Apple to Allow Alternative Payment Systems in App Store in South Korea

[djphat2000]

I have no evidence to present but it's obvious to me that a subscription to Dropbox, if the payment processing is done by Dropbox, has no added costs to Apple, meaning that 15-30% Apple takes is completely arbitrary.

It is if you got it via Apple. It' shouldn't if you signed up outside of Apple which I'm sure in this case you can as Dropbox is mulitplatform. Setting up an account outside of Apple is possible. So your renewals can be done outside of Apple. If you setup via Apple, you pay Apple.

Now, if the costs associated with auditing apps and their updates were to make up some of that, then that's fine, but there's 1 audit for 1 update, and that update may serve millions of users, so we look at bandwidth and storage instead, both of which are ridiculously cheap. I have a hard time imagining how the charges we're discussing now in any way shape or form can even approach 15-30% per customer, every month...

We allow companies to make a Profit. If you're in a very socialized country that wants to regulate how much anyone or any company can make. That's a different story. This is the point of capitalism. How much the market will bear, and the ability to make as much as possible. So long as taxes are paid and nothing illegal is happening.
We don't know the true costs to Apple from this system. We assume it's less, as they again need to make a profit. But, to say is' 1 or 4 or 10% is a guess. Educated guess, but a guess. It could be darn near nothing for all we know. They could have used tax breaks to establish all the data centers and pay the people that work there. They could have setup their own fiber to them too and as the last mile and pay the utilities pennies on the dollar for bandwidth. Simply no way to know. Not without looking at the books.

Yes, but it's in Apples best interest to enable developers to produce free apps, so that's a concession that they are making in all of this, and always has been.

I think the best solution is for there to be two tiers, the one we have today, and one where the costs are itemised. Apple should evaluate free apps and push them into itemized if they are abusing the free tier.

How would we define abuse? If your free, and heavily downloaded played and don't have IAP. Then your getting funded by ads. If you are including IAP's. Then you pay the cut for the transaction. They lowered the cost to 15% for companies making under $1 million per year. If you are over, they go back to the 30% structure. If we are only arguing about costs being too high. That's not a good argument. The market will bear what the market will bear. Google is Apple's competition in this space, and they have lowered their fees. Has the market shifted to Google more because of it? Has Apple lost more customers due to this fee change? Are more developers developing on Google "first" then moving to Apple's iOS? All of this must be considered when judging this process.

IAP are an entirely separate issue, if developers want to use Apples system they can obviously do that and everyone is happy, but Apple can not force them to if the developer is willing to build the infrastructure for another payment solution.

Force is a strong word to use here. No one is forced to do anything. If you want to be on the platform, that comes with rules. But, no one is forced to be on the platform. Is that where the customers are? Yes, but not because the developers put those customers there. Apple created the platform, and brought "its" customers with it. People bought the phone not the app. The Apps came, and brought in more use cases for the phone. Which is great! But, this is not a chicken and egg situation. One came before the other, we all saw it happen in real time.

Having an option to pick another payment processors is fine so long as Apple can still get their cut for hosting, etc while it was done within the AppStore. Same for Google. If you want to go online to the developers website to pay for something or sign up for a subscription and then just sign into the App. I believe you could always do that. Which is bypassing the store if I'm not mistaken.

 

[russell_314]

So what it boils down to is Devs will pay Apple 11% and probably 4% to a payment processor. I bet they're so happy the government helped them out ??

 

[mrochester]

actually that would be an illegal clauses and not enforceable where I live. Good catch.

Only things enforceable would be the painting can’t be to “weird” or I could be forced to pay for the landlord repainting the walls when you move.

Unfortunately it’s not apples property. When I buy an iPhone it’s now my property and there is nothing apple can legally do to force me to do anything.

You do not own iOS. You only license it and it remains Apple’s property. Just like my tenant living in the house does not make it her house.

Where is the law that says weird painting is illegal? Id be interested in seeing that evidenced.

 

[bobbie424242]

"Apple has a great deal of respect for Korea's laws and a strong history of collaboration with the country's talented app developers..."


Let me rephrase this PR sentence correctly:

" We think Korea's laws are pure **** and an insult to our own laws which are unarguably the best for the consumer because we're ****ing Apple and really know better than governments, however..."

 

[mrochester]

So what it boils down to is Devs will pay Apple 11% and probably 4% to a payment processor. I bet they're so happy the government helped them out ??

I think that’s exactly what will happen, and it might even cost them more to use a third party payment processor. But this is what developers asked for, choice.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I most definitely do own the walls, my name is on the title deed!

But part of the contract says she can’t paint the walls, but painting walls is a legal activity, therefore the contract is illegal by your definition.

This is clearly nonsense.

Removed my other comment as it was wrong.

And I don’t know how laws work where you live. But “renting” is not owning even if your name is on the deed.

If I purchase an apartment I can do as I wish depending on the type and location. Move walls, paint everything pink, change the kitchen etc

 

[mrochester]

Removed my other comment as it was wrong.

And I don’t know how laws work where you live. But “renting” is not owning even if your name is on the deed.

If I purchase an apartment I can do as I wish depending on the type and location. Move walls, paint everything pink, change the kitchen etc

Correct, renting is not owning. I own the property, my tenant rents the property. I can do as I wish to the property, my tenant can’t.

But your definition of an illegal contract is based on whether the action my tenant takes is illegal or not. My tenant is prohibited by contract from doing a lot of things that are perfectly legal. According to you that makes our contract illegal.

 

[Cosmosent]

Nice app you've got there, it would be a real shame if something happened to it.

Well stated, bravo !

That's precisely Apple's pitch to App Developers around the world !

 

[mikethemartian]

Magazines are typically the inventory of the rack jobber who maintains the merchandise and not the retail store that displays them and rings up the sale.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You do not own iOS. You only license it and it remains Apple’s property. Just like my tenant living in the house does not make it her house.

Nope not at all. It’s already established in EU rulings that 0% of users licenses the iOS system. And the simple reason is that money changed hands before any contract was shown or signed. Making the entire EULA null and void. Apple can’t enforce them as it’s not a valid contract.

Contracts with consumers - Your Europe

Clauses and sale agreements in a contract to the consumer, which provide a disproportionate advantage to the seller

europa.eu

Where is the law that says weird painting is illegal? Id be interested in seeing that evidenced.

And here you have a link for “weird” paintings.

Vad får jag göra i min hyresrätt? | Riksbyggen

Vad får du egentligen göra när du vill renovera eller liknande när du bor i hyreslägenhet?

www-riksbyggen-se.translate.goog

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Correct, renting is not owning. I own the property, my tenant rents the property. I can do as I wish to the property, my tenant can’t.

But your definition of an illegal contract is based on whether the action my tenant takes is illegal or not. My tenant is prohibited by contract from doing a lot of things that are perfectly legal. According to you that makes our contract illegal.

As i showed you. Our contract can’t stop legal acts. A contract can’t remove rights in EU. Example you can’t have contracts saying no class action lawsuits or remove your obligat to me as a consumer.

And you won’t likely be able to stop be from painting my renting apartment wall black. Or stop be from having milk inside the fridge or stop me from mixing meats and milk etc etc

 

[mrochester]

Nope not at all. It’s already established in EU rulings that 0% of users licenses the iOS system. And the simple reason is that money changed hands before any contract was shown or signed. Making the entire EULA null and void. Apple can’t enforce them as it’s not a valid contract.

Contracts with consumers - Your Europe

Clauses and sale agreements in a contract to the consumer, which provide a disproportionate advantage to the seller

europa.eu

And here you have a link for “weird” paintings.

Vad får jag göra i min hyresrätt? | Riksbyggen

Vad får du egentligen göra när du vill renovera eller liknande när du bor i hyreslägenhet?

www-riksbyggen-se.translate.goog

View attachment 1942385

So how does software licensing work? If you say ‘don’t agree’ does it not ask you to return the device/software?

 

[mrochester]

As i showed you. Our contract can’t stop legal acts. A contract can’t remove rights in EU. Example you can’t have contracts saying no class action lawsuits or remove your obligat to me as a consumer.

And you won’t likely be able to stop be from painting my renting apartment wall black. Or stop be from having milk inside the fridge or stop me from mixing meats and milk etc etc

Which like I said would make nearly every contract illegal as most contracts limit your legal rights in some way. It would also mean we would need to make laws for everything we didn’t want people to be able to do instead of allowing people to agree amongst themselves what can and can’t be done.

Why shouldn’t me and my tenant be able to agree what she can and can’t do between ourselves and for our contract to be legal? We are both adults and are perfectly capable of coming to an agreement that we both wish to be binding.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So how does software licensing work? If you say ‘don’t agree’ does it not ask you to return the device/software?

Great question, the answer is it doesn’t matter as it my property to do with as I wish. It’s not my problem they didn’t provide this info before I bought it and broke the seal.

In every store it’s impossible to return software if the wrapping is compromised and is considered consumed. Fortunately no company can enforce their shrink wrap clauses in EU.

Which like I said would make nearly every contract illegal as most contracts limit your legal rights in some way. It would also mean we would need to make laws for everything we didn’t want people to be able to do instead of allowing people to agree amongst themselves what can and can’t be done.

That’s why contracts are different here and why American “law” and “contracts” aren’t applicable here.

Here laws dictates what you can’t have in a contract and how they must be written.

Such as being clear and precise, not allowed to be vague, and any vague terms are always interpreted in the consumers favor unless it’s just removed. Etc etc

And isn’t that the point of laws? To clearly say what you can’t do?

 

[mrochester]

Great question, the answer is it doesn’t matter as it my property to do with as I wish. It’s not my problem they didn’t provide this info before I bought it and broke the seal.

In every store it’s impossible to return software if the wrapping is compromised and is considered consumed. Fortunately no company can enforce their shrink wrap clauses in EU.

That’s why contracts are different here and why American “law” and “contracts” aren’t applicable here.

Here laws dictates what you can’t have in a contract and how they must be written.

Such as being clear and precise, not allowed to be vague, and any vague terms are always interpreted in the consumers favor unless it’s just removed. Etc etc

And isn’t that the point of laws? To clearly say what you can’t do?

I live in the UK.

Why can’t two consenting adults agree a binding contract between them, even if the contract specifically stops one party from doing something that is otherwise legal?

 

[dandy1117]

Completely agree. Apple should charge developers the actual costs associated with their apps life on their marketplace. Charge them for update audits, charge them for bandwidth, maybe optionally charge them for downloads stemming from Apples marketing if they opt in, but you can't place a flat fee on monetary transactions. Taking a flat fee like this is basically racketeering.

I don't know why you guys find it necessary to debate this. It's Apple store and their pricing policy is the way that have chosen to monetize the ecosystem. In your solution, there would be far fewer free apps since all app developers would have to pay into the cost of the store.

The App Store policies have little to do with specific economics of the payment processing and bandwidth costs. Apple has chosen a progressive "tax" system to ensure the economic viability of the App Store and its supporting ecosystem. Large and popular app developers essentially fund the store so that there can be a bunch of free and low cost app developers. You can disagree with this model, but it has given birth to the largest and most successful app distribution in history.

 

[djphat2000]

If Apple can force a developer not to allow external payment, then the internet provided should also ask Apple a fee for all payment that are possible with THEIR network, without which an iPhone would be a brick.

Nonsense.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You want to be a developer for iOS. You play by the rules. You can choose to not develop for iOS or you can for a competitor. The internet isn't a company. You do pay to use the bandwidth a provider, provides.

Countries also ask Apple to pay taxes, so that a country can still provide security and stability and conditions allowing Apple to sell iPhones. Yet, Apple doesn't want that.

Not true. Like all businesses and people for that matter. No one (or business) wants to pay one penny in taxes they don't have to pay. So if your country has cheaper taxes for a business. They would like to be there and pay that rate if possible. Apple operates in the US too, and pays higher taxes here than in Ireland (previous EU changes)

That is more obvious than forbidding a developer having already a payment system in place to use it in his app... and yet, Apple is against it.

I can and have been able to use payment systems outside of Apple for some time. I can sign up on a website for something and also happen to find it in the Appstore. If I signed up outside the App Store I can keep paying the developer directly and just sign into the App. My stuff is there in both locations. IF I signed up via the AppStore, I can pay Apple or I can cancel and go back to the web.

So, if Apple has no moral whatsoever, why should developers not to try to fight for their rights?

What rights are they fighting for? To live rent free in Apple's store?

Or do you guys think we should even allow Apple to even take a fee for everything bought on an iPhone? For every product we buy after reading a review with an iPhone? Maybe we should all kneel in front of Apple and send them 50% of our salary every month?!

No one is suggesting taking a knee to the Apple gods. Or giving them any of your hard earn currency. The only thing they are charging for is within the Appstore. You can show all day on Amazon via the web OR the App on iPhone. Same for getting a ride via Lift or Uber. All of that goes to the dev or Amazon.

Do you think a business has a right to exist? If so, do they get to define their profits? Or should it be defined by the will of the people and or governments? Or the business that do business with them? Whom should be the arbiter of what any business gets to make?

Yeah, I just don't understand why people are licking Apple's butt, like if they would win something. At best, it does not change anything, but most likely, Apple is aware of it and will take advantage of it. Letting a company do its law is never a good idea, unless having invested all the money in that company.

We purchase Apple's products, it is called Macrumors after all. There is no licking on this end and from what I can see from anyone else. It's a debate on what some think is fair and reasonable and others think isn't. I'm on the side that Apple hasn't done anything wrong. But, am willing to see others point of view. Even if I disagree with them. Some of the disagreements come from cultural or, societal differences. We live in different countries with different laws and have different perspectives when it comes to how a business can and or should operate. I don't see where Apple is in the wrong for most of what they have done. I agree they should allow developers to email the customers that signed up and purchased items from them. However, they should not be directed to another payment method. Since just like in any physical store, you are not directed to the store across the street or town to pay less for the same item. You came to this store, you can purchase at this store is my view.

Some want additional stores on iOS. I'm not in favor of that either. The magic of Apple is that they control the whole widget. They are responsible for the whole thing (more so on the phone than on the Mac). I know what I'm getting this way, and a lot of other people feel the same. Those that don't like it are very much free to go elsewhere for a similar product. People complain about not having Apple their way. Well, you have a choice to go to Google and get exactly what you want the way you want it (mostly).

 

[mrochester]

I don't know why you guys find it necessary to debate this. It's Apple store and their pricing policy is the way that have chosen to monetize the ecosystem. In your solution, there would be far fewer free apps since all app developers would have to pay into the cost of the store.

The App Store policies have little to do with specific economics of the payment processing and bandwidth costs. Apple has chosen a progressive "tax" system to ensure the economic viability of the App Store and its supporting ecosystem. Large and popular app developers essentially fund the store so that there can be a bunch of free and low cost app developers. You can disagree with this model, but it has given birth to the largest and most successful app distribution in history.

Exactly. Not even Google’s more permissive App Store can match what Apple has done. It’s not something we should be dismantling as it might be ruined.

 

[Rogifan]

Netflix does have in-app subscriptions.
They‘ve had them since at least November.

Edit: so does Spotify (at least in my region)

Really? I don’t think that’s the case in the USA.

 

[djphat2000]

Because Apple made the decision to allow ‘free’ apps in the store.

Then people would complain there are not free apps on the store.

 

[Rogifan]

It does. Those are the companies paying the fee and subsidise the cost of other apps.

So how exactly is this about Apple deserving to be paid for the use of their IP (or access to their customer base) when not everyone who uses their IP (or accesses their customers) pays?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So how does software licensing work? If you say ‘don’t agree’ does it not ask you to return the device/software?

I am free to modify the software so it works for me, I can remove this “click to accept” window as well. It has little to no relevance for consumers.

Really? I don’t think that’s the case in the USA.

Not in EU ether so likely ********. They removed it years ago so it would likely be in the news if they actually returned it.

Then people would complain there are not free apps on the store.

Oh so tragic no more free apps with IAP to unlock the complete app

 

[Rogifan]

Then people would complain there are not free apps on the store.

Only because Apple has conditioned users to think apps should be free.

 

[djphat2000]

Because Apple allowed them to have a non-functioning app (non functioning until you log in). And Apple gets to decide which apps can be this way. Are there any games on the App Store that don’t function until you’re logged in AND don’t offer IAP in the app?

I believe Apple Arcade games don't need IAP. You pay the subscription so you get the whole game. And any game that wishes to participate in that. Or you can just buy the darn game outright. Like we used to do it, before these devs wanted your money on a more consistent basis.

 

[smoothride]

We look forward to working with the KCC and our developer community on a solution that benefits our Korean users," Apple said in a statement shared with The Korea Herald. "Apple has a great deal of respect for Korea's laws and a strong history of collaboration with the country's talented app developers. Our work will always be guided by keeping the App Store a safe and trusted place for our users to download the apps they love.

...by keeping the App Store a safe and trusted place for our users to download the apps they love.
download the apps they love?
no apple way too many folks here complain about side-loading apps.
Why side-loaded apps if all users can find the apps the loved in App Store?