South Korea ends Apple, Google control of app store payments

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 110
    hriw-annon@xs4all.nl[email protected] Posts: 45unconfirmed, member
    gatorguy said:
    tundraboy said:
    LexerArray said:

    People are arguing for reasonable commissions for those use cases that resolves a big discrepancy in pricing that we are seeing today. 
    I see big complaints about the 'unreasonable' 30%commission all the time and have never yet seen one credible argument about what is reasonable.  "I don't like it" or "that sounds large" is not a reasonable argument.  How much does Best Buy etc. tack onto the wholesale price when they self software?  How much do retailers in general tack on?  I know 30% is not uncommon, might even be on the low side.  People think the commission should be more like a finders fee where the finder does nothing except refer customers.  It's not as if Apple doesn't incur costs running and maintaining the App Store.
    From the dollar you spend in the AppStore Apple keeps 30 cents.

    According to expert testimony in the Epic case, from that 30 cent cut Apple spends 9 cents in supporting services and hardware to earn it. That leaves 21 cents as clear profit. That's a very healthy return, so no wonder Apple is so big on "Services".
    Actually, by Apple's reckoning it's about 3%. They count all the dollars, including those transacted through free apps, the ride hailing apps, the meal delivery apps, etc. The free apps are 85% of all apps, accounting for 90% of the money in the iOS App Economy. Apple gets that 3% by only taxing 10% of transactions, for the stuff that is consumed on the device, with 30%.
    Epic thinks this is unfair because they are effectively subsidizing the free apps, some of which are their competitors.
    But that is just how taxes work, you pay for stuff you don't need, or even stuff you would like to not exist.
    Epic is like someone who does not want to pay road tax for all the roads other people use.

    edited September 1 StrangeDaysn2itivguy
  • Reply 102 of 110
    I never understood why apps that offer physical goods don’t have to pay commissions on in app purchases,  in stark contrast to apps that offer digital goods. Why this delineation? Uber and Lyft generate billions in revenue that Apple doesn’t get a cut from, yet developers like Netflix, Spotify, and Epic have to collectively pay billions in terms of commissions to Apple from the sale of digital goods. How is that fair? 

    My point of view is governments have the right to reign in anticompetitive behavior. There’s no reason why an developer shouldn’t be able to offer its own payment processing system if it is willing to take on the task and risk of doing so. 

    All good things come to an end. Apple and Google were able to make billions from the App Store and Play Store, but it was just a matter of time before the hammer dropped as I have predicted for years (and have been ridiculed on this website for saying so). But when you have a company with so much power that it can prohibit other companies from using alternative (and legal) payment processing systems (since doing so would lead to less profits for Apple), it was always a losing battle. It was just a matter of time before the EU or Australia or Korea or the USA acted to stop this behavior. 

    Secondly, I believe alternative app stores should be allowed as well. If developers and users want to enter into legal trade to buy and sell legal apps (even if Apple disagrees with such an app) who is Apple to prevent such transactions from occurring if they are otherwise legal? For example, there is no Wifi explorer app on the App Store.  Many such apps exist on android (and even on the Mac). If a developer wanted to make such an app for the iPhone and charge a minimal fee to his/her users, who is Apple to prohibit such a transaction, when it is for a common good and would enhance the utility of the iPhone, and allow users to understand their radio environment and do some wireless network planning?
    Apple does not get a cut of Netflix or Spotify subscriptions, as well as Amazon. In the case of Netflix and Amazon they both predate Apple's App store and they already have an web base automatic subscription system. Apple has also said if companies want to set up their own private payment processing and subscription system they are free to do that, they just can not pass the payment processing through the App store or by pass Apple's security systems. i.e. you need to leave the Apple eco system completely to do these transactions. You can not benefit from all the things Apple have put in place and not pay your fair share of the costs along with Apple profits for the privilege.

    Just remember iOS is a secure platform for one and only one reason, no one has keys to kingdom beyond Apple. If Apple allow third party stores that mean they have to open the door and allow others to look inside and see the locking mechanism, once you know how the lock works it is easy to figure how to by pass it. Just because you think it is bright idea to do this does not mean it is good idea for everyone. Ask your self at what cost are you willing to pay to have third party stores, what are all the alternatives and what do you loose for giving this up.
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 103 of 110
    I’m not so sure I agree with the idea of barring them from their in app purchases, but the 30% commission has been unrealistic for a long time. When you think about companies like Spotify, Facebook Marketplace, and Netflix having to pay those, it’s understandable why there is consumer backlash. 

    They have negotiated lower rates with certain companies such as Amazon, but even this practice opens the door to unfair practices that might benefit some companies over others. There is probably a solution that benefits all parties involved, and that probably involves opening the door for much lower commissions for those kinds of recurring subscriptions, which would reduce the demand for more sweeping legislation (as SK has done) to begin with. But regardless of what they do in response to this, I do think that deeper changes to the App Stores are coming. It’s pretty much inevitable at this point. 

    The consumer doesn’t care about the 30%. The developer probably does. But to the consumer they don’t see the 30% and this it’s a nonissue as far as they are concerned. 
  • Reply 104 of 110
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,303member
    longfang said:
    I’m not so sure I agree with the idea of barring them from their in app purchases, but the 30% commission has been unrealistic for a long time. When you think about companies like Spotify, Facebook Marketplace, and Netflix having to pay those, it’s understandable why there is consumer backlash. 

    They have negotiated lower rates with certain companies such as Amazon, but even this practice opens the door to unfair practices that might benefit some companies over others. There is probably a solution that benefits all parties involved, and that probably involves opening the door for much lower commissions for those kinds of recurring subscriptions, which would reduce the demand for more sweeping legislation (as SK has done) to begin with. But regardless of what they do in response to this, I do think that deeper changes to the App Stores are coming. It’s pretty much inevitable at this point. 

    The consumer doesn’t care about the 30%. The developer probably does. But to the consumer they don’t see the 30% and this it’s a nonissue as far as they are concerned. 
    I guess that's not a universal feeling. There's a plethora of posts in this thread arguing in favor (or not) of the 30% and posted by non-developers. 
  • Reply 105 of 110
    goofy1958 said:

    ... one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.

    And that's the key condition. If as Apple states, there is a "user trust" breach with a laissez faire approach to app purchases, then Apple's defense must be "Apple 100% Guaranteed" designation for those fully compliant with Apple's existing policies.
  • Reply 106 of 110
    y2any2an Posts: 96member
    The discussion is conflating payment system with charges due. For direct purchase of apps, the store owners know the price and can calculate the fee due if the payment is off-store. They just have to bill the developer separately. For in-app purchases the situation would be different as there may be no audit trail for billing. 
    edited September 1
  • Reply 107 of 110
    gatorguy said:
    longfang said:
    I’m not so sure I agree with the idea of barring them from their in app purchases, but the 30% commission has been unrealistic for a long time. When you think about companies like Spotify, Facebook Marketplace, and Netflix having to pay those, it’s understandable why there is consumer backlash. 

    They have negotiated lower rates with certain companies such as Amazon, but even this practice opens the door to unfair practices that might benefit some companies over others. There is probably a solution that benefits all parties involved, and that probably involves opening the door for much lower commissions for those kinds of recurring subscriptions, which would reduce the demand for more sweeping legislation (as SK has done) to begin with. But regardless of what they do in response to this, I do think that deeper changes to the App Stores are coming. It’s pretty much inevitable at this point. 

    The consumer doesn’t care about the 30%. The developer probably does. But to the consumer they don’t see the 30% and this it’s a nonissue as far as they are concerned. 
    I guess that's not a universal feeling. There's a plethora of posts in this thread arguing in favor (or not) of the 30% and posted by non-developers. 
    Please; techies on a platform enthusiast forum don’t constitute normal consumers (normals). Normals don’t know about this stuff, or care, but do enjoy never worrying about purchases on their iPhone, resting easy in safety and security. 
    Fidonet127
  • Reply 108 of 110
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member

    You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.
    You realise governments regulate markets when they are anticompetitive and harm consumers?

    Google has no problem with alt-stores. Why is Apple special?
  • Reply 109 of 110
    danoxdanox Posts: 680member
    gc_uk said:

    You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.
    You realise governments regulate markets when they are anticompetitive and harm consumers?

    Google has no problem with alt-stores. Why is Apple special?

    Epic tried it on Android and it DID NO WORK……their store flopped badly.
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 110 of 110
    I want the ability to block alt app stores and payment methods, plus parental controls to prevent my child from using them. 

    This will take a while for Apple to adjust things to allow this law to happen. 
    edited September 2 tenthousandthings
Sign In or Register to comment.