43 ms·

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

• 57844743385 5y ago
  The breaking of control of these companies has to go much further. Businesses build on the platform and can be killed in an instant by some arbitrary automated decision to kick the developer off the platform with no recourse. That’s completely unacceptable. Also, they must be made to pay tax. Why do you and I pay for military education, government services education etc but they pay zero? These big companies are thief kingdoms and parasites on society. Apple and google have had it good for too long. Something must be done.
• chrisshroba 5y ago
  Is an “up to 3%” fine enough to make these companies relinquish their 30% Apple/Google tax?
  • Tomte 5y ago
    Apple sells expensive phones, tablets and computers. 3% of South Korean revenue (all revenue, not just app store fees) should be massive.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• stirlo 5y ago
  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
  • laurent92 5y ago
    What regulators should mostly do is provide rulings in 2 weeks. Monopoly lawsuits have been threatening for 5 years and are still in limbo, our entire West is in threadlock: Slow justice, slow regulators, slow administrations, fast market grabs…
    • pyrale 5y ago
      Due process doesn't fit in 2 weeks, and I don't believe the issue with monopoly law not being enforced is related to the speed of justice.
    • ethbr0 5y ago
      Slow justice and slow regulation are a feature, not a bug. Premature either is more dangerous than delayed action. In hindsight, the correct time for regulation was probably 2008 for Google (DoubleClick purchase and Android shipping with "Android Market") and Apple (App Store). It should have been a clear line from hardware control -> distribution control. And if regulators hadn't seen it, then Congress should have drawn it for them in updated laws. Unfortunately, the world had a bit more going on that year.
      • beambot 5y ago
        Android was effectively launched in 2008, per Wikipedia: "It was unveiled in November 2007, with the first commercial Android device, the HTC Dream, being launched in September 2008." In this case, I'm not sure how to square new innovation (smart phones first launching in 2008) with slow regulation.
      • stonemetal12 5y ago
        No, the spec doc lists "Speedy trials" as a requirement. Slow justice is no justice.
  • alisonkisk 5y ago
    What are you talking about? They pay sales tax based on revenue, and they provide a lot more than facilitate payments.
  • mrtksn 5y ago
    It's going to be a hell for the users and the smaller developers. Devs will have to support multiple platforms, different API and options. Also different legal arrangements would be needed as each country has different laws and processes. Remember the agreements and forms we fill for different countries when we want to sell paid apps/features on App Store? I also can't wait to pay account fees for many app stores and modify my apps to fit specific app store rules. The %30 cut, for me covers this boring complexity. I'm sceptical that the potentially lower commissions will offset the added development and administrative costs. As for the users, people will start forgetting where they paid what. They will get frustrated, blame devs etc. It would become tiresome and many will be turned off the moment a payment is requested simply because they don't want to go through the same stuff multiple times. I despise platform fragmentations. Instead of telling companies what they must do, I think the regulators should intervene for market fairness, i.e. Apple&Google getting heavily fined when enforce different rules on different developers differently or compel them to accept an app in the App Store if they can't clearly indicate which rule is being broken. I would like to remind you all the troubles we need to go through to support just platforms: AppStore and Play Store. I am NOT looking forward to start paying fees and do development/Marketing work/Adjustments for Epic, Microsoft, Oracle, T-Mobile, Vodafone etc. just to reach the exact same users as of today. Edit: I, as a developer, don't want to deal with multiple platforms and their management and fees. Please tell me if you are mobile developer or is your opinion ideological. The Arguments so far look like coming from people who have no real experience with getting an app into the AppStore. How do you plan to sell Apps in the UK, France, Turkey, charge VAT and pay it to the respective governments for example. How do you plan to file your export paperwork in the US? How do you plan to deal with compliance? Seriously, are there any indie developers here with hands on experience? How do you handle international trade and taxation outside of platforms like AppleStore?
    • keithnz 5y ago
      I saw nothing saying you can't still use them.
      • mrtksn 5y ago
        Sure, you can do dev work for Windows Phone Store. That doesn't mean that it's as rewarding as doing work for Apple AppStore. The fragmentation will not open the floodgate for all the users out there who were holding off because they didn't want to use App Store or Play Store. It's going to be the exact same userbase but there will be more gatekeepers to deal with.
  • lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > 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 Like a donation? Or are these companies evading tax laws?
    • stirlo 5y ago
      I think we can all agree that transfer pricing and the Double Irish Dutch sandwich were not intended to be used in the way they have been by modern multinationals.
      • lotsofpulp 5y ago
        What is stopping the governments from changing the laws to make it illegal? I do not understand the concept of expecting an entity to pay taxes they are not liable for paying.
        • xdennis 5y ago
          These companies paying them not to.
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
          • jtbayly 5y ago
            So... they are paying money to the government that they aren't required to?
            • foepys 5y ago
              The problem is the EU's process which requires all countries to vote unanimous on this. Ireland is vetoing any change to keep being allowed to set their own tax rates and underbid anybody else while still keeping access to the EU market. In that regard The Netherlands aren't any better by the way.
            • 5y ago
  • germandiago 5y ago
    one of the first regulations that make sense: more free market. As long as there are regulators with a lot of power there will be incentive to corruption anyway. I like free competition. Something that Google and Apple were trying to prevent. But putting all in the hands of an ever-increasing state is not the way to go either. Though I gree with the decision.
    • vincnetas 5y ago
      So when you have Apple and Google (two gorillas) how do you imagine "free competition" happening without state intervention?
    • oblio 5y ago
      1. Network effects. 2. Information asymmetry. 3. Barriers to entry. Purely free markets only apply to toiler paper rolls, and not even that.
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > one of the first regulations that make sense: more free market State regulations dictating conditions to market participants cannot make something more “free market”. They can favor more competition by artificially limiting the advantage of the most successful competitors, but that's not “free market”, which is the absence of market distortion by state regulation, not the presence of only those market distortions that you prefer. > I like free competition. No, clearly, you like competition with the leaders artificially handicapped by the State, not free competition. Which may be a valid preference, but don't pretend its a free market with free competition.
      • MatekCopatek 5y ago
        Well, depends on your definition of free market. Wiki says: > In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities. So while your remark about state regulations isn't wrong, the (grand)parent comment is clearly talking about the second part of this definition. Whose freedom is the "free" bit about? Is it about Apple being free to do whatever they want with their platform or is it about me being free to buy iPhone apps from anyone?
  • dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
    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 (TestFlight, App Store, etc) is pretty neat. I’ve integrated my app with Apple for iOS and then had to do it all over again with Braintree of web. You might say that entire exercise speaks to the inanity of the App Store monopoly, but the experience illustrated for me how much more Apple provides than just mere payment processing. You won’t find the words “chargeback” or “dispute” in Apple’s docs, because they take care of all that for you. With Apple, you don’t have to program UIs for changing subscription tiers or viewing transaction histories. And many other things. Is it worth 30%? No. 15%? I don’t think so. Should I have to maintain and juggle different integrations for every app store? Definitely not. But Apple’s offering is decent and comprehensive. It would be made much better if it wasn’t a racket that held developers hostage. Think App Store competing with Play Store on Android devices. And vice versa. Now that would be cool! I really hope similar legislation is passed in the United States and EU.
    • mafuy 5y ago
      I agree that Apple's system adds a lot of value. And that's why I believe it can and should compete with other systems. There should be no problem with informing users about other payment options both in- and outside of an app. But Apple chose to forbid this. And that's not ok.
    • ehsankia 5y ago
      Sure but the point is that developers should have the option of rolling out their own solution if they don't need all the features Apple provides or agree with the fee. This in turn creates competition which may reduce rates all around.
      • judge2020 5y ago
        The common argument against that is that the 30% also goes to actually developing iOS - you could envision the margin Apple makes on every iPhone as one that goes towards the R&D costs of developing the hardware, while the post-sale revenue goes towards the post-sale costs of developing iOS (and all the updates they test/push out for 5+ years after the device is released).
  • amelius 5y ago
    > This is exactly how regulators should respond to the market abuse of these technology monopolies. A somewhat faster response would have been nice though.
  • muh_gradle 5y ago
    Agreed. Hopefully we see a growing trend on this.
• ptspts 5y ago
  A possible outcome of this regulation: all Android and iOS payments get disabled in South Korea, paid apps become unavailable.
  • amelius 5y ago
    Another possible outcome: apps with external payment methods will end up at the bottom of the search rankings.
    • ryandrake 5y ago
      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?"
  • tjpnz 5y ago
    Such a move might embolden lawmakers in jurisdictions already considering similar laws.
  • tester34 5y ago
    uh, so what? I struggle to understand acting as if those things were some incredibly important stuff just like water, internet, computers, or something that nobody would risk losing e.g via standing to fight against its vendor Maybe losing those will result in creating new, more open and less vendor locking alternatives
  • krageon 5y ago
    Any action may have a hundred different potential results. Simply calling out one of them (devoid of any context, I might add) is not useful conversation.
  • realusername 5y ago
    That would be complete suicide by Apple & Google though...
• mtgx 5y ago
  And they would've gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids! Seriously, though, I can't believe both Apple and Google thought they'd get away with this. Of course it makes zero sense from a consumer point of view to only allow one payment system.
• Hamuko 5y ago
  How long do we have to wait for all those disaster scenarios Apple and Google have been promising us to become true? I want to mark a date on my calendar.
  • simondotau 5y ago
    At a glance, this law doesn't necessarily trigger any of the disaster scenarios. This doesn't mandate any changes to the security model and Apple could still adjust their terms to require a revenue share even if they aren't the ones executing the transaction—as a license fee for use of their software libraries.
• illuminated 5y ago
  I wonder if this would lead to an increased number of company formations in S. Korea. My first impulsive reaction was to search about their local formation and tax laws.
  • Hamuko 5y ago
    I imagine that this would only apply to users in South Korea.
    • illuminated 5y ago
      The text mentions developers, not just users... I assume (by understanding the published text) they'd (Korean officials) want to target any users of apps published by Korean developers, no matter the location.
      • simondotau 5y ago
        Korean law cannot reach into sales performed in another country—at least not without some fairly tenuous moves. Apple's phone market share in South Korea is a moderately healthy 22% given the presence of strong domestic and regional brands, but I've no doubt Apple would sooner give up on South Korea altogether than have a weird law tying their hands globally.
        • zaarn 5y ago
          They can't but the korean developer has a relationship with Google or Apple that the government can reach. If Google forbade a korean dev from making an international app with external payment provider, then SK could very much punish Google SK for it. Doesn't matter if the target users are in Europe. Read the GDPR, same principle.
          • minhazm 5y ago
            > Doesn't matter if the target users are in Europe. Read the GDPR, same principle. Actually this is not true. It only applies to companies that are providing services to people physically in the EU. If you're an EU citizen but you're in America, it does not apply. > When the regulation does not apply. Your company is service provider based outside the EU. It provides services to customers outside the EU. Its clients can use its services when they travel to other countries, including within the EU. Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo... https://www.dyspatch.io/blog/gdpr-location-or-citizenship/ https://www.dyspatch.io/blog/gdpr-location-or-citizenship/
• bubblethink 5y ago
  Is there a better source and the text of the law ? Payment systems are a proxy for the fee since there isn't an explicit publishing fee. It would be quite straightforward for both Apple and Google to charge a publishing fee, which may end up close to the current rent. The larger issue is that there aren't alternative app stores. Apple doesn't allow them at all, and Google severely restricts them at the technical and business level.
  • darkerside 5y ago
    A publishing fee would also be regressive compared to the payment tax. Right now, people don't pay until they are successful, at which point they may pay a LOT. But it keeps the app marketplace much more of a free marketplace.
    • r3trohack3r 5y ago
      It’s not exactly a publishing fee, but today you have to pay Apple $99/year to distribute software into Apple’s ecosystem; otherwise they’ll hide your application behind a non-obvious ctrl+click+run flow. To my knowledge, this fee is collected regardless of your distribution channel. I wouldn’t call $99/year “not paying.”
      • simondotau 5y ago
        The $99/year gives you additional developer tools and access to the App Store storefront. It's up to Apple what constitutes a sufficient license fee for the commercial use of Apple's proprietary software libraries. Apple's libraries are licensed to developers under whatever license Apple chooses. They could require a certain revenue share regardless of which payment gateway is used. Heck, they could license it under the GPL and require all developers who build programs against their libraries to release their source code. It's their code, it's up to them. Similarly, Epic Games can decide when developers might have to pay Epic for software they distribute with Unreal Engine. Whether it's a flat fee, a revenue share, a profit share, if there are discounts or incentives—all of that is entirely for Epic to decide.
• Dah00n 5y ago
  When the EU does the same things will turn for real.
  • weddpros 5y ago
    and they can, because there's not a single EU company with an app store to harm. App stores are designed for profit, not simply for our convenience. Imagine a government forcing AirBnb to let people pay hand to hand to the owner of the apartment. It's the same issue, right?
    • perryizgr8 5y ago
      No it is not the same issue. Airbnb doesn't have a say if I make arrangements of my own with the host. We lose the benefits and security provided by airbnb if we think that airbnb's cut is unjustified. I only wish we (users and devs) could do that on Ios.
      • weddpros 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure the "arrangements" you're talking about are against their TOS, except if they happen after your stay booked on AirBnB...
        • perryizgr8 5y ago
          That's ok. Airbnb is free not to do business with me. But I am free to do whatever I want with my property as owner. That is not the case when dealing with Apple. They block usage of my own hardware.
      • commoner 5y ago
        Actually, Airbnb does have strict anti-steering rules just like Apple and Google do. Several lines from their off-platform policy: > In order to protect our community and business, the following behaviors are prohibited: > Taking people off of the Airbnb platform for new, partial, or future bookings > Contacting potential guests prior to booking on Airbnb to move the booking off of Airbnb (ex: offering discounts to book off of Airbnb) > Asking guests for contact information prior to booking; all guest communications prior to booking must be on Airbnb > Asking for or using guests’ contact information to settle additional payments outside of Airbnb’s platform; all payments related to a guest’s stay, including extensions of a stay (and besides exceptions identified below), must go through Airbnb (ex: using the Resolution Center) https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2799/airbnbs-offplatform-policy https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2799/airbnbs-offplatform... These rules are just as anti-competitive as the anti-steering rules in the Apple and Google app stores, and entrench Airbnb's market position.
• zibzab 5y ago
  Nowhere near as bad as the Apple vs Samsung. IIRC, one guy in the jury had lost his business in a previous court fight with Samsung. How was that not discovered during the jury selection process?? Edit: this was not a popular comment..
• stale2002 5y ago
  So, everything else that has happened up to now, could be described as minor losses, for Apple and Google. This is not such a case though. This is a major loss for them. For all the hacker new commenters, who have been commenting on this topic, for the year that the drama has been going on, and were convinced that Apple and Google were going to win this fight.... well you need to re-evaluate what made you think that. Because, the writing has been on the wall, for quite a while now, for their iron grip on their app store payments. If it wasn't going to be the epic lawsuit, it was going to be a different lawsuit in the US, or another country. Or if all that didn't work, it was going to be laws such as this, that blow the doors wide open, and spell doom for these closed systems.
  • q-rews 5y ago
    I agree but I'm curious about how it will play out in practice. Apple charges $99/year just to publish apps on the store and then takes 30% of the payments. If forced, will they leave just the $99 payment or will they change it to, say, "pay more if you want your payment processor" or "you can use your payment processor but you still owe us 15%"? Many platforms require fees to sell on them. eBay for example has asked for a percentage for years, even if it did not handle payments at all. Are Apple and Google going to be forced to offer the service (the App Store) for free because of their duopoly?
    • Vespasian 5y ago
      They wouldn't be forced to offer their services for free. However laws can and do regulate what constitutes a "fair" price for a certain service. In some countries the quasi/effective/total monopoly ISP is forced to rent their last mile phone cables to competitors for a regulated price. A similar thing could happen to Apple and Google with a government agency deciding what they are allowed to charge for their services of providing the app store and the OS. Or they could be forced to allow competing app stores with the same privileges as their own (beyond what is "technically" possible on Android). Either way it looks like they'll loose their iron grip over on customers phones (in some countries at least). That's the price of effectively monopolizing a market and getting very rich doing it.
  • 5y ago
• speg 5y ago
  I really hope they implement this somehow that allows the same processes to exist. e.g., manage all subscriptions from one location, cancel subscriptions without losing time remaining (hello Creative Cloud!), and the entire parental control process.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • wilde 5y ago
    Managing all subscriptions from one location is great, but Apple already exempts themselves from cancelling subscriptions without losing time remaining. I expect most of these to go away as processors compete for app business.
    • djrogers 5y ago
      > Apple already exempts themselves from cancelling subscriptions without losing time remaining. That hasn’t been my experience - do you have a cite for that?
      • wilde 5y ago
        Ah, it looks like it only applied to the free trial of Apple Arcade. https://ios.gadgethacks.com/news/psa-dont-cancel-your-apple-arcade-free-trial-until-last-possible-second-0206253/ https://ios.gadgethacks.com/news/psa-dont-cancel-your-apple-...
    • speg 5y ago
      I just checked my Music and Fitness+ subscriptions and they both say “If you cancel now, you can still access your subscription until X.”
• dalbasal 5y ago
  The concessions Apple & Google made to "stave off regulation" are informative in themselves: It also agreed to let developers inform their users about payment options outside the App Store, using the email addresses that users gave them. Google said that it would only take 15 percent of developers' first million dollars instead of 30 percent. Combined with "competition for monopoly" elements like paying Telcoms not to develop their own app stores or support 3rd party ones, the whole thing stinks to high heavens. Once upon a time, "net neutrality" had wide support, and there was understanding that it required constant vigilance. Google, ironically, was a big defender of net neutrality... even as they established their own dam immediately downstream of ISPs.
  • jaywalk 5y ago
    Net Neutrality just meant that Google got to shovel YouTube streams onto ISP networks without having to pay. Let's not pretend there were ever any noble intentions behind it.
    • ZoomerCretin 5y ago
      You think it’s okay for ISPs to double dip on charging their customers for access and then charging their customers’ most popular services (who are frequently competitors of the ISPs) for the privilege of accessing their customers? Why should any ISP think they can charge the source of my bits when I am already paying them for the bandwidth? https://www.theversed.com/2754/riot-games-seek-court-justice-after-internet-provider-deliberately-causes-in-game-lag/#.IfBauVI0Ad https://www.theversed.com/2754/riot-games-seek-court-justice... Net Neutrality is not just about “shoveling YouTube streams without having to pay.” In one case, an ISP was deliberately dropping packets for a popular online game (which, if you didn’t know, online games are known for requiring very little bandwidth), and extorting the game developer with the loss of ISP’s customers if they did not pay up. ISPs are monopoly-abusing extortionists. They deserve every bit of ire they receive.
      • ysavir 5y ago
        I think the post you're responding to is saying that Google's incentives for supporting net neutrality were self-serving, not noble. They weren't saying that ISP behavior was fine.
• mark_l_watson 5y ago
  A good regulatory trend. This is what governments are supposed to do to support what I would call “safe and efficient capitalism.” That said, Apple did cut in half the fee for almost all developers and I installed Netflix, HBO, Prime, and Hulu apps that work fine with my existing streaming media plans that are direct to the providers. I forget, did Google also recently reduce developer fees? It may be as simple as both companies seeing the writing in the wall and are trying to get in front of this.
  • dannyw 5y ago
    Apple only gives those exception for "Reader" apps. They'll still ban you if you tried to do a Hey (from Basecamp).
• tacker2000 5y ago
  The dominoes have been in place for a while, now they are slowly beginning to fall…
• munhitsu 5y ago
  In other words South Korea is asking for 3% digital tax. This seems actually pretty low.
• swiley 5y ago
  It’s not about the fees, it’s about Apple dictating what people do with the phones after they’re sold.
  • cm2187 5y ago
    Unless I misread the article, it doesn't seem to break the monopoly on app stores, just on payments. I actually asked the question on another thread if anyone knows.
• stevespang 5y ago
  Step in the right direction which US politicians fail to do, since they are all paid off by the usual suspects . . . .
• cm2187 5y ago
  Does it merely prevent monopoly on the payment or does Apple still have full discretion on who is allowed to make an app available to your smartphone?
• MDWolinski 5y ago
  I'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 about this whole thing. The iPhone (or whatever phone you want) is the equivalent of a Walmart store. If you want your product to be sold in Walmart, you have to send it to their distribution center (ie App Store) and Walmart will handle sending that product out, etc. Walmart will handle the credit card transactions, etc and pay you the negotiated rate for your product (Yes, odds are Walmart buys your product first, then sells it, but with credit lines, etc it's almost the same thing). Does Walmart allow you to go in, put your product in the store and sit there with a square device and sell your stuff? Amazon is more analogous of physical to app in the sense that Amazon is the transaction point but may or may not actually maintain control of the product. So what's the end game? I suspect if Apple/Google has to allow developers to collect their own fees, Apple will start charging paid apps to be in the App store. They will continue to allow free apps to be shown, but if you want to charge for your App either one time or subscription, you'll have to pay an upfront fee to be listed. And that charge may depend on the number of downloads.
  • metalliqaz 5y ago
    I don't have to go into a Walmart if I want to shop.
  • ToruiDev 5y ago
    But at least for apple you already pay a 100$/year fee for them to distribute your apps.
    • MDWolinski 5y ago
      I'm sure Apple will say that fee is to help pay for the development of the developer tools.
      • 5y ago
• alberth 5y ago
  I wonder if Samsung (HQ in Korea) had influence on this requirement. EDIT: why the downvotes? If you don’t think Samsung had influence, wouldn’t it be more productive to reply and say so - that way there can be a healthy dialogue on the topic.
  • joecool1029 5y ago
    Oh, I absolutely think they had influence. LG already pulled out of making Android phones as the hardware has become a loss leader, no money in it for them. Samsung at least had the benefit of almost totally complete vertical integration. You would have to be a fool to think Samsung doesn't want a cut of app sales on their devices and as the most powerful company in Korea with large influence over government, they'll get their way. This was never about developers and it isn't a watershed moment to be excited about (unless I guess you live in Korea).
  • jollybean 5y ago
    You are being downvoted because you went against the populist grain of the thread, that's it. Accept that a lot of HN voting is just 'sided' and if you're on the wrong side of the flow ... that's it. Just take a moment to reflect on your comments, if they are reasonable and you're getting downvoted, and nobody is bothering to respond, it's probably populism. It it was it is, it's too bad, but don't fret about it.
• pcr910303 5y ago
  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, and most of the home-grown web-based payment systems have… like super shitty UX that require (on the desktop) native plugins running a server on some bespoke port. It did come a long way since from when we were the country that required IE6 for web banking, but the UX is still not really there. I’m hoping that Apple will provide APIs for showing payment screens and Apple will still control the ability to show all subscriptions, cancel them in one single place, etc… but I don’t think Apple will ever do that. Unfortunate…
  • ricardobeat 5y ago
    Apple Pay is already available as an API, you can even use it on the web. Indeed would be nice to centralize all subscriptions, we have yet to see how they would interface with 3rd party payment options. But on the whole this should be a win - if anything, those competitors will have a strong incentive to improve their UX.
    • Aldo_MX 5y ago
      Why not create a credit card startup that makes it easier to cancel subscriptions instead of being the devil's advocate?
  • rkangel 5y ago
    > 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 think that's right. The next step would be for a large enough market to have a similar law, and then they'll just have that as their policy globally. That probably means EU or US.
    • PontifexMinimus 5y ago
• freakynit 5y ago
  Allow? That should be the norm. It should be "South Korea will stop Apple and Google in restricting competing payments".
• oenetan 5y ago
  https://archive.is/GkoA8 https://archive.is/GkoA8
• whimsicalism 5y ago
  Excellent. I am in favor of governmental intervention to push open standards, inter-operability, and public options for monopolistic platforms (not social media, but, for instance, Zelle or Venmo). Next do iMessage.
• stephc_int13 5y ago
  Very good. South Korea is maybe less corrupt than most EU countries after all...
  • andai 5y ago
    Maybe, or perhaps the government was "persuaded" by Korean payment companies? Still, sounds like a net win.
    • stephc_int13 5y ago
      Yes, Samsung or some other giant probably played a role there. But this is long overdue, Apple and Google should have never been allowed to take that much power in the first place.
  • fleaaaa 5y ago
    Given the history of payment process in SK, I doubt it.. it's just other side of messed up system, likely worse. But this is definitely a step up I guess.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • NonEUCitizen 5y ago
    The South Korea government has imprisoned two of its former presidents for corruption. It is even brave enough to jail Samsung's leader (though let him out recently after 18 months in jail). For me, above proves South Korea is less corrupt and far better governed than most EU countries and USA.
• ewg4345h43 5y ago
  Great news! Every country should do the same! and each OS should also allow external app stores.
• sebyx07 5y ago
  Awesome news, but let's wait and see how this will turn out.
• superasn 5y ago
  I hope India too follows suit. Our government is notorious for it's heavy handed laws on tech startups (read twitter, paypal, chinese apps, etc) maybe this time it could be actually be for some good.
  • truth_ 5y ago
    Unlikely. Indian market is the furthest thing possible from a free market. With Google's immense investments in Jio, the company of Ambani, it is very unlikely. Ambani is in entente with Modi, the Prime Minister.
• tyingq 5y ago
  I'm wonder what method Apple and Google will use to comply. Current GPS location? Market where the phone was sold? Cellular carrer? Something else?
• 404mm 5y ago
  Unpopular opinion: I like it the way it is now, from end user’s perspective. I don’t want to share my payment info with apps. I like all being in one place and handled by Apple. I’d be even ok eating up the difference, if it meant it stays the same.
  • stephc_int13 5y ago
    You'll always have that option available. End users won't lose anything in the worst case.
• jollybean 5y ago
  First Domino Drops. Judges in some countries can reference rulings from other jurisdictions. Politicians are surely taking note.
• jollybean 5y ago
  Good ruling, however, I think it's fair that if the app is listed in a store, they can require that in-app payments are via the store. For downloads from other sources, this doesn't have to be a requirement. I don't think G&A should be obligated to showcase products for which they don't receive the revenue as vendors would simply shift the payment inside the app. A bigger ruling would be to require Apple to allow downloads from other sources, a feature which exists on Android. I don't think the security argument really holds, moreover, people should be able to have the choice.
• JoshTko 5y ago
  Unsurprising that this is happening in South Korea first as there is a clear beneficiary that has strong government ties.
  • mromanuk 5y ago
    It’s only bad if this benefits Samsung, opening an App Store with high fees. Competition should lower Payment fees, now it’s a cartel or duopoly.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• cletus 5y ago
  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 own payment processing systems where the 30% is pure overhead (minus the CC fees). Small publishers actually get a lot of benefit for that 30% (IMHO). So what Apple/Google should've done is give larger publishers a volume discount. Of course this should force them into binding arbitration and otherwise challenging the discount should void that discount. Why? Because it changes the calculus for Epic, etc. Currently that is: Option 1: Keep paying 30% Option 2: Leave the app store Option 3: Challenge the 30% cut in court 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. But what if the options were: Option 1: Keep a volume discount and pay 10% Option 2: Leave Option 3: Challenge the cut and possibly end up paying 30% or leaving Now they have something to lose. More importantly, it takes the sting out of efforts to lobby regulators because now we're talking about the difference between 1-2% (CC fees at volume) and 10% not 30%. I stand by my position that end users don't actually want competing third-party app stores. That's just a usability nightmare. But backend payment processing is something else entirely and is the likely first step in breaking the stranglehold.
  • ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    The reason Apple and Google would never offer up a volume discount for large publishers without legal action is because it's 99% of the app store's revenue. Giving a discount to small developers cost them nothing, giving a discount to Epic Games and similar would cost them billions.
    • cletus 5y ago
      I think it's certainly heavily weighted to the big publishers but 99%? I'm not so sure. But you know what's expensive? Private lawsuits, government lawsuits, a court or legislature deciding the outcome, compliance with legislation, compliance with consent decrees, compliance with judgements, etc. The biggest issue is that third parties will end up deciding the outcome. You're almost always better off heading off government action by instituting the least bad solution for you. What if the outcome of governent action is completely independent third party app stores? Apple and Google certainly don't want that. I would argue that neither do end users actually. A vocal minority thinks they do but they're wrong. That could happen if the wheels of the US or EU regulators start turning against you.
• StreamBright 5y ago
  This has to happen in the EU too.
• astlouis44 5y ago
  Hopefully this starts a domino effect in other countries passing the same law. We have Epic to thank for this!
  • joecool1029 5y ago
    >We have Epic to thank for this! More like the Republic of Samsung and Samsung Pay.
• Despegar 5y ago
  People who believed the propaganda about "charging 30% for payment processing" are in for a surprise when they pay Stripe's fees but then realize they're still on the hook for Apple/Google's commission. It will just be collected in a less efficient way.
  • 015a 5y ago
    I was under the impression that the App Store was a value-addition for iPhone customers. Its a reason why people buy iPhones, after all! Apple's commission should be covered in operating system fees, which of course there are none, because its all rolled into the hardware, which of course costs $1400 with 200% margins. Well, ok, maybe that's an extreme take. Short of that, certainly, developers would possibly pay some kind of annual fee to gain publishing access to the store? Maybe a setup like this could work? Wait, (puts finger to ear) I'm getting some new information, it turns out... they already do this? Yes, as changes like this roll out in more countries, inevitably, their ability to collect commissions will get "weird". Its their own damn fault! Apple and Google were the ones who picked a rotten, cursed way to collect revenue. They'll need to figure it out; its their lunch. How long has apt, snap, npm, whatever, ran with zero revenue? Epic and Microsoft run stores at, what, 12%? Don't start with me about how "they're incumbents, they have to price lower"; yeah, they're pricing nearer to cost instead of using their monopoly market power to justify arbitrarily higher prices! Application distribution is not that hard. Its not that expensive. Its a fucking GET request on an object that can be easily CDN'd, with some light versioning on top; just think about how many package managers Linux has, then tell me Apple needs to make a billion bucks a year to justify keeping the ten people who maintain it around. Its a value-addition to the OS and for your users who paid $1400 for a new phone; not a line of business. Anyone who says differently is trying to sell you something (and Apple is definitely trying to sell you something).
• wdb 5y ago
  I am fine with them allowing other payment systems. As long its not OR OR so if apps start to avoid using the built-in payment solution of Apple and Google then I see it as a negative. I can't think of needing to use like Paypal to pay for in-app purchases or something for app X and use stripe for app Y and use iDEAL for app Z. In those cases its better to avoid the app and that's even ignoring app developers getting your payment details.
  • vbezhenar 5y ago
    Are you ready to pay 30% premium for using Apple payment system?
    • mrweasel 5y ago
      At this point: Yes, but only because I cannot imagine the alternatives being anything but worse. That's not to say that I don't think it would be interesting, and maybe it will be better in the long run. Personally I believe it will result in massive amounts of fraud. Multiple app stores are also going to be terrible, either for the developers or for the customers. Either you'll need five different app stores installed, because Facebook, EPIC, Google, Microsoft and others will be wanting their own store. Or developers need to push their apps to every bloody app store on the planet so they can reach all potential customers. So now you need to pay multiple developer fees to be in the different stores. Yes, 30% is a ripoff. Not allowing to charge for upgrades is developer hostile. The App Store is a mess of low budget apps and nonsense subscriptions, because Apple created a "race to the buttom" environment where developers can't actual make money. I'd rather see Apple fix their store, then governments forcing Apple to implement solutions that will even worse.
    • wdb 5y ago
      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.
      • vbezhenar 5y ago
• hosh 5y ago
  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.
  • hosh 5y ago
    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.
• endergen 5y ago
  I care way less about this than alternate stores have no or much less stringent app reviews
• DavideNL 5y ago
  Finally, hopefully the EU will follow soon and the break the oligopoly (or whatever it is.)
• formvoltron 5y ago
  We devs need to somehow contact the Korean authorities to thank them for this & to let them know that Apple's statement about "fewer opportunities for devs" is pure nonsense.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• diebeforei485 5y ago
  They've had their opportunity over the years to reduce their supracompetitive commission down to 20% or 15%. Instead they chose to dig deeper, but government can be heavy-handed. I hope more countries do this?
• jfoster 5y ago
  They 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 your app eligible as a recommendation. (organically) 5. Use Gapple payments. 6. Have your app appear in search. (guaranteed placement) 7. Have your app appear as a recommendation. (guaranteed placement) (and probably many others) I'm not sure how well that would go down with developers, but I view it as a more honest way for them to create a developer offering. If they want to then go ahead and bundle some of these and offer a discount for developers purchasing more of them, so be it, but unbundling allows developers to pick & choose the value they want provided.
  • swiley 5y ago
    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.)
    • raman162 5y ago
      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.
    • justapassenger 5y ago
      You want to explain to your grandma how to get the right repo so she can get WhatsApp?
      • noptd 5y ago
        Having to forward a link to family members every so often seems well worth it to me.
• techpression 5y ago
  I will assume this will end up just how banking regulation ends up, the banks makes the same amount of money (or more) and the loss from regulation is made up somewhere else (higher fees, worse interest rates, etc). Pay-per-download seems to be a very likely future for apps using external payment systems, free or not (which is only fair, you are after all leeching off the App stores in that scenario), charged by Apple/Google to the developer.
• dontblink 5y ago
  Would allowing for more App Stores fix this problem? It would allow developers to simply withhold their apps from, say, Apple's in favor of a one that has lower fees.
  • jjcon 5y ago
    I tend to agree, my current thinking is let gapple run the store however they want but make them allow for other app stores (that have first party access). Additionally prevent them from anticompetitive practices to disrupt the formation of other app ecosystems.
• exabrial 5y ago
  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.
• sharmin123 5y ago
  5 Things To Check Before Taking Divorce Decision Or Separate: https://www.hackerslist.co/5-things-to-check-before-taking-divorce-decision-or-separate/ https://www.hackerslist.co/5-things-to-check-before-taking-d...
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• alarz 5y ago
  > In a statement, Google defended its service fees, which it says “helps keep Android free,” Isn't Android an open source OS? Sounds like they're just whining to me.
• josephd79 5y ago
  And.. How does this effect me in the United States?
  • akmarinov 5y ago
    Well, A) not everything has to “effect” you, you’re not the center of Earth. B) switch your region to South Korea and bam - multiple AppStores while in the US
• jdavis703 5y ago
  I'll take the opinion that the "App Store tax" is better for the broader economy. Most people who aren't VCs can't get a piece of startups early on anymore. If I can invest in Google and Apple I get a bit of exposure to pre-IPO and private tech companies.
• billpg 5y ago
  "Huh. Must be a rule about usury and credit card interest." "Oh, Korean, as in Korea."
• makecheck 5y ago
  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 where Apple does itself no favors by even drawing attention to most of the apps on that store (and it gives the impression that “most” Mac software must be like this). If they simply listed all major Mac apps, e.g. linking to their web sites or download links or whatever, they would hugely increase the value of the Mac platform and bring enough direct benefit to developers to be worth some kind of fee (and of course Apple gets $99/year anyway). Instead, they tried to port the same clueless, greedy, review-burdened scheme to that store, layering completely unnecessary requirements on top (like poorly-thought-out sandboxing). And since developers had a choice, they mostly said No.
  • Reason077 5y ago
    This is about allowing alternative payment systems for purchases made in-app. Not necessarily alternative app stores / install mechanisms, which is a separate issue.
    • ezekg 5y ago
      But they are tightly related. Russia just issued a similar warning concerning iOS app distribution.
      • jonny_eh 5y ago
        I don't see how they're related at all, at least beyond them being about the App Store.
        • jacobr1 5y ago
          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.
• tpae 5y ago
  This is a bit hypocritical from the South Korean government. If you worked in IT in South Korea, you would know their payment systems are complete garbage. They won't let you integrate with anything else, and consumers have to use Internet Explorer with ActiveX to be able to make any purchases
• elisbce 5y ago
  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 developing and maintaining the ecosystem, tools and cloud services, etc. It is really no different from paying income taxes to the IRS for being a US resident and enjoying all the benefits of living in the US. Whether it is fair to collect 30% tax is debatable, but the idea is the same, collect a simple tax since it is extremely hard to quantify all the obvious and non-obvious benefits that are provided by the ecosystem. Since Apple/Google is not the IRS, they can't audit all your app's income sources. If your app gives users a way to pay via 3rd party payment services, you can effectively evade that tax. And that is already happening with some apps TODAY, some of which actually very big (e.g. some Chinese broadcasting apps). Do you think this is fair to Apple/Google? So the issue here is not just about choices. If the government allows 3rd-party payment services to be used by the apps, they should at the same time provide a feasible solution to audit the app income and negotiate a fair amount of use tax to pay the ecosystem.
  • tristan957 5y ago
    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.
• ilikehurdles 5y ago
  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.
  • leshenka 5y ago
    I don't think you'll lose this. It will be like "sign in with aplle" — you will be able to use different purchase algorithms, or apple pay.
    • xondono 5y ago
      Except that there’s an incentive to force users into using other services. If the choice is left to developers, each developer will choose what suits him best.
      • androceium 5y ago
        What's the difference between that and the current situation (forced to used Apple's payment system)? Isn't Apple just forcing everyone to use what suits them best?
        • cesarvarela 5y ago
          As a developer it sucks. As a consumer it's great.
  • passivate 5y ago
    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..
  • progbits 5y ago
    Well, if apple wants to make the experience nicer for their users they can lower the cut which they take. It doesn't even need to be the same or lower than competition. Since there are so many apps already integrated (and even in future their API might be easier or more likely to be used by app users) and nobody wants to go through the friction of adding new ones they can still be slightly more expensive and retain majority of the market share. But if they won't then I guess you will know it never really was about protecting the user or whatever, just a cash grab from walled garden.
• the_solenoid 5y ago
  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 (up to a point). Think of it this way - if your taxes went up to 75%, would you still work for 100k? No. Your take home would track in a few years (or sooner) to bring you back up to taking home 65k. --- So I am nexflix, I charge 9.99 and pay whatever entity processes my payments like 1-2% if even. There is some other costs to this - infrastructure and employees, probably a bunch more. Apple comes in and says "we build, and maintain a platform, that costs us x amount to maintain, and we sell 100's of millions of devices that utilize this platform, and provide fairly long-term support for those devices. We want you, if you want access to this platform, to pay y% of revenue derived from using this platform. We will call this the apple tax. Is this fair? If you think taxes are theft, you probably think, "no". But you are wrong. Taxes are the % of your "output" used to keep the commons going. You know roads, bridges, laws, money, military, water, clean air, safe food, yadda yadda. So the apple tax might be high, but it's mostly irrelevant. As a small dev, you would never have the reach you can have with the app store anywhere else. As a big dev, you look at where you can generate more revenue and think "fuck apple, let's start making legislation so I can use their platform but make more money without paying into it." These "solutions" are just monied interests wanting more profit. This should only be handled in a way that suits the interest of consumers but they are not at the table.
  • malandrew 5y ago
    > 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.
    • simondotau 5y ago
• throwawaysea 5y ago
  This needs to be taken much further, to allow alternate app stores, as well as direct installation of apps. People must be allowed control and ownership of their hardware.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• yuan_foundi 5y ago
  so right!!
• janmo 5y ago
  2 things that surprise me: - Why did it take so long? This is clearly an abuse of monopoly power - The App Store is Apple's biggest cash cow, yet despite Apple losing it's ability to charge its 30% racketeering tax their stock is at an ATH.
• coldtea 5y ago
  When you have a legislative body and you can yield it, it's that easy...
• hamilyon2 5y ago
  They could make up for that 3% with elevated fees from korean app publishers and consumers. Then pretend law doesn't exist and simply count that as operating cost in Korea?
• xondono 5y ago
  In the end it was bound to happen, consumers always lose to special interests, even if app devs don’t want to admit they are one.
  • gigel82 5y ago
    Really, this is a "loss" to consumers how?
    • xondono 5y ago
      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.
      • gigel82 5y ago
        How is this limiting anything? I see this as adding options, and I'd like to see it adopted across the world.
        • xondono 5y ago
          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.
          • commoner 5y ago
            Apple and Google have a duopoly (an inefficient market) on mobile platforms, which is how they were able to enforce anti-competitive restrictions to sustain their 30% fee for so long. This new law opens up the mobile payment processing market to more competitors, which will drive prices downward to benefit users, developers, and competitors at the expense of Apple and Google.
• sam0x17 5y ago
  Awesome, now let's see the U.S. pass a similar law please.
• EricE 5y ago
  Good. I once bought into the gatekeeping concept - except Apple hasn't followed through with their end of the bargain. Scam apps are still rampant - even dominating the recommended sections in the app store. Customer service is abysmal - if you do go for a refund it's a crap shoot as to if you will ever get a human response. When they kicked Parlor for purely political reasons - that was it. Time to force the gates open and let the market decide.
• mikehearn 5y ago
  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-app purchases a year later. At the same time they set the rules that third-party app stores were not allowed, and that third-party payment processors could not be used. I'm mentioning all of this history to make this point: Apple made these rules when they were not a monopoly by any definition. They released these products, with these rules, into a free market and let the market (both users and developers) decide which products to use and which products to develop for. Now, obviously, between 2007 and 2021 the iPhone has been a wild success. Its platform has grown in users and developers every year. So in terms of the framing of "market abuse", at what point between the launch of these rules and now did Apple cross that threshold between free-market competitor who can legally control their own platform to monopolist abusing its power? I'm asking this question not just to make a point, but because I think it will be instructive for future companies to understand where in the growth curve the rules they started with can potentially cross over into being "abusive".
  • criddell 5y ago
    There's no definable line that Apple crossed. It's a long, slow transition.
  • jimnotgym 5y ago
    Didn't they become a monopoly when they stopped allowing other app stores. From that point they were a monopoly on iPhone. But being a monopoly is not enough to warrant action, it's abusing the monopoly position that is market abuse, i would have thought?
    • tshaddox 5y ago
      When did they ever allow other app stores?
  • yholio 5y ago
• bloppe 5y ago
  This is going in the wrong direction. Government shouldn't be imposing regulations on monopolistic app stores when competition can naturally break the monopolies and bring them in line with developer and consumer needs. Let there be multiple app stores, charging developers competitive fees and implementing competitive security and convenience features. Don't let the platform favor any particular app store, or raise barriers to app mobility between stores. See how long 30% fees and hostile policies last when any developer can just upload their apps to another store with minimal modifications, and any consumer can easily use that store.
  • threeseed 5y ago
    > See how long 30% fees and hostile policies last And then see how the ecosystem degrades to the lowest common denominator and we re-enter the Windows 95 era. Race to build malware apps, virus and malware checker apps to prevent the malware etc.
    • 10000truths 5y ago
      That lowest common denominator already exists in official app stores. There are huge swathes of garbage apps that try to scam you with expensive subscriptions/MTX, use shady ad networks that push more garbage apps on you, ask for every permission under the sun for no other reason than to collect data on you, etc.
    • dalbasal 5y ago
      At this point, I'll take malware over monopoly. There's a lot at stake here. That said, I think it's unlikely to get as bad as W95.
  • dalbasal 5y ago
    I wouldn't call that the "wrong direction." What you are suggesting is applying the same logic to App stores that they're applying to payments. That's more likely, not less, if this legislation goes through in SK and gets copied by other countries. So, same direction. FWIW, I think payments are an easier place to make progress. It's hard to imagine an alternative app store taking off in response to a single countries' laws. Even if it did, a diverse app store market kind of negates the app store concept entirely. At that point, you may as well return to the old ways. Alternative payment options will be immediately utilized by devs. The market can support lots of them, and prices will quickly respond to competition. If users and devs have choice, market prices will be nowhere near 30%. I'd be surprised if it's >10% for long.
• jimnotgym 5y ago
  In a statement, Google defended its service fees, which it says “helps keep Android free,” Now that is some brass neck, payments keep a service free! Newspeak! If you pay me £500k a year I will work for free. Give me £20k and I'll give you a free car. Unbelievable, well done Korea
• Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Please, next time do not forget about the requirements to allow other marketplaces and push notification sources.
• musesum 5y ago
  Would love to offer NFTs of works that are both authored and offered on iOS/Android. Would this be a first step? I don't know how to do it otherwise.
• xmly 5y ago
  Apply pay and Google Pay are both handy. I like using Apple Pay now instead of typing credit card number.
• eric4smith 5y ago
  Aka: the “Samsung Protection Act”
• pyrmont 5y ago
  This is all in Korean but I think a PDF with a text of the bill is available here: http://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/billDetail.do?billId=PRC_E2Z1F0E7F2Y0Q1S1N3B4Y5U2A2K2P9 http://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/billDetail.do?billId=PRC_E2...
• golemotron 5y ago
  I wonder how much the FAANG companies spend on regulatory induced regional variation of their systems and how it is managed.
• Pxtl 5y ago
  Hopefully as app stores are forced to allow competitor stores into their ecosystem, this will also allow them to discard the"fairness" from their 1st party stores and do some curating - clean out the shovelware, recommend their first-party suites, etc. Because it's one or the other. If they lose their monopoly position of being the only app store in the platform, does that mean they can start treating the store like a store and selling in it however they see fit?
• Carnageous 5y ago
  My liberal butt hates this so much.
• ghego1 5y ago
  Finally, I'm hoping other countries will follow
• karmasimida 5y ago
  > Lobbyists for the two companies have reportedly argued to American officials that the Korean legislation violates a trade agreement, as it seeks to control the actions of US-based companies. Wait what???
• tripu 5y ago
  Where can I pay a monthly subscription to support a mobile OS that is free software, customisable, feature-rich, ad and spyware-free, and that uses open protocols and formats? I do want to pay. I mean it. Please take my money.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  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.
• lnxg33k1 5y ago
  "Helps keeping android free" is just another cons of this i guess
• birthday 5y ago
  So Apple - why don't you just make a seperate "apple verified" or Apple approved category of apps in your store? Any apps that chose to not give you 30% of all their money will just not be in that "premium" app list?
• RobKohr 5y ago
  The law should be that people can easily install 3rd party app stores on your platform, just like when M$ was forced to allow other browsers to be installed on their OS. The idea that their app store must accept an app that makes money from other sources seems kinda backwards. You run an app store for profit. Just like I can't go into Target and sell my products on a popped up table, but I can open a store down the street to sell my products. Make it so installation of stores is easy, and then let the market work it out.