Arizona bill that could force Apple App Store to allow third-party payments one step close...

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    flydogflydog Posts: 973member

    How can they regulate what is clearly interstate commerce? 
    States can regulate most interstate commerce.

    Jesus, does that really need to be stated?  Is that not obvious from being alive on the planet for more than 10 years?  
    williamlondonrandominternetperson
  • Reply 22 of 51
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,230member
    aderutter said:
    Without a doubt Apple will not change tactic. Apple will not allow apps into the app store that violate the guidelines and use a 3rd party in-app payment method.

    Apple will simply not approve apps submitted that do not adhere to the guidelines and any that slip through will be removed when discovered.

    Apple would rather this go to the highest court in the land over the course of years if need be.

    Trying to force a store owner to let someone sell their wares free of charge in your shop - what a joke.

    If these jokers do eventually get their way then in-app payments will disappear entirely and we will go back to outright purchase of software - and in my opinion that would actually be a good thing. 
    I agree wholeheartedly!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 51
    viclauyycviclauyyc Posts: 667member
    If I live in AZ, can I use all the infrastructure, school, road, etc and not pay any state tax? If so, I am all for this law. 
  • Reply 24 of 51
    While it doesn't seem like this would be impacted by this legislation, I'm wondering how  Apple makes money when an App is free. Say for example I have the ad-supported version of The WeatherChannel App. I didn't pay anything to download it, and there's no monthly subscription fee to use it. Does Apple determine the advertising that appears or does the App maker do that? And how is the ad revenue split?  


    dewme
  • Reply 25 of 51
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,705member
    I hope this serves as a reminder to all well-meaning voters who think that when they choose a certain candidate because they believe their candidate, if elected, will actually serve their best interests is so far from reality as to be a childish fantasy. The people who are actually pulling the strings on these compliant elected officials are the same special interest groups and lobbyists who spoon feed legislators surgically crafted bills like these that are purposely designed to promote outcomes that serve the special interests of those pulling the strings. Your vote was obtained under false pretenses using whatever "triggers" you are susceptible to, which are very likely abstract and ideological topics that bear no resemblance to the precision, highly targeted, actions that take place once the candidates are empowered with your well-meaning vote.  

    Yeah, we all kind of knew this all along, but it's important to wake up and smell the stench once in a while just to remind yourself of how your trust is being trampled upon by elected officials so they can score cheap political points and cash in on their so-called "public service." They do serve ... themselves, and those who are willing to pay for their services. 
    edited March 3 williamlondonDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 51
    d_2d_2 Posts: 97member
    flydog said:

    How can they regulate what is clearly interstate commerce? 
    States can regulate most interstate commerce.

    Jesus, does that really need to be stated?  Is that not obvious from being alive on the planet for more than 10 years?  
    How do you know the poster’s actual name is Jesus?

    In any case, your stupid commentary not withstanding, it’s *not* obvious.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 51
    Hello everyone who have responded to my question. Not being from the USA, I have no idea how any of this could play out. 
    I guess we’ll just have to watch and see. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 51
    longfanglongfang Posts: 232member
    viclauyyc said:
    If I live in AZ, can I use all the infrastructure, school, road, etc and not pay any state tax? If so, I am all for this law. 
    Well yes, but only if  you have no income. 
  • Reply 29 of 51
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,515moderator
    This law is so brain dead it's sickening. So what's the difference between Apple/Google and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo for in-game purchases? Answer: they're not Apple or Google.
    The fact they excluded consoles that have exactly the same setup shows they are just being vindictive to companies they regard as 'big tech'. What's also interesting is the left/right split:

    https://apps.azleg.gov/billStatus/BillOverview/74279
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_House_of_Representatives

    Most (but not all) who voted for it were Republican who have taken issue with Apple and Google censoring the App Store. These are the people who always say government shouldn't interfere with businesses, until it suits them. It was clear from the hearing where they were grilling all the big tech companies who have taken opposing sides to right-wing interests that they have been gearing up to do something like this as a form of vengeance. At least there are some grown-ups running things at the highest level now so they have some options for overturning it. Even if they agreed with it, there's no justification for limiting the rules to Apple and Google.
    The question I have is that in the context of this legislation,  who does the software distribution? The expectation should not be that Apple should do it for free. I'm not a lawyer - but the way this reads any attempt for Apple to charge for use of its distribution infrastructure or deny the use of it since Apple receives no revenue could be interpreted as "retaliation" 

    Would it also be considered "retaliation" if Apple decides not to do business with a developer because Apple does not make money on the relationship?
    The bill doesn't seem to suggest Apple can't require a fee for distribution. Epic for example charges 5% to use their game engine if the user makes over $1m no matter how they collect their payments. Apple should be able to do the same and charge a commission to use the store. It's harder for them to track the revenue that way but it could end up costing the app developer more as they'd be paying fees to the payment processor plus Apple's distribution/acquisition fee. If they don't provide audited reports of revenue, they'd be violating their distribution agreement. Spotify for example would have to provide revenues from users signed up through the App Store.

    The big companies contribute the most in App Store revenue. If this went through on a large scale, it would cost Apple close to the entire $72b and Google $38b, about 1/4 of their company revenue.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-723-billion-in-2020-almost-double-google-play-revenues

    Still, I don't think they'll get far with it implementation-wise. Apple can prevent Apple Pay purchases on it and having to enter credit card info manually for each app's purchases will never work out.
    Dogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 51
    docbburkdocbburk Posts: 39member
    This proposed law is a joke!  How is having multiple payment systems a benefit to customers?  In this day and age, most companies are getting hacked and customer information and sometime payment info is stolen and sold on the dark web.  Who would you trust with the info more, Apple, or Epic games and several other companies selling applications?? Apple has been shown time and time again to have a more secure customer database
    williamlondonrandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 51
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 462member
    Uh, what happened to ‘Let the market decide’??
    And who is Arizona protecting with this proposed legislation??... I don’t even know where to start with this as bad legal principle; Standing???

    Thank you ‘Randominternetperson’ for posting a link to the actual bill... But I think this an excellent example of the more words, the bigger the lie.
    Or “Who is my neighbor?”
    edited March 3 randominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 51
    hammeroftruthhammeroftruth Posts: 1,053member
    I’m sure this would miraculously disappear if Apple put Parler back on the App Store. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 51
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,840member
    Odd that games consoles care excluded. What’s the reasoning behind that?
    roundaboutnowfoadwilliamlondonelijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 51
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,288member
    Marvin said:
    This law is so brain dead it's sickening. So what's the difference between Apple/Google and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo for in-game purchases? Answer: they're not Apple or Google.
    The fact they excluded consoles that have exactly the same setup shows they are just being vindictive to companies they regard as 'big tech'. What's also interesting is the left/right split:

    https://apps.azleg.gov/billStatus/BillOverview/74279
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_House_of_Representatives

    Most (but not all) who voted for it were Republican who have taken issue with Apple and Google censoring the App Store. These are the people who always say government shouldn't interfere with businesses, until it suits them. It was clear from the hearing where they were grilling all the big tech companies who have taken opposing sides to right-wing interests that they have been gearing up to do something like this as a form of vengeance. At least there are some grown-ups running things at the highest level now so they have some options for overturning it. Even if they agreed with it, there's no justification for limiting the rules to Apple and Google.
    The question I have is that in the context of this legislation,  who does the software distribution? The expectation should not be that Apple should do it for free. I'm not a lawyer - but the way this reads any attempt for Apple to charge for use of its distribution infrastructure or deny the use of it since Apple receives no revenue could be interpreted as "retaliation" 

    Would it also be considered "retaliation" if Apple decides not to do business with a developer because Apple does not make money on the relationship?
    The bill doesn't seem to suggest Apple can't require a fee for distribution. Epic for example charges 5% to use their game engine if the user makes over $1m no matter how they collect their payments. Apple should be able to do the same and charge a commission to use the store. It's harder for them to track the revenue that way but it could end up costing the app developer more as they'd be paying fees to the payment processor plus Apple's distribution/acquisition fee. If they don't provide audited reports of revenue, they'd be violating their distribution agreement. Spotify for example would have to provide revenues from users signed up through the App Store.

    The big companies contribute the most in App Store revenue. If this went through on a large scale, it would cost Apple close to the entire $72b and Google $38b, about 1/4 of their company revenue.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/05/app-store-earns-723-billion-in-2020-almost-double-google-play-revenues

    Still, I don't think they'll get far with it implementation-wise. Apple can prevent Apple Pay purchases on it and having to enter credit card info manually for each app's purchases will never work out.
    That's not right. The $72B is the Apple App Store gross sales. Apple only reports the 15% - 30% they get in commission, as revenue. Thus only about 20%-25% of the $72B gets reported. Apple Service revenue comes in at about 17% of total revenue or about $45B. Apple total revenue in 2020 was $275B. Besides the App Store, Apple Services  also includes Apple Care, AM, AppleTV+, eBooks, movie rental and sale, iTunes, Apple Pay, licenses and a few others. Apple App Store revenue based only using  unconfirmed numbers, comes in at about $19B. Which I still think is high, as Apple has always claimed the Apple Care is the biggest revenue generator in Apple Services.

    The other interesting stat is that the top 1% of developers in the App Store, accounts for 93% of the App Store gross sales. The top ten are all or nearly all, subscription services with in-app payment. And all of them already has a means of processing  payment for their own sales.  

    These numbers from just 1 quarter in 2019, July to September and combine data from both the Apple App Store and Google play Store 

    https://sensortower.com/blog/top-one-percent-downloads

    Just looking at these numbers, one can already tell that only 1% of the developers will greatly benefit from being allow to process their own payments. And if these top 1% were allow to process their own payments, no third party app store will survive fighting for the other 7% of sales, along with the Apple App Store.

    elijahgrandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 51
    foadfoad Posts: 706member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Odd that games consoles care excluded. What’s the reasoning behind that?
    I know you’re being sarcastic but for those that don’t get it…it’s not odd when you consider that Sony invested $250 million into Epic last year and that 40% of Epic is owned by Tencent. For those that don’t know, Tencent is one of the largest games companies in the world. They also make WeChat.

    Nothing about this legislation or the Coalition for App Fairness is about the money going to the little guys. It’s all about the other Goliaths. Spotify, Epic (including Tencent) and Match are giants in their industries. This is purely about them profiting even more. Anyone that doesn’t see it, is honestly being naive. 
    williamlondonrandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 51
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,161member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Odd that games consoles care excluded. What’s the reasoning behind that?
    Maybe becase consoles are not multipurpose devices, or because customers are not forced to use the app store to purchase games.  Also, what @foad posted could be a possibility.  Who knows...
    elijahg
  • Reply 37 of 51
    foadfoad Posts: 706member
    danvm said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Odd that games consoles care excluded. What’s the reasoning behind that?
    Maybe becase consoles are not multipurpose devices, or because customers are not forced to use the app store to purchase games.  Also, what @foad posted could be a possibility.  Who knows...
    You are forced to use Sony and Microsoft’s distribution methods for digital purchases though. So if you buy the digital versions of the Xbox or the PS5, you’re required to use their payment methods and you can’t build in an alternate payment flow. The initial versions of these bills were pushing for alternate App Stores and still had the carve out for game consoles. Heck - Epic’s suing to get an alternate App Store. They state it in their filings. The reason they keep calling it a “tax”, is because legislators and users have a very specific reaction to the word. They explicitly ignore what they get out of using the platforms. These companies have the expectation that Apple and Google should develop the APIs that they hook into for free. 

    All this stuff is just a money/power grab. Let’s take Spotify. Where is their supposed harm? They are the biggest streaming service by a long shot - and still growing at a crazy clip. They have been able to buy up all these various companies and now are becoming a dominant player in the podcast market. Tencent/Epic are two of the largest games companies in the world. Epic steals content constantly that gets put into Fortnite and they fight tooth and nail to not pay the original content creators. I can keep going on, but this isn’t about “app fairness”. It’s about future dominance. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 51
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,161member
    foad said:
    danvm said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Odd that games consoles care excluded. What’s the reasoning behind that?
    Maybe becase consoles are not multipurpose devices, or because customers are not forced to use the app store to purchase games.  Also, what @foad posted could be a possibility.  Who knows...
    You are forced to use Sony and Microsoft’s distribution methods for digital purchases though. So if you buy the digital versions of the Xbox or the PS5, you’re required to use their payment methods and you can’t build in an alternate payment flow. The initial versions of these bills were pushing for alternate App Stores and still had the carve out for game consoles. Heck - Epic’s suing to get an alternate App Store. They state it in their filings. The reason they keep calling it a “tax”, is because legislators and users have a very specific reaction to the word. They explicitly ignore what they get out of using the platforms. These companies have the expectation that Apple and Google should develop the APIs that they hook into for free. 

    All this stuff is just a money/power grab. Let’s take Spotify. Where is their supposed harm? They are the biggest streaming service by a long shot - and still growing at a crazy clip. They have been able to buy up all these various companies and now are becoming a dominant player in the podcast market. Tencent/Epic are two of the largest games companies in the world. Epic steals content constantly that gets put into Fortnite and they fight tooth and nail to not pay the original content creators. I can keep going on, but this isn’t about “app fairness”. It’s about future dominance. 
    The thing is that consoles don't force customers to digital purchases.  MS, Sony and Nintendo consoles still have support for physical media.  Maybe that is one of the reasons they were excluded.  From a developer POV, I think there is no difference between the iOS / Android digital store and a console digital store.  

    And I agree with you, this is an issue of money and power, and not necessary app fairness.  
  • Reply 39 of 51
    lkrupp said:
    The Constitution gives the power to regulate commerce exclusively to the federal government. Just imagine the chaos if every state had its own rules for commerce. It would be impossible for any company to operate in all fifty states. 
    Sorry, but that is simply and completely inaccurate.  Congress does not have exclusive power to regular commerce. Most commercial regulation in the United States is at the state and local level.  
  • Reply 40 of 51
    While it doesn't seem like this would be impacted by this legislation, I'm wondering how  Apple makes money when an App is free. Say for example I have the ad-supported version of The WeatherChannel App. I didn't pay anything to download it, and there's no monthly subscription fee to use it. Does Apple determine the advertising that appears or does the App maker do that? And how is the ad revenue split?  


    Apple makes zero dollars from such apps unless they use the Apple add platform (which is not required).  (The benefit to Apple is to make their platform more appealing to consumers.)  If Epic wins, more and more commercial apps will be "free" on the app store and move all the payment to third-party billing options.  This would confuse and inconvenience end users and require Apple to provide free services to any such developers.  Not a great business model.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.