US lawmakers laud South Korean app store bill

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 31
U.S. lawmakers who seek increased regulation of Big Tech applauded the passage of a South Korean law that will force Apple and Google to accept outside payments in their respective app stores.

App Store


South Korea could soon become the first domino to fall in a worldwide effort to extricate Apple and Google from profits earned by developers on their online marketplaces. The country's parliament on Tuesday voted to approve regulations that would bar app store operators from requiring use of first-party payment systems.

The bill could significantly impact Apple and Google's bottom lines if signed into law by President Moon Jae-in, as both companies take an up to 30% cut of sales and in-app purchases. Implementation of alternative payment systems would allow developers to effectively bypass the commission.

U.S. lawmakers keen on placing restrictions on Big Tech players championed the decision from South Korea's National Assembly.

"South Korea is taking steps to foster competition in the app economy. The U.S. can't fall behind," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in a tweet Tuesday, as reported by The Washington Post.

Similar measures are being explored by the U.S. Congress. In August, Blumenthal joined Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Marsha Blackburn in introducing the Open App Markets Act, a proposal that in part takes aim at first-party payment system requirements. The bill also puts prohibitions on penalizing apps that provide different pricing options on alternative online payment systems or platforms and restricts app store operators from using non-public information to their advantage.

"Mobile technologies have become essential to our daily lives, and now just two app stores wield incredible power over which apps consumers can access and how they access them," Klobuchar said last week. "When you see this same issue arising all over the world, it is even more obvious that we need to take action."

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a Big Tech critic who co-sponsored companion bills on app store regulation in the House, last week said, "It is clear that momentum is building around the world to rein in abusive and anticompetitive practices by dominant online platforms, including in the mobile app economy."

Apple, for its part, maintains that the South Korean bill will put the safety and security of App Store customers in jeopardy.

"The proposed Telecommunications Business Act will put users who purchase digital goods from other sources at risk of fraud, undermine their privacy protections, make it difficult to manage their purchases, and features like Ask to Buy' and Parental Controls will become less effective," Apple said in a statement following today's developments.

Google offered similar sentiments, saying in a statement that "[w]e worry that the rushed process hasn't allowed for enough analysis of the negative impact of this legislation on Korean consumers and app developers."

In what is viewed as a bid to quell criticism of their app store strategies, Apple and Google introduced lower fee structures for certain developers in recent months.

Apple further agreed to make changes to App Store policy to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by developers who claim the tech giant wields monopoly power to exert "profit-killing" commissions and fees. In a significant shift, Apple will allow app makers in the U.S. to reach out to customers to discuss alternative payment methods.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    doesn’t matter, honestly put up the options i’ll stick with the apple payment system, haven’t had any security issues and why spread my payment options to companies that haven’t lifted a finger to help in anyway shape or form
    mwhitedocbburkKTRwilliamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 24
    So how do these different stores reimbursement the Apple Shareholders that include me for the use of our company intellectual properties, R&D expenses, employees cost along with the other gambits of running a company? 


    docbburkKTRwilliamlondonaderutteruraharajony0
  • Reply 3 of 24
    glennh said:
    So how do these different stores reimbursement the Apple Shareholders that include me for the use of our company intellectual properties, R&D expenses, employees cost along with the other gambits of running a company? 

    They don’t.  They believe the platform is now public domain so the govt and liberals think it’s theirs to use at will and for free.  They take for granted these platforms exist as if they arose by natural processes and completely are ignorant that it was innovative American companies that created these wonderful platforms. They were not developed in Europe or Asia for some odd reason or maybe not so odd. 

     Fear not, these same politicians will spend countless hours bashing the companies as an enemy of the people not praise them for creating the technology in the first place. 

    KTRthe1maximus
  • Reply 4 of 24
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,298member
    This will only make it impossible for Apple or Google for that matter to keep out bad actors. If a credit card scam company pays for a developer account and decides to accept payments directly. Who is regulating that? The government? Which government and which agency. When the strange charges start showing up 6 months to a year later or PayPal and banking details start showing up on the dark web, who will these same officials go crying to?  

    This is Epic’s crap show and the consumers will be the loosest in this mess. It also will limit innovation as Apple will not be investing heavily in an unprofitable App Store. Had the App Store not proven to be profitable, it would have long lost Apples interest and died on the vine. 

    If government continue down this path Apple Should switch back to web apps for 3rd party apps and end access to custom APIs. They will instead focus on making their own software and license tech and partner with who they want. They have been heading more in that direction recently. 

    Basically, Apple would close their App Store altogether, so Epic would have to go Browser App or go home. They would have no access the OS and they would need to obtain each customer on their own. 

    Unfortunately, This would hurt all the other developers that were not so greedy they bit the hand that fed them, but apple is not a charity. 
    the1maximusjony0
  • Reply 5 of 24
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,200member
    The Reagan version of the little red hen is below. It was read on radio in 1976, a time when policies were being implemented leading to sclerosis of the economy, rising inflation and unemployment, and the USA was being regarded as has beens on the international front. I am so tempted to draw parallels with policies today, but hey, just because it didn’t work previously doesn’t mean it won’t work now the right people are in charge, eh?:

    Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’

    “Not I, “said the cow.

    “Not I,” said the duck.

    “Not I,” said the pig.

    “Not I,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. “Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.

    “Not I,” said the duck.

    “Out of my classification,” said the pig.

    “I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.

    “I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen, and she did.

    At last the time came to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake bread?” asked the little red hen.

    “That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.

    “I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.

    “I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.

    “If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen.

    She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

    They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, “No, I can eat the five loaves myself.”

    “Excess profits,” cried the cow.

    “Capitalist leech,” screamed the duck.

    “I demand equal rights,” yelled the goose.

    And the pig just grunted.

    And they painted “unfair” picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

    When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be greedy.”

    “But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.

    “Exactly,” said the agent. “That’s the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle.”

    And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, I am grateful.” But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

    edited August 31 Japheylkruppthe1maximusjiburahara
  • Reply 6 of 24
    If they implement this, what is there to prevent apps to be offered free, but need to be unlocked by a code purchased directly from the developer, or barely functional and needing to have an in app purchase from the developer?  This would cheat apple out of even the cost of hosting the free ap in the ap store.  Epic wants to do that and create an ap store where they get the 30%.  Where would their ap containing ap store be?  Apples ap store?  So they want to force apple to let someone set up their own store, for free inside apples store?  No rent, no lease, no electric bill??? Sure, makes sense, in bizarro world.  These senators and congressmen want to act like they are so educated on this, hoping it improves their chances at higher office.  It’s a fecal extravaganza!
  • Reply 7 of 24
    KTRKTR Posts: 192member
    What was once free, may not be fee base.  I can see apple and google start charging for operating system releases  like apple use dose with the mac os.  That will be the only way re coop the losses.  Or, GoogApple, will charge more for developer tools and or hardwares.  What do you people think?
    DBSync
  • Reply 8 of 24
    KTRKTR Posts: 192member
    glennh said:
    So how do these different stores reimbursement the Apple Shareholders that include me for the use of our company intellectual properties, R&D expenses, employees cost along with the other gambits of running a company? 


    I wish there was a forum, where, WE THE PEOPLE, get to decide how er live our lives and decide who, WE , what to buy from.
  • Reply 9 of 24
    KTRKTR Posts: 192member
    glennh said:
    So how do these different stores reimbursement the Apple Shareholders that include me for the use of our company intellectual properties, R&D expenses, employees cost along with the other gambits of running a company? 

    They don’t.  They believe the platform is now public domain so the govt and liberals think it’s theirs to use at will and for free.  They take for granted these platforms exist as if they arose by natural processes and completely are ignorant that it was innovative American companies that created these wonderful platforms. They were not developed in Europe or Asia for some odd reason or maybe not so odd. 

     Fear not, these same politicians will spend countless hours bashing the companies as an enemy of the people not praise them for creating the technology in the first place. 

    I hope it back fires on the government.  I hope google and apple cancel government contracts. And then stop support for older devices.  lol
  • Reply 10 of 24
    KTRKTR Posts: 192member
    genovelle said:
    This will only make it impossible for Apple or Google for that matter to keep out bad actors. If a credit card scam company pays for a developer account and decides to accept payments directly. Who is regulating that? The government? Which government and which agency. When the strange charges start showing up 6 months to a year later or PayPal and banking details start showing up on the dark web, who will these same officials go crying to?  

    This is Epic’s crap show and the consumers will be the loosest in this mess. It also will limit innovation as Apple will not be investing heavily in an unprofitable App Store. Had the App Store not proven to be profitable, it would have long lost Apples interest and died on the vine. 

    If government continue down this path Apple Should switch back to web apps for 3rd party apps and end access to custom APIs. They will instead focus on making their own software and license tech and partner with who they want. They have been heading more in that direction recently. 

    Basically, Apple would close their App Store altogether, so Epic would have to go Browser App or go home. They would have no access the OS and they would need to obtain each customer on their own. 

    Unfortunately, This would hurt all the other developers that were not so greedy they bit the hand that fed them, but apple is not a charity. 
    Great points
  • Reply 11 of 24
    KTR said:
    glennh said:
    So how do these different stores reimbursement the Apple Shareholders that include me for the use of our company intellectual properties, R&D expenses, employees cost along with the other gambits of running a company? 


    I wish there was a forum, where, WE THE PEOPLE, get to decide how er live our lives and decide who, WE , what to buy from.
    We do! But unfortunately, We The People do not select our elective representatives with the same thought and do diligence as We do in choosing our electronic devices and the business models freely employed by the companies that make them…..
  • Reply 12 of 24
    So, this is a mistake.  Not because it's not a good idea, but because it doesn't solve the actual problem:  It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone.  I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing.

    Sure, Apple forcing payments to only go through them and taking a cut is illegal tying and should never have been allowed in the first place, but so is preventing me from going to the developer's website, downloading an app, and installing it, with no interaction with Apple whatsoever.  Apple shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, video game consoles shouldn't be able to get away with it, any manufacturer selling hardware with a lock-in for future purchases should be stopped and in Apple's case the fines for illegal tying should be in the billions.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    genovelle said:
    This will only make it impossible for Apple or Google for that matter to keep out bad actors. If a credit card scam company pays for a developer account and decides to accept payments directly. Who is regulating that? The government? Which government and which agency. When the strange charges start showing up 6 months to a year later or PayPal and banking details start showing up on the dark web, who will these same officials go crying to?  

    This is Epic’s crap show and the consumers will be the loosest in this mess. It also will limit innovation as Apple will not be investing heavily in an unprofitable App Store. Had the App Store not proven to be profitable, it would have long lost Apples interest and died on the vine. 

    If government continue down this path Apple Should switch back to web apps for 3rd party apps and end access to custom APIs. They will instead focus on making their own software and license tech and partner with who they want. They have been heading more in that direction recently. 

    Basically, Apple would close their App Store altogether, so Epic would have to go Browser App or go home. They would have no access the OS and they would need to obtain each customer on their own. 

    Unfortunately, This would hurt all the other developers that were not so greedy they bit the hand that fed them, but apple is not a charity. 
    Your scenarios are pure hyperbole and bear no resemblance to reality.  The App Store is a $70+ billion dollar a year enterprise.  Nothing, 'cept maybe Jeebus' 2nd coming, would get Apple to go to a system where all 3rd party apps are web apps.  The vast, vast, vast,  majority of that $70+ billion is generated in those 3rd party apps.  In your scenario where they license tech and partner with who they want, you know who they'll partner with?  Freemium game makers, social media giants, entertainment conglomerates, and dating app companies... ya know, the one's generating revenue.  In the end, your scenario would see the same 3rd party apps in the app store because it's there to generate tons, and tons, and tons of money.

    This will also not make it impossible for either company to keep out bad actors.  Both companies combat bad actors on a daily basis.  They wouldn't suddenly stop because of new regulations.  If a credit card scam company... who's regulating that?  Yes, the governments.  The same governments that regulate it now.  Once the scamming is exposed Apple kicks them out of the App Store.  Just like they do now when they find scam apps.  Apple isn't brand new.  Neither is Google. The FUD scenarios you're making up aren't brand new.  The dire circumstances you're creating would only exist in a fantasy world.  

    Both companies might lose a little revenue initially as some devs test to see if it's more financially advantageous to use their own payment systems.  Some will find it viable, others won't.  Things will settle.  Apple and Google will provide incentives for those they want to court back into their payment systems.  Life will go on.  Nothing that you've described would ever take place.  Imo, of course.


    edited September 1 gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 24
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,722member


    It sounds like that is the way of the world these days:   Attack and tear down.   Why?   Well, "Because".

    edited September 1
  • Reply 15 of 24
    entropys said:
    The Reagan version of the little red hen is below. It was read on radio in 1976, a time when policies were being implemented leading to sclerosis of the economy, rising inflation and unemployment, and the USA was being regarded as has beens on the international front. I am so tempted to draw parallels with policies today, but hey, just because it didn’t work previously doesn’t mean it won’t work now the right people are in charge, eh?:

    Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’

    “Not I, “said the cow.

    “Not I,” said the duck.

    “Not I,” said the pig.

    “Not I,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. “Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.

    “Not I,” said the duck.

    “Out of my classification,” said the pig.

    “I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.

    “I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen, and she did.

    At last the time came to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake bread?” asked the little red hen.

    “That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.

    “I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.

    “I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.

    “If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen.

    She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

    They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, “No, I can eat the five loaves myself.”

    “Excess profits,” cried the cow.

    “Capitalist leech,” screamed the duck.

    “I demand equal rights,” yelled the goose.

    And the pig just grunted.

    And they painted “unfair” picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

    When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be greedy.”

    “But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.

    “Exactly,” said the agent. “That’s the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle.”

    And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, I am grateful.” But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

    But any of the farm animals can plant their own wheat, and make their own bread if they wanted...

    How much would you need to even think of entering the mobile OS market? No one would buy your phone because there would be no apps, no developer would make software for your phone because there would be no users, and you wouldn't be able to find additional funding for R&D because you have no sales.

    There's only room in the market for those who started it, no one else has the capital, not even Microsoft.

    This is why at minimum, they need to allow on-device installation of apps and app stores from outside of the first-party option.

    There needs to be competition, not just two companies acting as one and mirroring the actions of one another.

    There needs to be regulation of App Stores and the ability to install competing ones or the ability to just forego the store entirely and distribute directly.
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 16 of 24
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,722member
    entropys said:
    The Reagan version of the little red hen is below. It was read on radio in 1976, a time when policies were being implemented leading to sclerosis of the economy, rising inflation and unemployment, and the USA was being regarded as has beens on the international front. I am so tempted to draw parallels with policies today, but hey, just because it didn’t work previously doesn’t mean it won’t work now the right people are in charge, eh?:

    Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’

    “Not I, “said the cow.

    “Not I,” said the duck.

    “Not I,” said the pig.

    “Not I,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. “Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.

    “Not I,” said the duck.

    “Out of my classification,” said the pig.

    “I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.

    “I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen, and she did.

    At last the time came to bake the bread. “Who will help me bake bread?” asked the little red hen.

    “That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.

    “I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.

    “I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.

    “If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

    “Then I will,” said the little red hen.

    She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

    They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, “No, I can eat the five loaves myself.”

    “Excess profits,” cried the cow.

    “Capitalist leech,” screamed the duck.

    “I demand equal rights,” yelled the goose.

    And the pig just grunted.

    And they painted “unfair” picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

    When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, “You must not be greedy.”

    “But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.

    “Exactly,” said the agent. “That’s the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle.”

    And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, I am grateful.” But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.


    Meanwhile, the farmer was feeding all of them.  But, the silly Rooster was out there toiling away for no purpose.  Like digging a hole & filling it up so it could be dug up again.  And again...

    And, in the end, the farmer ate them all.

    The End
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 17 of 24
    darkvader said:
    So, this is a mistake.  Not because it's not a good idea, but because it doesn't solve the actual problem:  It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone.  I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing.

    Sure, Apple forcing payments to only go through them and taking a cut is illegal tying and should never have been allowed in the first place, but so is preventing me from going to the developer's website, downloading an app, and installing it, with no interaction with Apple whatsoever.  Apple shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, video game consoles shouldn't be able to get away with it, any manufacturer selling hardware with a lock-in for future purchases should be stopped and in Apple's case the fines for illegal tying should be in the billions.
    The US bill also includes a requirement for sideloading.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    KTRKTR Posts: 192member
    darkvader said:
    So, this is a mistake.  Not because it's not a good idea, but because it doesn't solve the actual problem:  It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone.  I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing.

    Sure, Apple forcing payments to only go through them and taking a cut is illegal tying and should never have been allowed in the first place, but so is preventing me from going to the developer's website, downloading an app, and installing it, with no interaction with Apple whatsoever.  Apple shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, video game consoles shouldn't be able to get away with it, any manufacturer selling hardware with a lock-in for future purchases should be stopped and in Apple's case the fines for illegal tying should be in the billions.
    The US bill also includes a requirement for sideloading.
    And who should pay for the damages if your phone gets compromised?  Should Apple, just because ?  Should Google ? Should the software company? 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 19 of 24
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,883member
    Terrible idea. I’m suppose to trust all the third party payment processors?

    how many end users are complaining? 
  • Reply 20 of 24
    From the start of the app-store I hated the way it de-valued software and began a race to zero / freemium.

    Maybe this will see the return of apps being charged for at a sensible level and no free apps. $5 minimum app purchase. Oh, and a decent listing fee per app too, with the pricing set on a sliding scale as many software outlets do with their licensing.

    I hope so.
Sign In or Register to comment.