Apple and Google must allow other in-app payment systems, Korean law declares • Hacker News Board

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

#461

Post by hosh » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

hosh wrote: post #239

It makes sense since Samsung has its own payment infrastructure (Apple Pay, Google Pay, Samsung Pay). Although those are for retail payments for in-person purchases rather than app store purchases, I can also see South Korea not wanting to have foreign merchants controlling substantial markets, such as an app store. Those laws probably apply to Samsung as well, if Samsung deploys its own app store.

To put it in perspective for those who havn't been following what Samsung has been up to:

- Samsung is a major conglomerate domestic to S Korea. LG is a similar congolmerate

- They make consumer appliances and durable goods, similar to how General Electric in the US used to (washer, dryer, fridges, dish washers, TVs) and are on their way to make them "smart" and connected devices

- They compete in the Android phone and smartphone market. LG (another S Korean consumer devices conglomerate) had recently withdrawn from that market.

- They own their own cloud (Joyent acquisition). However they are cutting back on their consumer cloud offering in Mar 2021.

- They own world-class semiconductor fabrication facilities, peers of TSCM and Intel. Samsung produces chips, memory for themselves and other customers. They also produce milspec, secure smartphones for the US military

- They own an AI research team (Viv Labs acquisition, founded by the team that created Siri and sold to Apple)

- They have Samsung Pay

In other words, Samsung has its own flywheel going and controls a national stategic assets (semiconductor fabs). Maybe South Korean law is intended to open the market more, but I think this move is as much motivated as being able to project economic power through Samsung as anything.

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

#462

Post by diebeforei485 » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

eigen wrote: post #288

diebeforei485 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stripe Billing[1] only charges 0.5% for this. Apple's offerings may have been good when the alternative was software sold on physical CD's in a store, but compared to the alternatives today there is no way 30% is by any means fair or reasonable. The 30% commission is essentially monopoly rents. 1. https://stripe.com/billing

Looks like its a bit more complicated than that according to the webpage. Stripe Payments [1]: 2.9% + $0.30 Stripe Billing [2]: 0.5% Stripe Invoicing [3]: 0.4% [1] https://stripe.com/pricing [2] https://stripe.com/billing/pricing [3] https://stripe.com/invoicing/pricing

You don't need both Billing and Invoicing. Invoicing is for one-time payments (typically after a service has been delivered), and Billing is for recurring payments.

All in all, we're looking at $0.30 + 3.4% (or 3.3%). This is clearly lower than 30%, except for very inexpensive apps (~$1.29 or less).

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

#463

Post by sunshinerag » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:10 PM UTC

mdoms wrote: post #391

Joeri wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I try to imagine what the app store rules would look like if apple had to abide by those same rules for all of their own apps. I imagine the rules would be much more lenient, app review a lot less error prone, and developers would be chafed far less by those golden handcuffs. Pretty sure apple’s developer documentation would still be bad though.

I agree, Apple should be broken up.

or the users who don't like it can jump ship. really nothing holding you back.

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

#464

Post by bostik » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:12 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #444

bostik wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% was highway robbery from the start. Pure and simple. It was merely a less awful deal than most other indie commission models, with sites like Kongregate and their ilk demanding >80%. Against that kind of flaying and skinning, 30% was an improvement! I've said it before. A very good agent, who actually works for their client and arranges them with repeat lucrative contracts, gets 15%. App stores, as gatekeepers to…

>30% was highway robbery from the start. That was not at all obvious to anyone in 2008. It's a pretty typical margin from the console industry, which was the main point of reference at the time. Apple spent several billion building the App Store infrastructure, the SDK and setting up the review and payments system and it took years for App Store revenue to catch up with the sunk investment and expenses. Also practica…

> It's a pretty typical margin from the console industry, which was the main point of reference at the time.

It may have been the closest equivalent but it doesn't make it any less extortionate.

If your neighbour's wife only ever goes out wearing sunglasses to hide her two black eyes, it doesn't give you the right to start beating yours. Even if it is less awful than what the human trafficker living down the road does.

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

#465

Post by jandrese » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

grishka wrote: post #388

ComputerGuru wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mac App Store came after there was a thriving ecosystem for Mac apps online/organically and without a middle man, and it provided close to zero value for developers on top of that. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.

I believe there are many iOS apps that have never seen the light of day simply because it wasn't at all possible to make them compliant with the "review guidelines".

There are entire categories of apps that aren't allowed by the rules (although you do occasionally find some examples in the store somehow). Emulators that can run ROM files are a good example. You won't find MAME in the app store except occasionally when someone at AppleHQ makes a mistake. Even then it quickly disappears.

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

#466

Post by jacobr1 » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

jonny_eh wrote: post #431

ezekg wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are tightly related. Russia just issued a similar warning concerning iOS app distribution.

I don't see how they're related at all, at least beyond them being about the App Store.

While they aren't _necessarily_ coupled, the bundling of an app-store and cloud services such as payments, notifications, and more, along with vetting (for security issues) does seem of value. One can certainly imagine third-party app stores including similar requires to apple. I can imagine a Yandex store, Tencent store, that both require you to use their payment platform if you want to host an app in their store. In fact, being integrated into a cloud-service-vendor's ecosystem might a reason to chose a particular store in the same way the Play and Apple are part of the decision today.

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

#467

Post by jandrese » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

barredo wrote: post #352

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…

> The Mac App Store gives a hint at what would happen if there was any choice. There's a choice of app store in Android and almost nobody uses Amazon App Store, F-Droid, Samsung App Store and so on. It's great that they can exist, but I don't think the Mac App Store (which has been neglected since day 1) offers any guidance. People mostly use what they know or are giving by default. In desktop, be it Windows, Linux o…

The Amazon store used to have a killer feature where they gave away "bullshit excised" versions of apps (the "Actually Free" program), but sadly that has been discontinued and now the Amazon Store is a completely pointless cut down version of the Play Store.

It's a shame because the old Fire tablets were pretty good for kids, but now the malignant ad and micropayment cancer has returned so it's no good anymore.

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

#468

Post by wdb » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

vbezhenar wrote: post #401

wdb wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if it makes it easy to cancel a subscription or get a refund. Sure. And yes, if I don't need to use Paypal I am happy to pay a 15-30% premium. I am worried that using other payment systems make it much harder to achieve that.

Last time I checked, Paypal has dedicated page to all your subscriptions where you can just cancel them.

It's a horrible company that without reason keeps your money hostage. I still struggling to get my money back because you can't talk to a human

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

#469

Post by simonh » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

bostik wrote: post #464

simonh wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>30% was highway robbery from the start. That was not at all obvious to anyone in 2008. It's a pretty typical margin from the console industry, which was the main point of reference at the time. Apple spent several billion building the App Store infrastructure, the SDK and setting up the review and payments system and it took years for App Store revenue to catch up with the sunk investment and expenses. Also practica…

> It's a pretty typical margin from the console industry, which was the main point of reference at the time. It may have been the closest equivalent but it doesn't make it any less extortionate. If your neighbour's wife only ever goes out wearing sunglasses to hide her two black eyes, it doesn't give you the right to start beating yours. Even if it is less awful than what the human trafficker living down the road doe…

I just don't even.

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

#470

Post by jandrese » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

mikehearn wrote: post #404

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…

> Apple made these rules when they were not a monopoly by any definition

Didn't Apple have the only app store for iOS devices at that point? For that matter the competing app stores of the time (for Symbian devices) were dreadful and all of them are long gone.