4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoReally, this is a "loss" to consumers how?
- xondono 5y agoBy 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 agoHow is this limiting anything? I see this as adding options, and I'd like to see it adopted across the world.
- xondono 5y agoIt’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 agoApple 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.