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

[Sophisticatednut]

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?

For the simple reason it’s one business and a citizen.
And it would make laws meaningless if you can just contract it away and ripe for abuse, that is why we have it in the first place to protect consumers.

Oh sorry you signed away all that you own and became my slave in the claus when you bought a bag of bread with a hidden EULA you automatically agreed to.

 

[123]

In-app purchases of stuff you are not a man-in-the-middle distributor of, and you aren't doing the payment processing anymore. What entitles you to ANY money?

And I also say it again: What entitles you to ANY money? The contract.

On Android, developers are free to distribute their apps in many ways, so Google can charge whatever they want. They can put follow-up purchases / app turnover commissions into their contracts. It doesn't matter what they provide technically, they SOLD your app and that's why they are entitled to whatever their conditions were for the sale (and to which you agreed). Don't like it? Use a different app store.

It all comes down to choice. Apple faces a tougher case because they operate the only App store, so you are forced to use theirs and agree to their demands. Maybe lawmakers/courts would agree that Android in itself is a choice, but if that is not the case, Apple will not be able to enforce the same pricing schemes as Google.

 

[mrochester]

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?

Because that’s how Apple has set the terms of agreement? Free apps don’t pay any commission, non-free apps pay a commission.

 

[mrochester]

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

Developers choose the price of apps, not Apple.

 

[djphat2000]

If the fee is forced and actually not needed? Then yes. This is why EU and Korea is regulating apples monopoly market of their own store.

I don't understand forced and not needed. Are business not allowed to charge what they wish?

In their eyes apples 30% fee is unjustified, arbitrary and anticompetitive to the health of competition and against the interest of consumers.

Does the EU and any part of Asia get to set prices?

That is why apple is in big problems selling their own apps on the store but forcing competitors to pay a fee to compete.

Amazon sells their own products within their own store too. So does Microsoft, and Google and well anyone with a store practically.

Same with racketeering charges.
Edit:

This is why they don’t care about the Xbox store, PS store or steam etc. as every game can be purchased outside it with almost no fees payed to the store owner for circumventing it.

I often see games for the same price via Xbox download and a physical store. Someone is paying a higher fee.

But apples store you can’t sell your app anywhere but on it.

Yes, and by design. However, you can make a Webapp. And bypass the store.

 

[djphat2000]

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

I'm sure the EU would then blame Apple for shutting out the poor game developers. They no longer even have a chance on the platform due to high cost of entry fees.

 

[djphat2000]

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

OK, this one made me laugh really hard. Thanks for that. I'll hold my breath till Apple gives away Final Cut or Logic Pro.

 

[koil]

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.

Essentially my problem lies more with the fact that Apple don't allow device owners the ability load their own apps on the device (and as such, alternative app stores like F-Droid on Android, Cydia, etc), if they allowed that then I have zero objections with whatever pricing they decided was appropriate.

I think if Apple were to allow full sideloading then we would find out what the fair market price for their services really is, and they would at the same time take the wind out of the arguments made by developers like Spotify, Epic, Tile, etc. It's a win-win.

In the absence of that I think Apple are playing duopoly with Google and in that case taking 15-30% is too much.

 

[djphat2000]

Don’t like market regulation exit the market. Simply as that.

I'm sure Europe wouldn't mind Apple leaving.

 

[Jmausmuc]

I'll say it again

In-app purchases of stuff you are not a man-in-the-middle distributor of, and you aren't doing the payment processing anymore. What entitles you to ANY money?

Walmart only gets the initial magazine purchase, not a cut of the subscription made from the included postcard.
Target only gets the initial iPhone sale, not a part of your app purchases or your Apple Fitness subscription fees.

Why should digital be any different? Its still a mob shakedown. Nice app you've got there, it would be a real shame if something happened to it.

Does Walmart (great example!!) give away 80% of the items in their stores for free without charging for storage and distribution?

80% of Apps on the App Store are free and apples still reviews them and takes care of distribution.

 

[Boris Bronson]

Walmart makes a profit selling the magazine.

When someone downloads a free app and purchases in-app subscription, Apple has made no profit unless they charge a commission for the in-app purchase.

Where is that $2B from app developers to be in the store going every year? Up Eddy’s nose?

Poor downtrodden Apple hosting all these apps for free.

 

[mrochester]

Where is that $2B from app developers to be in the store going every year? Up Eddy’s nose?

Poor downtrodden Apple hosting all these apps for free.

Its going in Apples bank account I presume, the same way the money you make does.

 

[techfreak23]

Apple and Google should have just pulled out of SK until they got their sh*t together. It's a small enough market, for Apple anyway, to take the hit for a bit. Governments want to tell me how to run my company, then you don't get my products or services. Simple.

 

[dandy1117]

Essentially my problem lies more with the fact that Apple don't allow device owners the ability load their own apps on the device (and as such, alternative app stores like F-Droid on Android, Cydia, etc), if they allowed that then I have zero objections with whatever pricing they decided was appropriate.

I think if Apple were to allow full sideloading then we would find out what the fair market price for their services really is, and they would at the same time take the wind out of the arguments made by developers like Spotify, Epic, Tile, etc. It's a win-win.

In the absence of that I think Apple are playing duopoly with Google and in that case taking 15-30% is too much.

Let's play this out: you're assuming that side-loading would occur IN ADDITION TO distribution in the App Store. If Apple allowed side loading, then many of the large developers, who can afford the cost of services and compel their user base, would require that their apps be side loaded. (If Facebook removed WhatsApp and Instagram from the App Store and required sidleoading, all of their users would do just that.) That would essentially remove the largest revenue resource from the App Store. As a result, Apple could chose to limit development of the App Store and run it is a loss-leader. Or start charging smaller developers a fee to support the App Store, again, thereby reducing the number of free apps in the App Store for consumers.

But beyond that, if popular apps were removed from the App Store, then there would be less reason for users to visit the App Store. Thereby further hurting smaller developers who would be subsidizing the App Store directly. The iOS App Store would have all of the same problems as the Mac App Store and Windows App Marketplace.

Smaller developers significantly benefit from the current App Store model because much of the cost is subsidized by larger developers. Also, there is marketing advantage to have the App Store include all apps. For example, a photo editing app that is in the top 10 on the App Store is significant only if the same ranking includes Adobe Photoshop!

 

[AppliedMicro]

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.

The App Store listing for both Netflix and Spotify clearly shows the apps offering in-app purchases.
Doesn't this mean that it has it? Or is that just for existing customers? (Which I'm not one of, to be honest)

OK, this one made me laugh really hard. Thanks for that. I'll hold my breath till Apple gives away Final Cut or Logic Pro.

You know there's a difference between the average iPhone/iPad app and Final Cut/Logic.

 

[mikethemartian]

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?

A contract is supposed to be a “meeting of the minds” that both parties hash out together term by term. However most contracts used in trade are “contracts of adhesion” where one side writes all the terms and the other side just signs. In US business law this is not considered a “meeting of the minds” so a lot of what is included in a boilerplate “contract of adhesion“ is not enforceable.

 

[koil]

Let's play this out: you're assuming that side-loading would occur IN ADDITION TO distribution in the App Store. If Apple allowed side loading, then many of the large developers, who can afford the cost of services and compel their user base, would require that their apps be side loaded.

Do you mean in the same way that the large developers have removed their apps from the Google Play Store? (They haven't ?)

Jokes aside, the only apps that would be distributed that way are apps that don't adhere to Apples rules, like real web browsers (not just Safari reskins), open source software where there's literally no money available for the developers to pay for App Store subscriptions, and maybe some alternative versions of software from guys like Spotify or Epic.

Look at Android, nobody is technically forced to use the Play Store there, yet all of the big names stay because they want their software easy for users to access, and Apple would be in their right to stipulate that software on the App Store could not refer to alternative means of installation.

And hey, if any 3rd party app stores become an actual threat then perhaps that's a natural signal to Apple that their formula needs tweaking... (this won't happen, like I said look at Android)

 

[djphat2000]

You know there's a difference between the average iPhone/iPad app and Final Cut/Logic.

If we are being specific. yes.

 

[dandy1117]

Do you mean in the same way that the large developers have removed their apps from the Google Play Store? (They haven't ?)

Jokes aside, the only apps that would be distributed that way are apps that don't adhere to Apples rules, like real web browsers (not just Safari reskins), open source software where there's literally no money available for the developers to pay for App Store subscriptions, and maybe some alternative versions of software from guys like Spotify or Epic.

Look at Android, nobody is technically forced to use the Play Store there, yet all of the big names stay because they want their software easy for users to access, and Apple would be in their right to stipulate that software on the App Store could not refer to alternative means of installation.

And hey, if any 3rd party app stores become an actual threat then perhaps that's a natural signal to Apple that their formula needs tweaking... (this won't happen, like I said look at Android)

I am all for playing these hypothetical games!

I would argue that the current iOS App Store rules are the reason WHY most developers continue to support the Google Play Store. If Facebook, Microsoft, and Adobe were incentivize to create their own app distribution models for iOS, with its more lucrative customer base, they would use that platform for both Android and iOS.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm sure the EU would then blame Apple for shutting out the poor game developers. They no longer even have a chance on the platform due to high cost of entry fees.

EU wouldn’t even care at all. Just as they don’t care about high entry fees for Xbox games. They care about abusing the market.

I'm sure Europe wouldn't mind Apple leaving.

Indeed they wouldn’t care at all as apple drives in close to zero revenue and just tries to skirt taxes.

Does Walmart (great example!!) give away 80% of the items in their stores for free without charging for storage and distribution?

80% of Apps on the App Store are free and apples still reviews them and takes care of distribution.

Seems like an apple problem to solve. If it’s a problem they should charge a fee, but apparently it’s not a problem so..

Apple and Google should have just pulled out of SK until they got their sh*t together. It's a small enough market, for Apple anyway, to take the hit for a bit. Governments want to tell me how to run my company, then you don't get my products or services. Simple.

Ha good luck, it would lead to extreme ramifications globally. No government likes foreign companies thinking they can just do what they want without following the laws. Korea would very likely forbid any company from working with apple(chripeling apple with some important sources for parts)

Let's play this out: you're assuming that side-loading would occur IN ADDITION TO distribution in the App Store. If Apple allowed side loading, then many of the large developers, who can afford the cost of services and compel their user base, would require that their apps be side loaded. (If Facebook removed WhatsApp and Instagram from the App Store and required sidleoading, all of their users would do just that.) That would essentially remove the largest revenue resource from the App Store. As a result, Apple could chose to limit development of the App Store and run it is a loss-leader. Or start charging smaller developers a fee to support the App Store, again, thereby reducing the number of free apps in the App Store for consumers.

But beyond that, if popular apps were removed from the App Store, then there would be less reason for users to visit the App Store. Thereby further hurting smaller developers who would be subsidizing the App Store directly. The iOS App Store would have all of the same problems as the Mac App Store and Windows App Marketplace.

Smaller developers significantly benefit from the current App Store model because much of the cost is subsidized by larger developers. Also, there is marketing advantage to have the App Store include all apps. For example, a photo editing app that is in the top 10 on the App Store is significant only if the same ranking includes Adobe Photoshop!

Oh please, this didn’t happen to google play store. Or are you arguing that apples App Store is so bad it wouldn’t be able to compete and provide a service anyone wants unless everyone is forced to use it? You are literally makinf a strong argument for forcing apple to open up side loading.

And I don’t even want purse side loading.

Apple started running the store as a loss-leader, the purpose has never been to make a profit but to sell iDevises, just as selling OSX for free, pages, numbers, Xcode etc are given away for free is to sell more hardware.

 

[koil]

I am all for playing these hypothetical games!

I would argue that the current iOS App Store rules are the reason WHY most developers continue to support the Google Play Store. If Facebook, Microsoft, and Adobe were incentivize to create their own app distribution models for iOS, with its more lucrative customer base, they would use that platform for both Android and iOS.

So you're arguing that the only reason Facebook, Microsoft and Adobe haven't launched their own distribution channels for Android are because they couldn't also do it for iOS? That makes no sense at all man. They haven't done so because it would be an inconvenience to their users and they would miss out on many new users. If it was financially defensible to do so then they would do it.

If sideloading was made possible, I expect it would work more or less the same as on Android, with something like macOS Gatekeeper that users would have to dive deep into scary Settings menus to disable/allow exceptions.

I actually don't even think Fortnite would leave the App Store if sideloading existed. There would be a version available for sideloading that would be different to the App Store version, but they are not going to miss out on all the dum-dums who wouldn't be able to figure that out.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don't understand forced and not needed. Are business not allowed to charge what they wish?

No they aren’t allowed to charge what they wish. They must by law not discriminate

Does the EU and any part of Asia get to set prices?

Depends, is it anti competitive? Then no

Amazon sells their own products within their own store too. So does Microsoft, and Google and well anyone with a store practically.

They allow everyone to sell the exact same goods anywhere else with zero change. Apple doesn’t. iOS apps can only be sold on the App Store, iOS apps can’t be installed on android.

I often see games for the same price via Xbox download and a physical store. Someone is paying a higher fee.

And Microsoft takes the same fee for an Xbox game sold in a random store or selling a key on a random web store. 0% of profits. Unless you sell it on the Xbox store. Developing an Xbox game costs about ~5.000$ to publish

Yes, and by design. However, you can make a Webapp. And bypass the store.

No you can’t. Apple limits greatly what safari can do, essentially making it useless for anything but barebones apps.

 

[hans1972]

What entitles you to ANY money?

Why does Apple have to be entitled? Can't you make money on other people's work?

If you need entitlement it is because Apple is providing access to customers and the use of Apple IP in the developers app.

 

[hans1972]

Things like Apple Connect, app reviews, payment processing, documentation, iOS update and development, Xcode are primarily tools for app developers and therefore they should be maintained by the yearly developer subscription fee.

If they didn’t have that developer subscription fee I could see your point tbf.

Business are allowed to determine how their charge for their products and services. You seem to think you can only charge once for something.

The developer fee is a membership fee for the Apple developer program. Think about it as a cover charge. You still have to pay for the food and drinks inside.

 

[hans1972]

What IP is used by every CYDIA developer? Because it seems to be none at all.

What IP does candy crush use when you buy extra lives? What IP does Netflix use when you subscribe to their service?

Every time an app displays something on the screen, they use Apple's IP.

It's impossible to write an iOS app without using Apple's IP.