Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

451–460 of 627 posts

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

#451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By outlawing what a lot of consumers considered a very useful feature, and that is limiting the choices of developers. Developers may not like it, but there’s a value in restrictions, especially in something as sensitive as payments. With sensitive data flowing through a lot more companies, it’s going to be a shit show, it’s just a matter of time.

How is this limiting anything? I see this as adding options, and I'd like to see it adopted across the world.

It’s adding options to developers, not necessarily to users.

The Apple and Google payment systems were in effect a market driven standards, now we’ll have a soup of systems on a race to the bottom on a very sensitive part of the ecosystem.

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

#453

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…

Not only that, but if you ever have the option of buying a software license directly from the developer or through the Mac App Store, you usually get much worse terms from the Mac App Store.

You'll pay the same price, but instead of getting a license you can run on unlimited of your own machines, or sometimes a fixed number like you can register it to 3 machines at a time, you can only install it on other computers that are managed by the same iCloud account. I've learned this the hard way with a bunch of productivity apps, if you want to use it on a personal machine and a work machine in the same way you can easily install all the free apps that you use on both machines, you're out of luck if you bought it on the Mac App Store. I've ended up re-buying a few different productivity tools over the years that I made the mistake of buying on the Mac App Store first, so that I actually had a portable license I could use that wasn't tightly coupled to making my personal text messages and iCloud files available on the same computer I want to use the license on. You also can't install mac app store apps via homebrew in a setup script or any kind of tooling you use to manage the computer (maybe this is getting better with shortcuts, but I'm not aware of a way to do it).

If it's a cross-platform app, you pay the same price but lose the ability to ever run it on Windows in the future if you buy it from the app store. If it's one of the few AAA games that support MacOS at all, if you buy on Steam you usually get a cross-platform license and there will often be a bunch of bundles that include extra DLC packs at a discounted price. Once a game is a few years old it will start going on sale all the time on Steam. The mac app store version usually won't go on the same sales and usually doesn't have any bundles available either.

If you have multiple user accounts created on a computer, you can't even upgrade a free app that a different user installed via the Mac App store, even if your user also has admin privileges. Only the same user that originally installed it can upgrade the app even though the app is available to every user on the machine.

There's really no reason to ever install anything from the Mac App Store, other than first-party Apple apps where you have no other choice (like XCode, Garage Band, Keynote, Final Cut, etc.)

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

#454
post #432
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paying lower unit price for higher volume customers is literally how the entire economy works. People deal with this every day. It's why jumbo packs in the supermarket are cheaper. It's how Costco exists. It's the one capitalist principle almost nobody has a huge problem with.

> Paying lower unit price for higher volume customers is literally how the entire economy works.

That's not how the economy works - it's a very simplified view which IMO is incorrect in this instance.

Companies in theory only offer volume discounts when it makes commercial sense to do (i.e. 'second degree price discrimination'). Price discrimination opportunities happen when you believe that you will sell more to a customer by changing the price for a particular segment / volume target (companies in theory always try to sell at the maximum price that the buyer will accept, and price discrimination is just strategy to help sell at a higher price to certain segments if the market will accept it). Companies will also only do deals which are profitable (sometimes higher volume deals are profitable while lower volume deals aren't, for instance it might be practical to sell 1 million cans of beans to a large supermarket chain for 20 cents, while it's only practical to sell 10 cans of beans for 50 cents each to a smaller shop).

In the AppStore in reality this would mean you would need to believe that the reduction in fees would encourage enough big developers to the platform to offset the change in fees (at the moment I'm assuming the profitability threshold is met - as Apple is clearly already making money on the bigger apps here).

Now in order to pay for the 30% to 10% swap, you would need to bring c5 times the number of big developers to the platform to offset the reduced margin, which is very unlikely to happen, particularly as Apple have the dominant platform (i.e. most developers are already probably on iOS that are going to be on iOS).

Now if the industry was heavily competitive, and mobile developers could leave and go to another platform with lower fees and reach the same audience, then the competitive pressure would exist to do what you are describing and volume discounts may become a thing - but because Apple can block any competition in this space they don't need to offer any discount to encourage these big developers to use their platform - the developers have to keep using them (which is what the lawsuit is about).

i.e. Apple's market position allows them to act as a market-making monopsony, which means it's not in their interest to provide a discount as they can exploit the situation to generate super-normal profits. Economics & business strategy 101.

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

#455

It’s not usual for news on my country to be on top of HN. Very unexpected. I’m guessing though that the South Korean market is be significant enough for Apple and Google to not just pull out it’s business from South Korea and call it a day. I guess this is, in some kind, a victory against the huge companies. But… personally I do find sad that this would be detrimental to South Korean app UX. Stripe isn’t a thing here…

"significant enough for Apple and Google to not just pull out it’s business from South Korea and call it a day." I always found this line of argument disingenious and disturbing. Disingenious because it doesn't happen historically, so it sounds like a tired threat Disturbing - are we saying we would rather kneecap our democratic institutions, right or wrong, than live without iPhones? We'd die to defend our lands and…

Companies pull out of countries all the time when changes in the socio, political, economic and most importantly regularly environment make their business untenable.

Case in point: China or post-Brexit UK.

You use this hyperbolic rhetoric to describe the situation but it really is an every day occurence.

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

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn’t receive updates. Now Windows pushes ads in the OS as a mechanism of recouping the cost of developing and testing updates for old hardware.

Operating systems have been getting automatic updates for over 20 years. And what 3rd party ads are in Windows? I don't have any.

Here is how to disable the many forms of advertising on Windows 10:

https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windo...

Also don't forget that there is a ridiculous amount of user behaviour telemetry and metadata that Microsoft has permission to use for any reason.

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

#457

I have a question about monopolies and market abuses. Apple released their phone in 2007, the App Store in 2008, and in-app payments in 2009. During that time their marketshare was fairly small, and it didn't start to really grow until they expanded availability to the Verizon network in 2011. Right at launch of the App Store, Apple announced its sales commission would be 30%. Then they extended that same fee to in-a…

There are two issues at play here.

First, with regards to the App store or Music store, Apple is the Market maker. It controls who gets to sell Apps on their market similar to how NASDAQ or the NY Stock Exchange controls which stocks are listed. Korea is saying Apple you already control the market, but you shouldn't dictate the payment systems too. I expect Apple will start raising the fees it charges to list Apps on their App store.

Second, this article is about South Korea. South Korea doesn't care about the historical context of the US. Korea is saying if the Apple App store want access to South Korean customers, you must play by our rules. This is not unlike the European Union saying if you want to store data about EU citizens, then you must comply with GDPR.

For the past few decades, we had assumed there was a monolithic global market for software apps. We are seeing now the fragmentation of the internet and the software market as countries assert their power over big tech.

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

#458
post #343
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes - although I think Steam is in a different market position where there are substitutes (e.g. developers/publishers can choose to submit via GOG, Epic store, Microsoft Store or sell direct so there is no monopsony), so providing a lower revenue split to encourage big developers to the platform is a good/valid strategy. The strategy is different for Apple (where there are no perfect(ish) substitutes, and they can exploit this to have higher margins).

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

#459

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…

I don't think that follows, sadly.

The evolutionary history matters a lot in these things, since they set the culture and precedent on the platform.

Macs and desktops started (or at least, became popular) as an open environment where users obtained software directly from vendors. iOS and Android (with the caveat that it has always supported sideloading) started as closed systems, and the vast majority of customers are used to getting their software from the official app store.

UPDATE: Fixed a typo

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

#460

I have a question about monopolies and market abuses. Apple released their phone in 2007, the App Store in 2008, and in-app payments in 2009. During that time their marketshare was fairly small, and it didn't start to really grow until they expanded availability to the Verizon network in 2011. Right at launch of the App Store, Apple announced its sales commission would be 30%. Then they extended that same fee to in-a…

You can do all sorts of "monopolistic abuse" on your platform as long as it is small and inconsequential. No one cares, even if it was illegal, though it mostly is not.

But the rules and scrutiny changes once you become large enough to be "considered" a monopoly i.e. once your decisions and policies start affecting a significant portion of the market/ecosystem, then your policies are going to be subject to new regulation.

Google supporting side loading from the very beginning was a smart idea, even if its too complex and scary for the majority of Android users. They should have done the same for payments.

Post reply on HN