Illinois latest to try to mandate payments from outside the 'oppressive regime' App Store

Posted:
in iOS
Illinois senators have filed a bill that would require Apple and Google to allow alternative payment systems for app developers.




Illinois' new "Freedom to Subscribe Directly" act would prohibit Apple and Google from requiring developers to use first-party app marketplaces to sell their goods and services.

Basecamp, a software company based in Illinois, has publicly supported the new bill.

"Apple demanded we sell our new service through their payment processor, so they could take their 30% cut, or we'd be thrown out of the app store." Basecamp CTO David Heinemeier-Hansson told WGEM.

"Basecamp might have among the few companies willing to speak up but we are far from the only ones dealing with these oppressive regimes," he continued.

In recent years, Apple and Google have come under fire for their in-app payment systems. As a result, both have been heavily criticized for taking up to a 30 percent cut of sales and in-app purchases. However, even if Apple were required to provide alternative payment systems, the Cupertino-based tech giant has made it clear that it would still collect its share.

In November, a class-action lawsuit claimed Apple leveraged its popular iOS platform to create a closed ecosystem that locked customers into a software aftermarket saddled by App Store commissions, fees which continue to drive "supracompetetive" profits.

Facebook recently rolled out a new tool designed to help content creators earn money on its platform while sidestepping Apple's customary 30 percent cut of App Store transactions.

In early January, Apple for the first time said it would allow alternative payment systems in South Korea to comply with the new law. The company will provide an alternative payment system at a reduced service charge as part of the compliance plans turned into to the Korea Communications Commission.

Read on AppleInsider
GeorgeBMac

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    I’m confused, if Basecamp has to pay (they’re an enterprise based tool, like Slack, Teams, etc). Are those companies paying a cut for every user (highly unlikely)!?

    Something’s gotta give. Right now the only apps benefiting from the current 30% cut are ad-driven ones. And ad driven apps suck and has been slowly lowering the quality of apps in the App Store for years.
    h2pviclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 9
    That's funny...gigantic mainstream apps like Netflix and Spotify moved all their payments to the internet years ago and it was wildly successful. Maybe Basecamp isn't aware that the internet exists?
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 9
    Hahahahaha, no matter where to pay, Apple and Google will still get their commission or get out of the eco systems 
  • Reply 4 of 9
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,368member
    That's funny...gigantic mainstream apps like Netflix and Spotify moved all their payments to the internet years ago and it was wildly successful. Maybe Basecamp isn't aware that the internet exists?
    Netflix and Spotify are mostly browsers with custom navigation. The functionality this app is giving is using Apple APIs and they are wanting access to Apple’s marketing to bring them customers they wouldn’t have from the exposure. Maybe Apple should flip the script. They should charge apps makers that don’t want to pay a commission an access fee based on how many times their APIs are called and bill them an advertising fee to be on the platform at TV average rates. 
    JaiOh81williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 9
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,824member
    I don't know why app developers are under the illusion that if they use a different payments processor then they can get away with not paying  Apple or Google a commission.

    Also, I don't think the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution would allow Illinois to enact the proposed law.  But I'm hardly an expert on the matter.

    edited January 20 h2pviclauyycStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 9
    genovelle said: Netflix and Spotify are mostly browsers with custom navigation. The functionality this app is giving is using Apple APIs and they are wanting access to Apple’s marketing to bring them customers they wouldn’t have from the exposure. Maybe Apple should flip the script. They should charge apps makers that don’t want to pay a commission an access fee based on how many times their APIs are called and bill them an advertising fee to be on the platform at TV average rates. 
    Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that payments are not actually required by Apple to go through the App Store. App developers can have customers pay on the internet instead. Kindle ebooks are another mass market example. Amazon moved payments for the ebooks online and it didn't exactly sink their business. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 9
    Yes, if they do not wish to pay a commission, I am sure Apple will be more than happy to bill them for multiple user fees of various sorts, similar to all of the taxes and junk fees on cell phone and utility bills!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 9
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 977member
    2 things (not necessarily related):

    1) Oppressive? Go live China, North Korea or any number of oppressive regimes, then we can have a discussion. 

    Americans are such fucking babies, they think having to wear a mask (which means having consideration for people outside their little isolated bubbles) is oppressive — yet somehow they can’t make the connection/association of how oppressive it is to control a woman’s body. Put your fucking big-boy pants on and grow-the-fuck up!

    and…

    2) This is simply a work around to the privacy features Apple is building into its products. 

    Essentially, you have politicians who are being purchased by data collecting/marketing firms (and companies like Facebook who have built their entire income stream from personal information that is essentially stolen) and are butt hurt bcoz they may have to pay for the info.

    if they were making these laws to apply them equally across all sectors, it might be a good thing, but singling out tech is bullshit and driven by other big players who see potential revenue they simply can steal. 
    williamlondonDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 9
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,067member
    Basecamp’s founder is a noted nutcase. He’s also the one who got mad that his wife’s credit score was different than his when she applied for an Apple Card. Had a twitter meltdown but pretty ignorant about the various signals banks use to craft credit scores. Being married to a rich guy is only part of the equation. (FWIW, I used to work for Capital One Auto Finance and our apps processed exactly this.)

    They intentionally misdirect - these aren’t credit card processing fees, they’re platform fees. Sure payment processing is part of what’s included, but that’s not all it is. Apple built this mall, from scratch, and there is infrastructure to engineer and pay for, marketing, etc. 
    edited January 20 williamlondonDogpersonwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.