Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

601–610 of 627 posts

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

#601

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.

> 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. Perhaps the iOS and Android app stores are also middle men that provide close to zero value but forced themselves onto mobile phones.

App stores provide tremendous value to the apps in top-10 charts.

Not so much for the rest of the world, though.

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

#602
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you run 1p and 3p code in the same environment? That’s frequently the challenge mobile operators run into - the OS needs privileged access to location services (eg 911) that it can’t grant untrusted code.

OP isn't saying the OS goes through the same review processes, but (some) 1p apps do. For example, Apple Music should not have privileged access to location services - it should be using the exact same location APIs and permissions as 3p apps.

All Apple apps go through review & many have the same requirements/restrictions as 3p apps. I read OPs statement more forcefully than you may have:

> Every app delivered on this store must go through the same review process whether it's internally built or not

Believe it or not, but internal Apps go through an even more stringent review as they have Apple branding. The exception is they're allowed various privileges that wouldn't be appropriate for 3p apps (security or even that a framework isn't quite ready for prime time & needs some bake time with internal users for whom back compat isn't a concern).

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

#603
You should be able to pay however you want- if it's easiest for developers to accept payment via Apple and its's easiest for users to pay developers via Apple then so be it. That would mean that Apple provides a valuable service that nobody else can. Using lock-in and walled garden as a strategy to make up for lack of innovation is a no-go. If they were truly innovative in this space then they wouldn't be afraid.

You should also be able to install any app-store that you want and regulators should force Apple and others to host competitor app stores in their own app store.

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

#604

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…

When the App Store launched was it automatically rolled out in an update and pre-installed in new phones?

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

#605

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…

It seems to me that you're thinking of "market abuse" in terms of intent. But it's not really about, it's about what the practical impact is. The test is "is this significantly impacting users in a negative way". If that sounds like a subjective judgement call, then that's because it is. Anti-competition laws are basically an escape hatch that allow governments to intervene at their discretion when markets fail. So t…

As an apple customer, what you call abuse, I call a feature in this context.

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

#606
post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've expressed anti-competitive behavior from the beginning, but it's advanced over time. It's the confluence of factors that makes it particularly bad in Apple's case. You can't chance the software (OS) on the device. You can't run iOS on a different set of hardware. You can't run any store but the App Store on iOS. You can't deliver software to customers without using the App Store (or jumping through hoops for…

>You can't chance the software (OS) on the device. You can't run iOS on a different set of hardware. There is no reason why Apple should have to support any of that. They design and build the product, and they decide what features it has. The vendors don't provide support for running an alternate OS on Symbian phons, or the Gameboy, or an XBOX, or your car's infotainment system. You either like the features the produ…

> There is no reason why Apple should have to support any of that.

No one's asking them to support it, but there's a large difference between not supporting and actively thwarting.

> How exactly? There was and is nothing to stop a competitor bringing out an alternate platform

The answer is in your own phrasing. You talk about platforms. Apple has so restricted their products that the only way to compete is to build a whole platform. You can't build an app store, there's nothing to run it on. You can't build hardware to compete with Apple, iOS won't run on it, you can't replace the OS because the hardware requires signed code. The only place to compete without bringing a whole platform is Android. If Android didn't exist, there would be zero question as to whether Apple is a monopoly based on their actions, and I don't think that the fact that there's one other provider necessarily absolves them of the responsibilities for their actions. The anticompetitive behavior underneath is the same regardless.

> The thing is what Apple, and Google did is very, very hard. It takes massive investment and very sophisticated technology.

Not nearly as hard as you make out. The market is so lucrative that it makes sense for investors to throw some billions at a capable competitor and eke out some percentage of the market, but they don't. They don't because everyone is so locked into their ecosystems that any competition is at a real disadvantage. That's why the behavior is anticompetitive. It prevents competitors from entering the market to provide choice. A duopoly is obviously not enough if there's no competition at all in some areas.

> It's just rational customers acting in their own interests to prefer one product over another.

Is it? What if a separate app store existed that guaranteed that if the app existed on multiple platforms, your purchase was good for all platforms? How many more people might feel free to switch platforms and try new things if they knew they could get most or even all their purchases moved with them?

I generally buy Samsung phones, ranging from top of the line to budget models over time. There's a Samsung app store. I've never once been inclined to use it when the Google play store exists and means if I get a non Samsung phone that my purchases are still good. If there was an app store that worked on iOS and Android, I'd likely us that instead. That would be one more barrier preventing me from getting an iPhone at some point if I thought it was worth the switch. The same goes the other direction.

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

#607
post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that you're thinking of "market abuse" in terms of intent. But it's not really about, it's about what the practical impact is. The test is "is this significantly impacting users in a negative way". If that sounds like a subjective judgement call, then that's because it is. Anti-competition laws are basically an escape hatch that allow governments to intervene at their discretion when markets fail. So t…

As an apple customer, what you call abuse, I call a feature in this context.

How is not allowing any 3rd party payment processors a feature may I ask?

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

#608
post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an apple customer, what you call abuse, I call a feature in this context.

How is not allowing any 3rd party payment processors a feature may I ask?

Safety and trust. I know in app purchases are handled through apple and if I start a subscription, I know how to easily cancel it. I don't need to worry about my payment information being stolen or held hostage behind a convoluted cancellation process.

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

#609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than just one-time IAP, though. I'm generally "whatever" on what payment processor people use, but one of the things that does concern me is subscription management. To me there is a lot of value to having a central place where all my subscriptions are and where they can be canceled easily, even if I don't have the app installed anymore. YOLOing something with Stripe doesn't give me that without a bunch of…

so as an end user I have to pay 30% more because YOU want that convenience? sorry, but you should be the one paying for that convenience.

[deleted]

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

#610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is not allowing any 3rd party payment processors a feature may I ask?

Safety and trust. I know in app purchases are handled through apple and if I start a subscription, I know how to easily cancel it. I don't need to worry about my payment information being stolen or held hostage behind a convoluted cancellation process.

> convoluted cancellation process

probably the most important thing here. One press in the settings app vs calling some retention person that tries to keep you paying or something that can only be cancelled via fax or carrier pidgeon

Post reply on HN