7 ms·

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 strai

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.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      >It's their code, it's up to them. Well, until the regulators step in (again).
      - simondotau 5y ago
        Are you suggesting that regulators can force Apple to give away their stuff for free if they want to participate in that market? That doesn't sound right to me.
        Hamuko 5y ago
        Why yes, regulators can force Apple to do what they want in their country. And they can very easily dictate how much Apple is allowed to charge for licensing. Fair licensing agreements already exist in the patent space.
        mathnmusic 5y ago
        No, Apple is free to stop operating in countries with such regulators. No business activity => No violation of competition-related regulations.
        howinteresting 5y ago
        Yes, regulators can do that, and they would have pretty clear antitrust grounds to do it as well. The difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is that Apple is worth a trillion dollars. That matters quite a bit.
        simondotau 5y ago
        It matters if you're making an emotional argument, but I'm not sure it's relevant to any legal argument.
        howinteresting 5y ago
        Antitrust regulators don't care about the size of the trusts they're meant to regulate? Interesting.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lionhead 5y ago
Give it a few days then check this link: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/recentlyLawList.do https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/recentlyLawList.do
simondotau 5y ago
According to the FSF, the distribution of a binary computer program which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would require you to abide by the terms of the GPL license. Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon (and must be compiled with) Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license. Of course Apple isn't requiring code to be open source like the GPL. Apple could choose whatever terms they want. It would be perfectly within Apple's right to require a revenue share for use of those libraries—say, the Metal graphics APIs—just as Epic Games does for the use of Unreal Engine libraries. Therefore it's entirely reasonable to imagine that if third party payment gateways are permitted, Apple could still organise things so that they are legally entitled to a percentage cut of app sales. Again, just like Unreal Engine.
- simondotau 5y ago
  To the people down-voting this, I realise that my post espouses a controversial opinion for Hacker News. But could you please explain what you disagree with?
  - misnome 5y ago
    > which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would be a GPL violation if it's distributed without source code. I didn't vote either way, but I'm not sure that this is the way the GPL works. As I understand it, you can distribute only binaries as long as you supply _on request_ the source code. FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous and what I would guess the downvotes were for. > Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license Yes, they are free to do what they want, barring regulation. Which is what this is. Deliberately loopholing around the legislation is an option, but a risky manoeuvre that might just invite more legislation.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Thank you, I did err in how I described the GPL. I have edited my post to correct this. > FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous The link is that any developer—whether they're Linus Torvalds or Apple Inc—should be allowed to choose the terms in which they release their copyrightable works into the public. • One developer could choose the GPL. • Another developer could choose a license which requires a flat, one-off fee. • Yet another developer could chose a license that is free up front but mandates a revenue share under certain conditions, such as Epic Games does with Unreal Engine. In all instances, it is copyright law which enforces these license terms. So if you like the fact that Linus can distribute Linux under the GPL, you must also accept that some other company will have the right to distribute their software under their license.
rndgermandude 5y ago
Apple and Google won't know what developers using outside payment systems for purchases such as subscriptions or "in-app" stuff are making. So they'd have a problem deciding what a publishing fee should be. Monikers such as popularity can be bad estimators. They might end up charging developers a lot less or a lot more - the latter of which might ruin some developers or hike prices for customers even more. I am not against a publishing fee instead of what there is now, but it should be fair and transparent. Not that the current system is fair and transparent...
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  > Apple and Google won't know what developers using outside payment systems for purchases such as subscriptions or "in-app" stuff are making. Then again, why should Apple and Google charge fees for something they have no hand in? If they want to charge fees for distribution, they should just do that.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    >Then again, why should Apple and Google charge fees for something they have no hand in? Same reason as now: because they can and are in the money making business. I'm not saying this is right, just that it is what it is. Google and Apple will not just forgo millions if not billions of "easy" dollars. My guess is that especially the big players, who make Google and Apple the most money, will switch to different payment processors with better terms for them as soon as that option becomes available to them.
vbezhenar 5y ago
There are plenty of alternative app stores for Android. Google restricts them, but not severely. Android 12 will lift some important restrictions from alternative app stores. I'm not trying to portrait Google as innocent, there's still work to be done. But they are absolutely in different leagues with Apple when it comes to user freedom.
- Vespasian 5y ago
  Not only the technical hurdles but also the legal ones need to be significantly lower. Google has enormous power over phone suppliers and can force them to preinstall their apps and store and nothing else.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- traspler 5y ago
  Google allegedly forced Android OEMs to not ship devices with a pre-installed Fortnite / Epic Games Store launcher. Also forcing users through multiple warning screens and settings until you have finally installed an app might look trivial if you know what you are doing but for everyone else might not be as easy. There are many, many articles about how you should simplify your websites onboarding process to increase the amount of customers so the Android flow is pretty much the anti-thesis to that.
- snarf21 5y ago
  While true, they wouldn't be so generous if they were making it on the backend via search. They don't care that much what store the user uses as long as they search on Google. Do they offer any "user freedom" there?
  - commoner 5y ago
    Google does make more money from other revenue sources, but I don't think this is the best example. Chrome (on all platforms) allows the user to set any custom search engine as the default. On the other hand, Safari limits users to four choices: Google, Yahoo, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.
grishka 5y ago
> there isn't an explicit publishing fee I remember paying $25 or so to open a google play developer account. For Apple, you pay $99 yearly.

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.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >It's their code, it's up to them. Well, until the regulators step in (again).
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Are you suggesting that regulators can force Apple to give away their stuff for free if they want to participate in that market? That doesn't sound right to me.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        Why yes, regulators can force Apple to do what they want in their country. And they can very easily dictate how much Apple is allowed to charge for licensing. Fair licensing agreements already exist in the patent space.
      - mathnmusic 5y ago
        No, Apple is free to stop operating in countries with such regulators. No business activity => No violation of competition-related regulations.
      - howinteresting 5y ago
        Yes, regulators can do that, and they would have pretty clear antitrust grounds to do it as well. The difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is that Apple is worth a trillion dollars. That matters quite a bit.
        simondotau 5y ago
        It matters if you're making an emotional argument, but I'm not sure it's relevant to any legal argument.
        howinteresting 5y ago
        Antitrust regulators don't care about the size of the trusts they're meant to regulate? Interesting.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lionhead 5y ago

Give it a few days then check this link: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/recentlyLawList.do https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/recentlyLawList.do

simondotau 5y ago

According to the FSF, the distribution of a binary computer program which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would require you to abide by the terms of the GPL license. Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon (and must be compiled with) Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license. Of course Apple isn't requiring code to be open source like the GPL. Apple could choose whatever terms they want. It would be perfectly within Apple's right to require a revenue share for use of those libraries—say, the Metal graphics APIs—just as Epic Games does for the use of Unreal Engine libraries. Therefore it's entirely reasonable to imagine that if third party payment gateways are permitted, Apple could still organise things so that they are legally entitled to a percentage cut of app sales. Again, just like Unreal Engine.

simondotau 5y ago
To the people down-voting this, I realise that my post espouses a controversial opinion for Hacker News. But could you please explain what you disagree with?
- misnome 5y ago
  > which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would be a GPL violation if it's distributed without source code. I didn't vote either way, but I'm not sure that this is the way the GPL works. As I understand it, you can distribute only binaries as long as you supply _on request_ the source code. FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous and what I would guess the downvotes were for. > Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license Yes, they are free to do what they want, barring regulation. Which is what this is. Deliberately loopholing around the legislation is an option, but a risky manoeuvre that might just invite more legislation.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Thank you, I did err in how I described the GPL. I have edited my post to correct this. > FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous The link is that any developer—whether they're Linus Torvalds or Apple Inc—should be allowed to choose the terms in which they release their copyrightable works into the public. • One developer could choose the GPL. • Another developer could choose a license which requires a flat, one-off fee. • Yet another developer could chose a license that is free up front but mandates a revenue share under certain conditions, such as Epic Games does with Unreal Engine. In all instances, it is copyright law which enforces these license terms. So if you like the fact that Linus can distribute Linux under the GPL, you must also accept that some other company will have the right to distribute their software under their license.

rndgermandude 5y ago

Apple and Google won't know what developers using outside payment systems for purchases such as subscriptions or "in-app" stuff are making. So they'd have a problem deciding what a publishing fee should be. Monikers such as popularity can be bad estimators. They might end up charging developers a lot less or a lot more - the latter of which might ruin some developers or hike prices for customers even more. I am not against a publishing fee instead of what there is now, but it should be fair and transparent. Not that the current system is fair and transparent...

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
> Apple and Google won't know what developers using outside payment systems for purchases such as subscriptions or "in-app" stuff are making. Then again, why should Apple and Google charge fees for something they have no hand in? If they want to charge fees for distribution, they should just do that.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  >Then again, why should Apple and Google charge fees for something they have no hand in? Same reason as now: because they can and are in the money making business. I'm not saying this is right, just that it is what it is. Google and Apple will not just forgo millions if not billions of "easy" dollars. My guess is that especially the big players, who make Google and Apple the most money, will switch to different payment processors with better terms for them as soon as that option becomes available to them.

vbezhenar 5y ago

There are plenty of alternative app stores for Android. Google restricts them, but not severely. Android 12 will lift some important restrictions from alternative app stores. I'm not trying to portrait Google as innocent, there's still work to be done. But they are absolutely in different leagues with Apple when it comes to user freedom.

Vespasian 5y ago
Not only the technical hurdles but also the legal ones need to be significantly lower. Google has enormous power over phone suppliers and can force them to preinstall their apps and store and nothing else.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
traspler 5y ago
Google allegedly forced Android OEMs to not ship devices with a pre-installed Fortnite / Epic Games Store launcher. Also forcing users through multiple warning screens and settings until you have finally installed an app might look trivial if you know what you are doing but for everyone else might not be as easy. There are many, many articles about how you should simplify your websites onboarding process to increase the amount of customers so the Android flow is pretty much the anti-thesis to that.
snarf21 5y ago
While true, they wouldn't be so generous if they were making it on the backend via search. They don't care that much what store the user uses as long as they search on Google. Do they offer any "user freedom" there?
- commoner 5y ago
  Google does make more money from other revenue sources, but I don't think this is the best example. Chrome (on all platforms) allows the user to set any custom search engine as the default. On the other hand, Safari limits users to four choices: Google, Yahoo, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.

grishka 5y ago

> there isn't an explicit publishing fee I remember paying $25 or so to open a google play developer account. For Apple, you pay $99 yearly.