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

[dandy1117]

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.

I am arguing that it may not make finitanical sense for large developers to create an app distribution model for just 1 of the major smartphone vendors. But, if both platforms supported side loading, there is a great incentive for the investment and to make it cross platform.

Also, it’s a bit patronizing to suggest that regular users wouldn’t be able to figure out side loading. If there was an incentive to learn it in order to download Instagram, they would. There would be countless blogs and YouTube videos instructing people on how to install Instagram from the “Meta Web App Store.!” #dystopianfuture

 

[pasamio]

Agreed, additional costs will surface as a result, but the total cost for a developer will go down significantly because the current method of payment has always been egregiously large compared to Apples internal costs for these things.

The 15%/30% revenue sharing arrangement covers licensing the intellectual property in addition to covering the payment processing and tax handling. It is unlikely that this will totally go away and perhaps be reduced by maybe 3% to account for those costs but the rest will remain.

One of the best explanations of the issue I have read. Thank you

The problem with the example is that it focuses on distribution misses what is being licensed: Apple's intellectual property. An app uses Apple's API's, Apple's development tools and Apple's operating system to be built. The magazine features none of that licensing requirement, it isn't developed using a Walmart tool, Walmart paper on Walmart printers though if it was the distribution arrangement with Walmart would then potentially look closer to Amazon's where they do in fact get a cut of the subscription forever more. Distribution is one aspect but licensing the intellectual property from Apple to make the app is really the meat of the value add.

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.

I think they'll stay there and then make it clear that developers who use external methods incur greater costs and not realise any benefits from it. Maybe some of the really large transaction volume app developers can get close to making 1% back from it but I suspect this experiment will demonstrate that not using the App Store costs more money for the average developer. I'm sure there will also be a lawsuit about it but Apple will be prepared in their current actions for that possibility which will make defending it easier.

 

[ian87w]

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.

S.Korea's GDP per capita is about 3x of China's. Apple loves money more than anything.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Do you have any proof of this? Because there is nothing of apples IP you need to write an iOS app. Apple just forced you to use their tools to be in the store

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The 15%/30% revenue sharing arrangement covers licensing the intellectual property in addition to covering the payment processing and tax handling. It is unlikely that this will totally go away and perhaps be reduced by maybe 3% to account for those costs but the rest will remain.

Actually taxes aren’t included in the fee. In EU sales tax are regularly in the 15-25% range.

The problem with the example is that it focuses on distribution misses what is being licensed: Apple's intellectual property. An app uses Apple's API's, Apple's development tools and Apple's operating system to be built. The magazine features none of that licensing requirement, it isn't developed using a Walmart tool, Walmart paper on Walmart printers though if it was the distribution arrangement with Walmart would then potentially look closer to Amazon's where they do in fact get a cut of the subscription forever more. Distribution is one aspect but licensing the intellectual property from Apple to make the app is really the meat of the value add.

You’re missing that you actually don’t need any of that. Apple just as I your hypothetical example forced anyone to use Walmart printers, Walmart papers, and Walmart stores. And also say you must give Walmart a 30% cut even if you sell in your house. And you aren’t allowed to tell anyone about your home ether.

I think they'll stay there and then make it clear that developers who use external methods incur greater costs and not realise any benefits from it. Maybe some of the really large transaction volume app developers can get close to making 1% back from it but I suspect this experiment will demonstrate that not using the App Store costs more money for the average developer. I'm sure there will also be a lawsuit about it but Apple will be prepared in their current actions for that possibility which will make defending it easier.

It will be unlikely that apple will be allowed to demand the same cut as now in order to make separate payment methods meaningless. So prepare for more regulations because apple acts like dicks using loophole’s.

 

[AndiG]

Will be interesting to see how Apple wants to collect its taxes.

- App forwards user to a payment website
- User buys something using the website
- User „returns“ to the App

By the way - 4% will be a fair price for using Apples InApp payment system.

 

[djphat2000]

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

Then I'm in disagreement with that.

Depends, is it anti competitive? Then no

I would expect that to be found out first then changes made based on that one way or the other.

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.

Not all, iTunes/Music works on Android. And it's not required for Apple to sell/offer their apps on others platforms. Same as any game company/developer doesn't have to offer their games on Apple's platform(s).

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

Does that include Halo? Or any other games developed by Microsoft? Since they just purchased id/Bethesda. Would they charge themselves to place the game on their store?

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

I've used the Xbox web gaming/streaming/cloud app. Works fine. I'm very sure it's not as great as it could be if it was a full on iOS app. But, it does work. It may take more work to make it so. But, it's certainly feasible and again totally bypasses Apple's walled garden.

 

[koil]

The problem with the example is that it focuses on distribution misses what is being licensed: Apple's intellectual property. An app uses Apple's API's, Apple's development tools and Apple's operating system to be built.

This is what the yearly developer fee is for, access to the tools.

Also you're missing the fact that an app sold and existing entirely outside of the App Store is still benefitting Apple by existing. I don't necessarily have to buy an app directly from Apple for me to want to have an iPhone that can run that app.

There could be an F-Droid-like 3rd-party app store for only open source apps and I could use that for 100% of my apps, I'll still buy an iPhone because I believe that Apple are way better at respecting my privacy than Google are, and I prefer their design and iCloud services over those of Google.

 

[ams1117]

What I want is a locked-down iOS but an iPhone that can be unlocked. Don't like iOS rules? Build and install your own OS on the iPhone which can be unlocked, problem solved. I bet the hacking communities will love a shiny piece of hardware that they can do whatever they want with it, while I can keep using a nicely designed OS with tight controls on what individual apps can do. Heck, I'm actually on both sides -- that way I can use old iPhones to run as weird IoT stuff in my house while I get to use a secure phone -- I like the walled garden in that case.

For anyone else who doesn't like what happens on the iOS, just roll your own OS for the iPhone. How hard is it to build and maintain and convince iPhone users to install your own OS? /s

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I would expect that to be found out first then changes made based on that one way or the other.

In Eu such things are already in the law books as we know “they” are damaging the market when they happen. As such EU will be more aggressive. Wrongful investigations can always be compensated by the state, but a destroyed market can’t be fixed after the fact to restore history.

Not all, iTunes/Music works on Android. And it's not required for Apple to sell/offer their apps on others platforms. Same as any game company/developer doesn't have to offer their games on Apple's platform(s).

iTunes music isn’t apple App Store. EU doesn’t require a company to have their apps available.
And a game or program made for iOS aren’t compatible on any other platform, just as Xbox games can’t physically run on PlayStation. But you can sell the product anywhere else that isn’t their store.

Does that include Halo? Or any other games developed by Microsoft? Since they just purchased id/Bethesda. Would they charge themselves to place the game on their store?

No, as hale isn’t competing to a different halo and
1: games aren’t a service.
2: you can buy destiny on any competing store.

Apple Music on iOS actively compete against Spotify. Spotify must pay apple 30% of revenue, Apple Music doesn’t, and always have a 30% price advantage as they don’t need to pay 30% to a competitor. Spotify iOS app must be sold through apple, and just recently was banned from referring customers to their own website without apples 30% cut on subscription

I've used the Xbox web gaming/streaming/cloud app. Works fine. I'm very sure it's not as great as it could be if it was a full on iOS app. But, it does work. It may take more work to make it so. But, it's certainly feasible and again totally bypasses Apple's walled garden.

Absolutely, it’s still just a glorified hosted streaming website and not comparable to normal on device application. Otherwise spotify, epic games and every banned iOS game would have a web application available to bypass apples walled garden.

Apple of course walled of safari as a protection to loopholes for this exact reason as it misses critical functions

 

[djphat2000]

If iTunes music isn’t apple App Store.

I don't know what you mean by this. iTunes (apple music) is available on Android.

And a game or program made for iOS aren’t compatible on any other platform, just as Xbox games can’t physically run on PlayStation. But you can sell the product anywhere else that isn’t their store.

I guess my greater point to this is that as a developer you are not forced to develop for any platform. You can choose to develop for any platform. Apple doesn't have to allow any developer to develop for its platform as well. There is no requirements either way for anyone to be forced to do anything. No store, digital or otherwise is forced to carry anything they don't wish to as well. So, just as that is fact. And i assume universally so. The fact that say Microsoft can sell a game at the same price it would sell the game in a physical store. Are they paying themselves the same cut for the same item if it is located in a physical store or digital? On their platform or a competitor? If I can go to Amazon and purchase an Amazon made/branded item. Are they also paying themselves a cut of that sale to go towards the "store"? Same as anyone else that sells competing items in that store. I don't believe in any case, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon. That they pay themselves that 30% cut for items they make and sell in their store. As a competitor, you are trying to sell and item in whatever given store. You should pay for that ability (fee, cut, etc.). It's the other companies store, you owe them to sell your stuff to the customers within that store.

No, as halo isn’t competing to a different halo

But, Halo is not available on completing platforms. And MS doesn't have to make it work on Playstation, nor does Sony have to make Spider-man on Xbox .

2: you can buy destiny on any competing store.

Doesn't stop the fact that Microsoft can offer this game for less if they wanted to on Xbox direct download. The store ultimately could not compete with them in this area. As Microsoft can always undercut them. Same argument EPIC and Spotify are making. If you want to do business on the AppStore, there is a cut to be paid.

Apple Music on iOS actively compete against Spotify. Spotify must pay apple 30% of revenue, Apple Music doesn’t, and always have a 30% price advantage as they don’t need to pay 30% to a competitor.

Exactly what I mentioned above. Which is the norm across many businesses.

Spotify iOS app must be sold through apple

Not exclusively true. You can sign up from Spotify directly, and just sign to the App Store app. You don't have to do the whole process via the AppStore.

, and just recently was banned from referring customers to their own website without apples 30% cut on subscription

Spotify is free to promote themselves however they feel outside of the AppStore. Apple does not and could not prevent them from advertising outside of the store. They prohibit that within their store, as any "store" would. I got back to the same analogy of if you walk into any store anywhere in the world. And browse for an item in that store. You are not going to see multiple other ways in which to purchase that product outside of the store your located in. You're not going to have a check out lane specific to any one given product located in that store.

Absolutely, it’s still just a glorified hosted streaming website and not comparable to normal on device application. Otherwise spotify, epic games and every banned iOS game would have a web application available to bypass apples walled garden.

Still doesn't stop them from doing so. And it doesn't stop them from trying to make it work as well as possible.

Apple of course walled of safari as a protection to loopholes for this exact reason as it misses critical functions

I'm very sure if Microsoft can stream a video game. Spotify could stream audio.