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

341–350 of 627 posts

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

#341

Post by malandrew »

the_solenoid wrote: post #331

All of these policies coming about are for the benefit of already monied interests and do not help small devs, or consumers. I also take huge umbrage that the framing of this is just as horrible as the framing of paying taxes in the US. People think, wrongly, that they make $100k, and have to pay 35% of that to the gov. Wrong. You always only made $65k. There are studies that show wages have always tracked with taxes…

> Taxes are the % of your "output" used to keep the commons going.

The commons includes bombing other countries and waging unwinnable wars?

I have no problem paying taxes if they were actually used for the commons, but only a fraction are used for the commons. Far too much is going to benefit special interest groups such as defense contractors, public sector employee benefits and pensions that are far above what private sector employees get.

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

#342

Post by skrtskrt »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #334
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…

> Game theory will tell you that there is essentially no downside to (3). Worst case you will be back on the app store at 30% or will leave. Worst case is you want to be on the app store at 30% but are not allowed back in. > I stand by my position that end users don't actually want competing third-party app stores I disagree. More stores bring more competition. Both in terms of platform costs and in terms of promos f…

> Worst case is you want to be on the app store at 30% but are not allowed back in

If 30% cut of your revenue is big enough, Apple will let you back in even if the two companies apparently just tried to murder each other in court.

Money talks.

Companies keep massive clients and vendors that they are locked in lawsuits with all the time, just look at Apple and Samsung.

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

#343

Post by ece »

zrm wrote: post #319
Closi wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what Apple/Google should've done is give larger publishers a volume discount. From Apple/Google's perspective this is a terrible strategy. The problem is that, if we assume the Pareto Principle holds, the larger publishers probably generate 80% of revenue on the App Store. So assuming 5% is operating at cost, you are talking about them probably sacrificing 70%-75% of their current profits (i.e. moving to 5% marg…

Not only that, "we charge 10% to the big monster and 30% to the little guy" is terrible PR against the amount of money they would generate from just the little guy. It's so bad that by that point they might as well just charge the lower rate to everybody. Especially when they're trying to stave off legislation.

Steam is doing this 30%-20%, and it seems to be working fine of them.. so far. I generally think volume discounts come a bit too close to price fixing, if proven in court. Granted, it's tough to prove, as we've seen in Intel vs. AMD which settled out of court AFAICR.

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

#344

Post by skrtskrt »

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…

> total customer management

you mean end-to-end locked-in ownership of your customers

You can offer total customer and management and compete on its merits and price point, not by forced monopoly.

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

#345

Post by cletus »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #334
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…

> Game theory will tell you that there is essentially no downside to (3). Worst case you will be back on the app store at 30% or will leave. Worst case is you want to be on the app store at 30% but are not allowed back in. > I stand by my position that end users don't actually want competing third-party app stores I disagree. More stores bring more competition. Both in terms of platform costs and in terms of promos f…

While technically possible I consider that incredibly unlikely as a result of what's essentially a contract dispute. What would Apple's cause of action be to terminate, say, Epic from the App Store entirely?

They sort of tried this at the beginning of the dispute when they claimed anything running Unreal Engine was a security risk and should be kicked. They overplayed their hand with that one and a court blocked it.

Game theory applies to Apple too. What's their upside from banning Epic from the App Store? They face the risk that a court may take that decision out of their hands. And while they're doing it they are losing out on that 30%.

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

#346

Post by jaywalk »

sigjuice wrote: post #310
jaywalk wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peering is free by definition.

how do I get free internet at home using this method ... i hate paying comcast every month

Peering is a one-to-one relationship, not "Internet access" like you're thinking. If you peered with Comcast, for example, you'd only be able to reach Comcast customers over that connection. A more "Internet access" type of connection would be transit, which is definitely not free.

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

#347

Post by swiley »

justapassenger wrote: post #281
swiley wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

You want to explain to your grandma how to get the right repo so she can get WhatsApp?

I don’t want my grandma using WhatsApp. The corporation that owns it behaves pathologically as a matter of policy and I have no idea what they’d try to do to her.

So yes. That’s a perfect example of how this would be an improvement.

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

#348

Post by tristan957 »

elisbce wrote: post #326

As an app developer, I'm shocked that people just don't get it. The 30% cut of in-app purchase that Apple/Google collected is NOT a payment processing fee and has largely nothing to do with payment services. It is primarily a way to ensure the app developers pay a fair amount of "use tax" on using and benefiting from the entire ecosystem, including but not limited to reaching billions of users, covering the cost of d…

That is not what the 30% is at all. Apple charges its tax as the $99/year fee everyone is required to pay to enter the App Store. If $99 is not enough, Apple is free to increase it as long as alternative app stores are available on iOS to keep costs competitive for developers.

Apple isn't worth defending.

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

#349

Post by realusername »

makecheck wrote: post #316

The Mac App Store gives a hint at what would happen if there was any choice. The amount of software actually available for the Mac is far, far greater than what’s listed in the store. Furthermore, while some quality and notable apps are still in the Mac App Store, many well-known apps are not there. The number of lousy apps is also extremely high every time I go to search or just look at the front page, to the point…

Maybe that's just a proof that there's not much value created by the app store if they can't convince developers to use it if they had a choice.

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

#350

Post by passivate »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #329

As a consumer, I’m pretty sad about this. I don’t miss the days of having to go through 5 different user flows to cancel 5 different subscriptions. With iTunes, all of my purchases and subscriptions are in once place. Losing that sucks.

I would think that the management of purchases and subscriptions can support multiple payment methods, no? Like VISA/PayPal/Apple Pay/etc?

I can't imagine it would be difficult for Apple to implement this for their stores. Maybe someone who works in this field can chime in..

Post reply on HN