give discounts under the table. They just don't want it to be known publicly.

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

#244

Post by minhazm »

zaarn wrote: post #208
simondotau wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Korean law cannot reach into sales performed in another country—at least not without some fairly tenuous moves. Apple's phone market share in South Korea is a moderately healthy 22% given the presence of strong domestic and regional brands, but I've no doubt Apple would sooner give up on South Korea altogether than have a weird law tying their hands globally.

They can't but the korean developer has a relationship with Google or Apple that the government can reach. If Google forbade a korean dev from making an international app with external payment provider, then SK could very much punish Google SK for it. Doesn't matter if the target users are in Europe. Read the GDPR, same principle.

> Doesn't matter if the target users are in Europe. Read the GDPR, same principle.

Actually this is not true. It only applies to companies that are providing services to people physically in the EU. If you're an EU citizen but you're in America, it does not apply.

> When the regulation does not apply. Your company is service provider based outside the EU. It provides services to customers outside the EU. Its clients can use its services when they travel to other countries, including within the EU. Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...

https://www.dyspatch.io/blog/gdpr-location-or-citizenship/

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

#245

Post by joecool1029 »

alberth wrote: post #87

I wonder if Samsung (HQ in Korea) had influence on this requirement. EDIT: why the downvotes? If you don’t think Samsung had influence, wouldn’t it be more productive to reply and say so - that way there can be a healthy dialogue on the topic.

Oh, I absolutely think they had influence. LG already pulled out of making Android phones as the hardware has become a loss leader, no money in it for them. Samsung at least had the benefit of almost totally complete vertical integration.

You would have to be a fool to think Samsung doesn't want a cut of app sales on their devices and as the most powerful company in Korea with large influence over government, they'll get their way. This was never about developers and it isn't a watershed moment to be excited about (unless I guess you live in Korea).

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

#246

Post by Analemma_ »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #197
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

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…

Apple very pointedly does _not_ offer total customer management. As an iOS developer, I don’t know who my customers are; I can’t contact them; I can’t offer them a refund, demo, or promo code; I can’t have any kind of relationship with them whatsoever. It’s infuriatingly archaic and useless. Whatever that system is, it certainly isn’t “total customer management”.

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

#247

Post by vbezhenar »

simondotau wrote: post #29
bubblethink wrote: post #12

Is there a better source and the text of the law ? Payment systems are a proxy for the fee since there isn't an explicit publishing fee. It would be quite straightforward for both Apple and Google to charge a publishing fee, which may end up close to the current rent. The larger issue is that there aren't alternative app stores. Apple doesn't allow them at all, and Google severely restricts them at the technical and…

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…

Developers will avoid Apple libraries. Native apps already are not so popular with Cordova, Flutter, React Native and other options.

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

#248

Post by SeanLuke »

andjd wrote: post #226
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…

Just wow. > 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…

I don't think he's saying that it'd be good if Apple and Google did that. He's saying they should have done that if they had had their strategic thinking caps on.

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

#249

Post by foepys »

jtbayly wrote: post #228
xdennis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies paying them not to.

So... they are paying money to the government that they aren't required to?

The problem is the EU's process which requires all countries to vote unanimous on this. Ireland is vetoing any change to keep being allowed to set their own tax rates and underbid anybody else while still keeping access to the EU market. In that regard The Netherlands aren't any better by the way.

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

#250

Post by vbezhenar »

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?

Microsoft Visual Studio was not free in the past. And even now free version is limited. I don’t see it different from hypothetical paid Apple library as long as there are other ways to write software for the given platform.
Post reply on HN