Quite simply, if we're going to allow monopolies (which is a bad idea, but here we are), we need to trend towards a platform owner cannot compete inside the platform they are collecting revenue from. You get to own the platform and collect commission from players, or you get to own the platform and compete inside of it, but not collect commissions from competitors.
Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
271–280 of 627 posts
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#272They should unbundle. At the moment, doing business on the app stores entails so many things, but they can break them apart and allow developers to purchase them individually: 1. Put your app on the store. (but only reachable via direct link) 2. Have Gapple verify that your app does not represent any obvious security threat. (or else warn users upon install) 3. Make your app appear in search. (organically) 4. Make yo…
2. Verification is key! I don’t want more garbage (there’s already plenty) in app stores. They should charge a flat one time fee or for smaller developers give the option of higher fee/transaction till the amount is paid and then revert back to normal fees.
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#273Finally, hopefully the EU will follow soon and the break the oligopoly (or whatever it is.)
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#274Earlier 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. 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 hypo…
Large companies pay giant amounts of tax when they aren’t reinvesting all their earnings like Amazon was for decades.
Reinvesting earnings is a strategy available to all corporations, large and small.
Corporate income tax is not in any way shape or form regressive.
Crazily innumerate reporting on taxes paid by big corporations leads people to believe straight up false things about taxation.
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#275I'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 commission fee that Apple charges, 30% is partially to cover operating/marketing etc. Then by all means, please charge me separately for these things. Because I don’t need them. Apple doesn’t do marketing for me, never promoted my app. People find my app through my own marketing channels. Charge me roughly 2 % for In App Purchases just like Stripe and PayPal. Charge me a traffic fee for whatever download traffi…
> Charge me roughly 2 % for In App Purchases just like Stripe and PayPal.
This is so disingenuous and I'm so tired of seeing Apple's fee pegged at 30% (even though it 15% for the VAST majority of developers) and then turn around and pretend Stripe/PP offer anything close to 2%.
Paypal is 3.5% + $0.49
Stripe is 2.9% + $0.30
At low price points (you know, the price points that almost all IAP/Paid App are at save for longer, like annual, subscriptions) your fee is still substantial.
If you are lucky Apple will create a special provision for 3rd party payment providers that will provide subscription/cancellation/refund/etc infrastructure. If they don't do that then you can expect the above rates to be even higher. 2% is only obtainable with a more bare-bones payment processor so you will have to build quite a bit up and any company providing full "app payment services" is going to charge more than Stripe/PayPal. Heck, even the prices I listed for Stripe are the lowest they go (unless you are doing over 1.5M annually and qualify for bulk/volume pricing) and if you want things like fraud protection that's extra. Oh you want to calculate tax? Extra .5%. Fraud protections? $.05 or $.07/per transaction extra. Chargeback protection? Extra .4%, and the list goes on.
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#2765 Things To Check Before Taking Divorce Decision Or Separate: https://www.hackerslist.co/5-things-to-check-before-taking-d...
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
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”.
I suppose it’s customer management in the sense that they are not your customers, they are Apple’s customers. Apple is providing you access to sell your app to Apple’s customers through Apple’s store.
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#278A possible outcome of this regulation: all Android and iOS payments get disabled in South Korea, paid apps become unavailable.
Another possible outcome: apps with external payment methods will end up at the bottom of the search rankings.
Or, a bold red message in the AppStore description saying "WARNING: This app accepts payment through a scary, untrusted payment system! You're likely going to be scammed! Are you sure you want to download this potentially fraudulent app?"
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#279They should unbundle. At the moment, doing business on the app stores entails so many things, but they can break them apart and allow developers to purchase them individually: 1. Put your app on the store. (but only reachable via direct link) 2. Have Gapple verify that your app does not represent any obvious security threat. (or else warn users upon install) 3. Make your app appear in search. (organically) 4. Make yo…
How about getting rid of App Stores altogether unless they follow an f-droid like model? (Selection of alternative repos, Published source, declaring potentially unwanted behavior etc.)
I don't think we can ever get rid of app stores but I am pro multiple app stores per operating system.
The only downside I see to multiple app stores is having to download multiple stores to get certain apps, kinda what it is like with purchasing video games on steam versus origin, etc. That is although minor, still an inconvenience.
Re: Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Korean government is likely to prioritize their local developers. And their darling, Samsung. UK and US have to jump through some hoops, sorry not sorry.
Why not compete on merits instead?
There's a Goldilocks zone in which something mostly resembling free market can exist. Beyond that zone, there's some old boys network running the show, where who's married to whom, who plays with whom, and who's chums with whom are the things that matter.