Illinois Floats Bill That Would Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules

[djphat2000]

People just want to see Apple fail. Or "lose" in some way. Makes them feel better about themselves. In this particular instance, for Apple to fail. So too do other companies. Otherwise it's not fair for the rules to exist for one and not all. And since these new rules the governments of the world want to implement on them are made up by folks that have no idea what the heck they are talking/thinking about, and have not made any real effort to learn. These rules will ultimately affect more than they intended. And even if they don't care that eventually it hurts others more. They will be slow to fix if at all.

They want to legislatively fix a natural duopoly/monopoly (perceived or just the result of natural capitalistic forces). But, have yet to actually legally label either as a du/monopoly. You can be a monopoly or a duopoly legally in the US so long as you're not forcing out competition or anti-competitive. And none have labeled Apple a monopoly or having abused their position properly. The state it is not the same as being it. Thinking they are is not the same, having an opinion that they are is not the same.

Someone said the judge did not say Apple wasn't a monopoly, just that EPIC didn't prove they are one. How many ways do you want to split the hair? The judge "could" have said they are if she had justification to do so. Based on evidence provided and what, YEARS of this going on already brings to the table. The best she could do was state that Apple needed to allow 3rd party payments within the platform. And even then, Apple can still collect a commission. So what was the actual point of it? How did that change anything "really" for the people? Us peasants of the world, that lack choice and Freedom? Under ternary of the oppressors Lord Apple.

Give me a break. If this ends up at the SCOTUS, any half decent Apple lawyer will just have to state the most obvious of defenses of the store and payment processing. "Does Target or Best Buy have to let another register exist within their store too? Or is this just for me?" Cause that's unconstitutional, and unless you wish to amend the darn document just for Apple, this case is over. You can't force me to have another register in my store and not also force it for every other store in the US. This includes MS Xbox and Sony doing business in the US. Apple is not special in this regard. You have to be fair and all have to follow the same rules. I get the EU operates differently, but that's to their own detriment. And Apple will comply as much as they are willing too, in order to remain. However, that too has limits.

 

[FreedomPenguin]

Exactly. People are buying Apple products for that walled garden. If people didn’t have an alternative brand then I could understand it being a problem. Right now there are other brands of phones. I would like to see more than two operating systems. It’s unfortunate that someone else hasn’t come up with an operating system to compete with Google and Apple. Attempts have been made but not successfully.

I definitely support people having choices but I don’t support taking choices away from people so to force them to choose something that someone else thinks is better.

im glad you see this, but many here who like iPhones but dont like the ecosystem and want samsung open garden cry because they bought the Tesla wanting it to be Honda chivic.

I really 1000% refuse to ever want open garden. its perfect the way it is, and I hope more people realize this. the people who adopt and want change need to get the heck out of here. they are trying to ruin perfection. theres always androids for those people. dont ruin this for me.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The number of users demanding a closed system from Apple is also insignificant. In reality 90%+ of users don’t give a crap one way or the other. As long as they can get Facebook and their banking apps, they don’t care.

Correct, the vast majority have what they have. They DO care one way or another, because they want what they have (otherwise, they wouldn’t have it… they would have purchased something different). They would side with the insignificant few that, for whatever reason, are demanding a thing that they already have.

Add those two groups on the same side together, and they dwarf any other grouping.

 

[vipergts2207]

For the most part I would say that is true, because the "average" user just want to do the things that apple touts that their device can do. I would also say that the number of users that are also demanding side loading, open system and that type of stuff is also insignificant....when you think about how many iPhones are out in the wild. But I would also say that the garage user wants to get to facebook and their banking apps securely and if something happened that caused banking issues there would be hell in the PR world and maybe even the courts.

* edit correct spelling/grammar

True, and the number of users demanding an open system is also insignificant.

Right, that was already implied by the word "also" in my post.

 

[vipergts2207]

Correct, the vast majority have what they have. They DO care one way or another, because they want what they have (otherwise, they wouldn’t have it… they would have purchased something different). They would side with the insignificant few that, for whatever reason, are demanding a thing that they already have.

Add those two groups on the same side together, and they dwarf any other grouping.

That's akin having a poll on politicians where candidate A gets 42%, candidate B gets 40%, and the remaining 18% of those polled are undecided, followed by you declaring that "obviously the 18% will all vote for candidate B so the poll is actually 58% to 42%. Sorry bud, but it doesn't work like that. The folks who don't care, don't care either way. It's quite laughable for you to brazenly declare them as on your side of a cause they don't care about.

 

[I7guy]

That's akin having a poll on politicians where candidate A gets 42%, candidate B gets 40%, and the remaining 18% of those polled are undecided, followed by you declaring that "obviously the 18% will all vote for candidate B so the poll is actually 58% to 42%. Sorry bud, but it doesn't work like that. The folks who don't care, don't care either way. It's quite laughable to brazenly declare them as on your side of a cause they don't care about.

Do you believe the vast majority get what they get because it's the best of the worst? For me personally, I buy things for what they bring to the table, not these items are missing less than the competition. The doesn't imply said items are perfect.

 

[vipergts2207]

Give me a break. If this ends up at the SCOTUS, any half decent Apple lawyer will just have to state the most obvious of defenses of the store and payment processing. "Does Target or Best Buy have to let another register exist within their store too? Or is this just for me?" Cause that's unconstitutional, and unless you wish to amend the darn document just for Apple, this case is over. You can't force me to have another register in my store and not also force it for every other store in the US. This includes MS Xbox and Sony doing business in the US. Apple is not special in this regard. You have to be fair and all have to follow the same rules. I get the EU operates differently, but that's to their own detriment. And Apple will comply as much as they are willing too, in order to remain. However, that too has limits.

A half decent judge will ask Apple's lawyers how much of the market Target or Best Buy control access to. The answer won't be anywhere near Apple's ~60% here in the U.S.

 

[vipergts2207]

Do you believe the vast majority get what they get because it's the best of the worst? For me personally, I buy things for what they bring to the table, not these items are missing less than the competition. The doesn't imply said items are perfect.

The vast majority of people who bought iPhones and also don't care whether its an open or closed system, obviously bought their iPhone for a reason other than it being a closed system. Maybe they thought that the camera was better. Maybe they like iMessage. Maybe all their friends have iPhones and they want to fit in. There could be myriad reasons not related to whether the system is open or closed that they decided on an iPhone.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That's akin having a poll on politicians where candidate A gets 42%, candidate B gets 40%, and the remaining 18% of those polled are undecided, followed by you declaring that "obviously the 18% will all vote for candidate B so the poll is actually 58% to 42%. Sorry bud, but it doesn't work like that. The folks who don't care, don't care either way. It's quite laughable for you to brazenly declare them as on your side of a cause they don't care about.

You’re right, it DOESN’T work like that. This isn’t a ethereal future decision between three distinctly different things. Everyone that owns an iPhone has ACTIVELY already taken steps to pool funds for, find a vendor that sells the item AND go through the process of purchasing it. Indicating that these people “want the thing that they’ve bought” is not a stretch. And, it ABSOLUTELY means that these folks actively care zero about it “being open” as, if it was important to them, they wouldn’t have bought it.

You end up with a groups like
“Have bought a thing understanding it’s not open and want it to stay not open” small

“Have bought a thing not understanding what ‘it’s not open’ means, but they chose to buy it as whatever being ‘open’ is isn’t important to them” HUGE

“Have bought a thing UNDERSTANDING ‘it’s not open’ but bought it anyway because even though “being open” is important to them, they, for whatever reason, are unable to resist any object with an Apple logo on it” really really tiny

“Have bought a thing because ‘it’s open’ is important to them and are much happier as a result” HUGE and don’t own an iPhone

 

[vipergts2207]

You’re right, it DOESN’T work like that. This isn’t a ethereal future decision between three distinctly different things. Everyone that owns an iPhone has ACTIVELY already taken steps to pool funds for, find a vendor that sells the item AND go through the process of purchasing it. Indicating that these people “want the thing that they’ve bought” is not a stretch. And, it ABSOLUTELY means that these folks actively care zero about it “being open” as, if it was important to them, they wouldn’t have bought it.

You end up with a groups like
“Have bought a thing understanding it’s not open and want it to stay not open” small

“Have bought a thing not understanding what ‘it’s not open’ means, but they chose to buy it as whatever being ‘open’ is isn’t important to them” HUGE

“Have bought a thing UNDERSTANDING ‘it’s not open’ but bought it anyway because even though “being open” is important to them, they, for whatever reason, are unable to resist any object with an Apple logo on it” really really tiny

“Have bought a thing because ‘it’s open’ is important to them and are much happier as a result” HUGE and don’t own an iPhone

The bolded is nothing more than than your bias toward your own position showing through. As far as your statement in between those two goes, it could just as accurately be phrased “'have bought a thing not understanding what ‘closed’ means, but they chose to buy it as whatever being ‘closed’ is isn’t important to them' HUGE." Again, you're trying to claim people as being on your side when those people are in fact agnostic. It's pure conjecture at absolute best. Just because you buy something doesn't mean you like (or even care at all) every single thing about it.

 

[dk001]

If they are going to pass this legislation why not do it to other big companies such as Walmart, Target, Amazon, Microsoft? Why Apple?

Is this even legal?

Sorry - not seeing your point.

Many things I buy at these companies I can also purchase from other retailers or direct from the manufacturer.

 

[dk001]

I think bans that move cities, states, or countries closer to command economies, where elected officials and government bureaucracies dictate every aspect of how private companies and consumers do business, are terrible policy.

In the specific cases of the iOS App Store and, to a lesser extent, Google Play, restricting Apple and Google from setting the participation terms of the marketplaces they built, established a customer base for, and maintain on an ongoing basis does not do anything to protect users or longer-term, developers. Some other payment venue will become the dominant player, raising costs for everybody.

If politicians were serious about helping users and providing choice to developers, legislation requring online marketplaces to accept cash for all transactions might be better. But the best governmental action in this case is really to take no action at all.

While I prefer the Government stay out of things (less is more), there comes a point where there is a need for this intervention when the owning/retailing entity forces restrictions and lack of competition on a captive consumer. This is predominately done for monetary and control purposes.

 

[dk001]

Sounds good.



Whoops...

Once again we're reminded that Apple's 15% or 30% cut isn't just for payment processing. It's the commission fee + payment processing fee.

So if developers want to move the payment processing elsewhere... that's fine. But it won't eliminate Apple's commission fee.

Remember what Google is doing in South Korea: 15% if Google handles the payment... 11% if someone else does.

Google isn't letting developers avoid commission fees... and Apple won't either.

Maybe instead of fighting so hard for alternative payment systems... these governments should have been fighting to lower the platform commission fees?

Because in the end... this proposed bill won't help the developer.

If the developer has to pay 3% to Stripe or PayPal... and they still have to pay 11% or 26% to Apple... then what did they accomplish here?

?

While I agree in spirit, I purchase almost all of my subscriptions or products not via Google or Apple, but from the seller directly. eBooks, Music, Merchandise, Subscriptions, etc., to avoid the "forced tax" imposed.

When this comes about, it will be interesting to see just what Apple (and Google) come up with as potential solutions. I suspect the consumer pushback might be short term ugly.

 

[dk001]

I am all of the percents pro choice, and right now, we have that. I have seen the alternative, and it's GD nightmare I want nothing to do with. On any level. You want to open your digital life, your personal data, your financial records, photos, locations, etc. to just anyone? Have soulless marketers cherry pick that data to shape the products they force down your throat, shape the articles you read, the ideas you foster, the shape of your echo chamber? Cool. I don't. There is a reason - actually a lot of them - why I elect to give my hard earned monies to a specific ecosystem and not another. What is wrong with that? Nothing.

It's weird... I have never once ever considered getting an account at widowsrumors.com and posting about how Windows needs to me more like Apple. Why? Because I don't think they do. I don't give a flip what Widows users want, do. Happy to let them enjoy their decisions. Good for them. Just allow me the same in return. It's not complicated, folks. Stuff you hopefully learn in kindergarten. Chose and enjoy what you like. And don't take it personal when someone chooses and likes something different. There's a million ways to slice this...

Not seeing your point.
Perhaps expanding your info on the "GD nightmare" would help better understand?

 

[dk001]

FULLY agree! People keep advocating for this thinking it will add choices but it takes away choices.

Let me spell it out for people. Do I have a choice currently for a completely closed system, that cannot possibly be opened due to some malware or other means, to be locked in to a walled garden OF MY CHOSING? Yes - iOS. Do I have a choice for an open system where I can install what I want from wherever I want by enabling it? Yes - Android.

Now if Apple is forced to change, do I have that same choice? Where is my choice to chose a completely locked down walled garden environment if this changes? Oh look at that, no more choice.

No!
Go back and look at how many "bad" apps Apple has allowed. It may be walled, but lots of stuff still gets thru.

 

[dk001]

I used to run programs when dos 3.0 was a thing and spent hours learning to program bios and config files to eek out every last bit of memory and CPU performance. For many years this was fun for me and I enjoyed it. I have since moved on to liking different things and so for me I prefer a device that is out of my way and I have less reason to bother with paying attention to it. I spent over 12 years doing proffessional tech support, and strongly suspect I have tons more experience than most of the adverage user so why should I not have the choice to have a device that just does what I need it to and stay out of my way? Why should for your arrogant desire to have the option of two open systems should I lose the choice of my preferred provider when you could easily buy an Android system that has the very options you want.

The issue with the "install from everywhere" is it means I now will need to have to pay attention to a device that really i do not want to. There is a lot of important things like banking, identification and such I keep on my phone for convenience that I will now have to worry about. The thing which I prefer in iPhone is I know i can use it without giving it my full attention, I know when I am distracted or tired, or just not paying enough attention I will not accidentally click on something and infect my phone with an app. And while those issues are mine, the simple fact is that for a majority of users it is why they select Apple. The astounding level of narcisism and egotistical assumption that people that prefer that are somehow uneducated, is beyond credulity.
And no its not a straw man argument. The more governments try to multitask the less actual work gets done. They take on more than they should and do a worse job than the people deserve. Also this kind of stuff should not be the government wasting time on. I wonder how the government would react if citizens decided they do not use all the services that are paid for by taxes and decided they would not pay the government taxes just pay some local people for the services they actually need. Something tells me that wouldnt go over very well, but that is basically what they are trying to do, force Apple to support the developers without any recompense.

Are you looking at sideloading or payments?
For sideloading this would be a strawman.

 

[dk001]

You clearly do not understand security and how it applies to software and devices. The more open a system is, the more security focused the user and tech savy the user has to be. Even tech savy people sometimes prefer not having to have that extra consideration of paying a ton of attention to their device because it does require that one pay more attention and care for it. That is not being someone without personal responsibility. That is being someone who has made a choice about what platform has the security they want after the prior system they had let them down. These people made a decision after the system they had lead to their probably novice user getting scammed. Even the most careful user on a windows or even mac os computer can easily run afoul of malware due to how prevalent it is and because there are simply way too many easy ways to get it onto a system these days. All it takes is one miss-click on an email these days on a windows system to get infected. You can be reading an email, and your phone rings and you look down and you click without seeing that the link was not to the place it should have been. And while that is your responsibility, if there is an option out there that does allow you to reduce that chance and you chose to take it should it be removed from you for a small vocal minority that feel all devices should be the same because that is how they like it?

The situation of someone chosing today to buy an iPhone, knowing full well that it is a closed environment and then turning around and complaining about that is the very definition of lack of personal responsibility and is a very different situation than someone using a tool that failed to protect them sufficiently.

Nice try though

You do realize that the predominance of scamming a person out of money is via email, test messages, and phone calls. Nothing to do with app stores.

 

[dk001]

I spent a good part of my career in IT customer service and I can tell you most people don't know how their iPhone or Apple products software works and DON'T care. They want to turn it on and have it "Just work". When it comes to software they ARE toddlers and they DO require baby gates. Common sense is not as common as you seem to think.

Okay. And?

Don't want to use an alternative payment method? Don't.
Don't want to use and alternative app store? Don't.

By your words, the folks you mention would be the least likely to use alternative methods/sources.

Now for the rest of us ...

 

[dk001]

Apple is totally abusing of its App Store power. Billions of users decided to download instagram & Facebook and other apps knowing its free in exchange of gathering data. "Then comes Apple and says: Dudes, your business model is not allowed anymore".

Its not valid for users to downloaded your app (knowing the tracking stuff and your business model), now they must also opt in for tracking.

If Apps (businesses) don't Agree with these terms, they are banned of the App Store. And there is no other place users can get those apps. THATS CRAZY AND NEEDS TO BE MODERATED!

One of the reason I use alternative store on Android. Great apps that for whatever reason are not allowed in or were removed from the Play Store and apps that are great and opensource. I get almost all my Android stuff from these sites.

Would love to have that option on my iPhone/iPad.

 

[dk001]

That has nothing to do with this. Amazon does not allow Kindle books to be purchased from an iOS device as opposed to a Kindle reader....or computer web browser.

This was a result of SJ/Apple imposing specific rules on in-app purchases back in 2011. Amazon had a choice to either not sell in-app, sell and fork over 30% to Apple, or add the 20% to the cost of the eBook.

 

[dk001]

But it's okay that Amazon is getting a big chunk of every book sold on Kindle? This has been the business model of all the major players for a long time. So, we are on the edge of upending all the way all businesses (global and domestic) work and make new rules for how they do business in every different country and now maybe in every different state.

Yes.
Sellers can use alternative booksellers (I use a few) and load these into Kindle. Amazon sees nada from these sales.

 

[dk001]

It's the thin edge of the wedge. Once Apple is opened up, then all the others will have to follow too. Apple is just the biggest target. Shoot it down and the rest are nothing. If you start by aiming at the smaller guys, then everyone will be up in arms at you for picking on the small guys. That's why it appears to be just Apple in the cross hairs for now.

Good point. However what I do not see Apple doing is negotiating to come to a solution.

 

[dk001]

Exactly. People are buying Apple products for that walled garden. If people didn’t have an alternative brand then I could understand it being a problem. Right now there are other brands of phones. I would like to see more than two operating systems. It’s unfortunate that someone else hasn’t come up with an operating system to compete with Google and Apple. Attempts have been made but not successfully.

I definitely support people having choices but I don’t support taking choices away from people so to force them to choose something that someone else thinks is better.

I disagree. I think it's impression (Apple = top line) and build quality + Marketing.
I have owned a number of idevices and macs.
I buy for the quality of the hardware (or forced on by work ). I also buy based on what's available. Not seeing much competition for the iPad.
My wish for best phone? iPhone 13 Pro Max running Android 11. (12 is still too buggy).

 

[Michael Scrip]

The number of users demanding a closed system from Apple is also insignificant. In reality 90%+ of users don’t give a crap one way or the other. As long as they can get Facebook and their banking apps, they don’t care.

True, and the number of users demanding an open system is also insignificant.

Agreed.

I'd be shocked if a high percentage of "users" actually want to download apps from a website instead of an app store.

These complaints seem to come mostly from a few high-profile developers who want to make billions of dollars from the app store without paying the fees that they agreed to initially.

 

[dk001]

This is the problem I have. People who are in favor of forcing Apple to open up claim it offers more choice. It doesn’t. Right now, we have a choice between closed (Apple) and open (Android).

If this goes through…our choice is open (Apple) and open (Android). End result? The choice for a closed system for those who want it is being taken away. I like the closed Apple system. I don’t like the open Android system. But if this goes through, I’m forced into an open system I intentionally did NOT buy into because I didn’t want it, but I end up in one anyway. And let me tell ya…outside of MacRumors…I never hear ANYONE (Apple and Android users alike) complain about this stuff. At all. On MacRumors, however…it’s like the sky is falling and it’s this major pressing issue.

Why do folks keep saying that? It isn't as simple as "closed (Apple) and open (Android)".
I don't want iOS like Android. I would however love to be able to have more app options and more places to buy from than just the controlled selection in the App Store. A more flexible app supply chain would be, IMO, a benefit.