Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
South Korea Could Ban Apple From Requiring Developers to Use In-App Purchase System
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Regulation is not a form of punishment … and should never ever be. Yourself already agreed that regulation is necessary in many many cases. In those situations that you agreed with regulation is it to punish success of the companies that are required to comply? Tim Cook it self agrees with regulation and said once that the digital market places lacks some. So you and I and probably the poster agree on this. All laws are about fairness in a society to protect a set of values.
Why insist with sophisms aimed to entice peoples emotions? Nothing but a diversion from the issues at hand. You may not consider that these issues in internet components such as iOS and Android need to be addressed with regulation … ok. Heck, you may consider these as non issues … ok. Other people think otherwise .. nothing to do with punishing Apple or Google success or be for or against micro-regulation.
Last edited:
In my opinion, this proposed regulation amounts to government overreach. Because some laws and regulations are necessary in society, doesn't mean that government should steam roll its' power and enact legislation controlling every aspect of our lives as if we are to become societal robots.
And I do view this proposed regulation as punishing success. That's the only way it can be taken. Other than that government doesn't tell Costco it has to sell Sam's Club products and here is what you will earn on those items.
Does anyone really believe that software prices will come down. Its just they don't want to give any money at all to apple, but software prices coming down.. Not a Chance.
What they are proposing doesn't protect the existence of a Free Market. They are trying to force a company to "make" something work on their platform to allow competition within their platform. Apple nor Google should be forced to make something "work" that is outside of what they already made. Saying it's easy, and they can do anything doesn't make it so. These companies wrote their OS's on these devices so that it works with and how "they" wanted it do. And sold it, and people bought it, and developers developed for it etc. Forcing them to say, hey you need to let other companies make a store, and you still need to protect your users from that store or any other store. And make sure it works just as good as yours so they can sell more direct to your device users. Yeah, this is how we make it fair? Cause no one else could build a device, and OS outside of Apple and Google and get enough people/developers to buy it to be successful enough to compete? They don't know what the hell they are talking about or doing when it comes to this.
The point that I don't see Apple making here is the costs associated with hosting (power, network, servers, people, etc), approving, and content delivery of these applications. Take an app like Fortnite. That thing is in the GBs and you can get it for FREE. If your phone is configured to automatically install updates, you could be pulling GBs of data down every few weeks without even opening the application. Hosting all of the updates and then pushing TBs of data out to billions of devices costs money. A lot of money. Multiply that by every single app in the App Store.
Having third party payment systems available to cut Apple out of payments for things like Fortnite, what is the incentive for Apple to continue hosting it? They're making $0 off of that app while it's costing them > $0 a month in bandwidth fees alone. If this does happen and it's easy to cut Apple out completely, this could be the downfall of the App Store in years to come.
Disclaimer: I'm not an Apple fan boi. I'm in IT and these are the things I think about for my job. I also don't want to hear any arguments about "Apple is already making enough money". That's not a valid argument.
Having third party payment systems available to cut Apple out of payments for things like Fortnite, what is the incentive for Apple to continue hosting it? They're making $0 off of that app while it's costing them > $0 a month in bandwidth fees alone. If this does happen and it's easy to cut Apple out completely, this could be the downfall of the App Store in years to come.
Disclaimer: I'm not an Apple fan boi. I'm in IT and these are the things I think about for my job. I also don't want to hear any arguments about "Apple is already making enough money". That's not a valid argument.
Last edited:
Exactly right. This doesn't stop with "digital" stores. This would have to apply to any store.
That is what regulation does. Regulation impose a change in a company that may translate or not into products and services. For instance, companies are required by a set of regulation to provide a warranty. Do you guys think companies want that? Take putting seat belts in Cars, or capping emissions, engines power .. an example of a change in product.
Take for instance Net Neutrality. ISP are required to support all sorts of things that otherwise would provide more profit. I see people here surprised over how regulations of any kind work.
Well its your way. Not the only way. You are vilifying anyone that thinks otherwise. Silly way.
The reason why I have little respect for these kinds of opinions in this contex is because, the people that share them ae not consistent in their stance. If they were, would also be totally against Net Neutrality and as well as others kinds of regulations that share the same aim.
But simply because in this case Apple is concerned, a bright shining star of the decade, people come up this pretense moralistic stances. Looks quite hypocritical. People come up with execuses defending the opposite, Net Neutrality, arguing oh both ISPs are, vital yet Apple and Google aren’t, strategic bla bla bla …
You see, i‘m from the time where there was no Internet (Steve Jobs even before computers) … so I saw very well how ISP appeared … startups back than offering Internet services, over modems and later ISDN … so on and so forth. There was America Online and a bunch of theirs. The Internet was no way a guaranteed thing. Yet ISP invested billions for network capacity, as much if not more than companies like Apple or Google. On top they need to license “airspace” to the govenement, some hundreds of millions just for that … say to be able to deploy 5G, not to mention equipment …
I am in favor of Net Neutrality, as much as Tim Cook. So I cannot be in favor in maintaining or supporting a non Neutral Smartphone networks, covering 97% of the population (App Store + Google Play) on top of a Net Neutrality. My reasoning behind both, as far as I’m concerned are approximately the same.
To be honest, this little South Korean bill is asking companies like Apple and Google very little compared to what was asked to others. Not only to ISP, but others before like Microsoft. Very little.
Have fun.
Last edited:
No it's my opinion about the matter...which is not the same as "villifying anyone".
False equivalency. Verizon or TMOBILE or AT&T didn't invent the internet. They are charging a fee for providing access to it. And the fees vary. Maybe the government should come in and standardize the fees?
The internet is a world wide resource...no one owns it. That is not the same as the IOS app store, which was conceived, invented and promoted by Apple. I'm not saying that Apple invented the app store, but it did invent the IOS app store. The internet is similar to electricity. The electric companies didn't invent electricity, but built an infrastructure to support the distribution and the price per kwh varies by provider. Should the government make all kwh rates the same also?
The internet was invented long before Apple by Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn in 1969. Their invention and protocols enabled others to leverage their work to build what is today a digital global economy. The regulation of this, aka net neutrality, was a necessary step to ensure the proper functioning. But ISPs were free to charge what they wanted.
All of your examples, the underlying product was not developed by those who distributed the product. In this case the underlying product, the app store, was developed by Apple. And unlike electricity, which is critical in 2008 and still critical today, the app store was an opt-in, pay as you go business. Use it or not, develop for it or not. That's the difference.
This proposed legislation is imo, an example of governmental over-reach. No one "needs" to use an iphone. No one "needs" to use the app store. Websites work just fine in 2021.
Always.
Stating: “It’s the only way it can be taken” is more than an opinion.
None of each individually have created the Intermet. They created, invested their own Networks as much as Apple is creating theirs. The Internet is a collective of multiple private and some public networks.
True. Yet, these companies own their own Networks. It’s a world wide resource composed of private networks/products. Net Neutrality regulates theses Networks.
Well smarphones where invented before the iPhone … as well as many of the componentes used. Meaning tech companies, either Telco companies, Google, Apple’s, any tech company …. stand on the shoulders of the creations of many that came before … even between each other by the way … sometimes for free. For instance, there is little doupt that iPhones sales were helped by Facebook popularity and vice versa.
Putting aside this is not true … your proposal is for all to use a property scale to ascertain how much do you effectively own something, based on a set of values to than decide which companies can be regulated and which can’t? Tel me, in this scale is Apple more entitled to their property than you are to your home? Why?
Interesting.
I think you may be relying too much on semantics this time and lack of understanding of how the Internet works. Your previous argument rehashing the ATT / Bell System was in my view a better one.
Interesting read on the art of defending an inconsistent stance.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Unless one can prove a statement is factual, it's an opinion.
AT&T et al, are dumb pipes. Like car dealerships. They are plumbers, they deliver a service for a fee. Yes, the infrastructure is theirs, but the back-end ip is all licensed. You lease space from AT&T is all you do. Quite different from the business model of a consumer electronic device.
They do in fact create their own networks, but cut them off from the internet and why would anybody want to use them? They are pipes delivering bits, much like a water line.
Nobody said Apple invented a cell phone. Cell phones existed since the mid-1970s. And while Apple licenses and buys many of the components, they also design their own components. Many, many companies stand on the shoulders of who came before them. I'm not clear on where facebook enters in to this conversation regarding whether governmental micro-regulation is for the public good...or not.
No, you are saying it's a property scale. I'm saying flat out the Apple invented the ios app store, unlike AT&T inventing the internet. The designed tools, processes, collection methods, distribution, hosting, and management reporting. A consumer is free to use the app store or not and a developer is free to pay the $99 subscription fee or not and develop an app. The dev is essentially not under obligation to charge a fee. Completely opt-in system from all angles.
The app store has grown from 2008 and it has had to deal with the proliferation of additional business models, but essentially it's the same type of operation for 13 years. It's getting a lot of scrutiny due to it's success. If in 2009 the app store hypothetically had 10 little used apps no one would care what Apple did. But due to Apples' ingenuity, the app store has grown and there have been very successful apps making hundreds of millions of dollars. These devs now want that money to themselves making Apple an easy target to lawyer in on.
I agree it's tough to be consistent in defending this stance of more regulation. Cheers back!
Hehehe … well I disagree because it’s not factually true.
But anyway, you seam to be inclined to regulation over the use of ones properties based as level of invention. That‘s a new stance.
How does that work?
Last edited:
That is factually true. Without being able to connect to the internet backbone, the network infrastructure of AT&T et al is meaningless.
Yet, one can use their iphone without internet connectivity.
You seem to endorse the concept of micro-regulation of everyone's intellectual property. Basically a form of punishing success. How would that not kill innovation?
Well ATT history is full of innovations along it’s more than 100 years of history.
What is the internet backbone and how it works
Tier 1 internet service providers (ISP) mesh their high-speed fiber-optic networks together to create the internet backbone, which moves traffic efficiently among geographic regions.
Submarine fiber optic connections is owned by multiple private companies. Some of the quite surprising such as Google and Microsoft along with first tier ISP.
None of it Apple as far as I know.
Don’t know we’re you are getting that information from. Maybe too much speculation?
Well you actually need an Internet connection to setup an iPhone. How else would even create an Apple ID? Gladly these companies don’t discriminate devices. Weird, just weird.
You are really splitting airs here to justify being pro Net Neutrality yet against any sort of minimum Device Neutrality even considering that both Apple and Google cover 97% of the population with their Smartphone OS that in turn can only function on top of these third party products and services.
No. I don’t endorse regulation for regulation, micro or otherwise as well as I don’t endorse non regulation for non regulation sake, or regulation upon ones and not the others fo me the same reasons.
I think regulations should not target companies just situations and should come as last resort. With the understanding that whatever it is, some entities will not like it, others will, and others will be indifferent.
Last edited:
You are changing the talking points and indirectly you are pointing to what I said in the past. The AT&T of yesteryear was a powerhouse. When the government stepped in and dissected AT&T consumers lost. Today we are left with three competing entities, all dumb pipes who job it is to deliver bits and bytes for a fee.Well ATT history is full of innovations along it’s more than 100 years of history.
What is the internet backbone and how it works
Tier 1 internet service providers (ISP) mesh their high-speed fiber-optic networks together to create the internet backbone, which moves traffic efficiently among geographic regions.www.networkworld.com
Submarine fiber optic connections is owned by multiple private companies. Some of the quite surprising such as Google and Microsoft along with first tier ISP.
None of it Apple as far as I know.
Don’t know we’re you are getting that information from. Maybe too much speculation?
Whether the conveyance is a physical line, optic fiber, microwave transmission, is irrelevant. These three companies deliver a bit of information from here to there. That is their only job. Maybe along the way, they will sell you some stuff as well; such as a phone, charger etc.
Not the same business model as Apple, who invented the app store in 2008. None of these companies invented the internet, which was invented in 1969 by two fellows who were at UCLA. Not even AT&T invented the internet.
No. I’m talking ATT today and it’s rich history. You seam to have little understanding over how the Internet backbone works and what private entities are involved to make it work each supplying their platforms for the all thing to work.
You mentioned that ATT worked as a car dealer. It’s quite the opposite, ATT is one of the core entities creating and partially owning the backbone … a great part of the US Internet backbone. Net Neutrality does limit what they can do with it for their business.
You seam to be Ok with that but not when limitations may be Applied to Apple.
Last edited:
Here's a link to the history of the internet: https://www.britannica.com/technology/Internet The point is AT&T didn't invent the internet, it's merely a dumb pipe. And sure AT&T also carries voice calls and have other digital services. The government is telling AT&T they have to sell Verizons' digital services. These digital services depend on the internet of which neither company owns nor developed.
AT&T is like a car dealer. At the most basic level, it moves bits and bytes around on behalf of it's customers. New car dealers depend on the factory delivering cars. Car dealers don't manufacture cars.
Again, not correct. AT&T doesn't own the internet. Apple owns the iphone.
But have never said otherwise.
Still let me try to understand what you are saying … correct me if I’m wrong …
You are ok with ATT products and services be regulated and not Apple products and services, because ATT did not create the Internet and Apple created the iPhone?
This is tour point correct? But these point does not address the issue at hand.
The iPhone is a product and the Internet isn’t, so why are they even in the same line as of a comparison? Apple also did not create the Internet so? It does not make much sense, its non logical.
The way I see it, would say that both ATT and Apple contribute to and make use of the Internet to build their products and services. One is is regulated and you agree with it, the others (Apple and Google) aren’t and you disagree with any sorts of regulation towards neutrality.
Yet you haven’t been able to explain in a logical way why. Considering both Apple and Google built their own non Neutral Smartphone Networks on top of the Internet covering together 98% of the planet Internet users. A massive chunk of the Internet usage have their access controlled by both.
You have been avoiding this al the way in all sorts of ways.
Yet this is THE crucial point behind this bill and what is being discussed amongst regulators. Regulators are trying to regulate some form of Neutrality, for the same reasons they ever did before, into market dominating OSs while both Apple any Google push for non Neutrality. In particular Apple is quite aggressive on that matter using all sorts of emotional mechanisms such as propaganda based on Privacy and Security, when both are fundamental tangent issues.
You argued that it’s Apple property, so they should do whatever with it and benefit from the Internet like ATT and others. Why isn’t your stance the same for ATT. And ISPs in general? Why are ATT businesses crucial to achieve Net Neutrality and Apple or Google aren’t as per your reasoning?
You also argued before, the difference justifying this discrimination is based on the fact that the iPhone could work without being connected to the Internet. Forgetting the fact that it cannot. A smartphone, iPhone never connected with the Internet would be a PDA and Apple would be worth 1/100 of it is worth now … the App Store would be useless, payments could not even be processed … I guess we would be back do Mini-DVDs and Cartridges. Absolutely nonsense of an argument.
I disagree with both arguments. I can’t find the logic behind either. Although I do understand the appreciation of Apple (Google?), the company history, its products and services. You may not appreciate so much ATT and others, Microsoft for instance, that that fell on regulation for similar reasons. Its ok.
But regulation by appreciation is a slippery slope. One may call it favoritism.
Last edited:
No I never said that. You asked if regulation net neutrality was ok but regulation of the ios app store was not. Let me be clear, if A&T wants to open a chain of coffee shops, why should there be additional regulation? Your arguing about net neutrality: "Net neutrality refers to a set of established common carrier rules that serve to protect the freedom and open accessibility of the Internet. Under net neutrality, Internet providers cannot discriminate against certain sites, pages or information that you wish to access by tampering with data transfer." And trying to tie this principle back to others.
It's logical. The internet is not a product that anyone owns.
No I endorse net neutrality. I disagree with (for example) forcing Starbuck's to serve Pete's Coffee products.
Apple or google is not controlling the internet in the same way a consumer is not controlling electricity.
Yes, the ios app store was conceived, developed and implemented by Apple. The internet was neither conceived, developed or implemented by AT&T. The internet is similar to electricity in that regard. Micro-regulating the ios app store is exactly the same thing as forcing neutrality to Starbucks.
I never said never...being 24x7. But yeah, I suppose it could be like that.
Well one could in principle just use what's on the phone? Right?
Microsoft had a virtual desktop monopoly and they abused that power by doing some bad things. This seems to be heading in the direction to turn the iphone into a completely open platform by regulation. Whether it will get there or not, remains to be seen.
Yes. But you aren’t answering the question but using sophims to look like you do.
Let’s step back a little.
Smartphones and OSs aren’t coffee shops. We all know that. So logically neither are iOS or the iPhones. These are devices people use to access the Internet along with all digital services that operate on it and over it. Case in case together these are more like components of the Internet rather than shops or stores, much less coffee shops … as far as users go.
One may prefer one device or OS instead of the other, many choices … a great benefit from Net Neutrality that ATT and others like services are regulated to support its great. Companies can innovate Internet components as well as digital businesses as much as they want. I think iOS and the iPhone are great innovations. Both were and are being so well rewarded for that at so many levels … in particular financially. It’s good business to innovate in this area, very very good. The more incredible the more rewarding … trillion dollar rewarding.
Now you know very well that Apple stance is that the App Store cannot be disassociated from iOS neither can there be other … meaning they are one and the same. So the only logical conclusion is that the App Store … is not exactly a coffee shop. It may look like one, but is not one. It is indeed a non neutral mechanism controlling the way people access the Internet in iOS … pay to have access to it if you will, as it is gating apps. Apps are fundamental concepts of the Internet, that exist since there is a personal computer. iOS is full of these little perks, including for instance the fact that no other browser engine can exist in iOS, being the browser a fundamental mechanism for users to access the Internet.
The problem is that together, iOS and Android have probably more users than US ISPs combined and are gating their way into the Internet, privately regulating how users can and when pay for digital goods and access digital services, creating a Non Net Neutral environment on top of a Net Neutral one.
Logically we cannot simply conclude that its a coffee shop, or wallmart. It may look like one, but is not really. Its much, much, much more than that.
Yes and? What’s the point of comparing with the iPhone. Or are you just clarifying something that does not need any clarification. If that is the case. Ok, but it’s unnecessary.
What bad things? They were simply trying to do with Windows what Apple did with iOS and they were blocked from even make IE the default browser. I remember them arguing that IE was indeed Windows … one and the same. Yet no one bought that, so they had to reengineer parts of their system, remove dependencies … so on and so forth. So much so they were regulated to provide other browser as alternatives upon setup. Heck, even Windows Media Player was put into question. I think given the context, regulators did mostly well. I understand you agreed with this there and then.
Also honestly your stance of regulating Net Neutrality into ISPs modus operandi for one side, and the other side arguing for the build non net neutral private networks on top, covering it 98%, under the disguise of Stores follow incongruent principles. ATT also has stores selling Internet connections to allow users access to digital services too … but cannot discriminate digital services on their products ike Apple and Google do on theirs … wait until it reaches PC (Fred Frederighi considers macOS a more advanced OS because of that), reaches cars and smart houses … this was not the aim of Net Neutrality … quite the opposite.
A final note. You also argued previously that when users buy an iPhone already know all this. So they are voting for a non neutral way to access to digital services. So I guess reason would say, that having more than one App Store in their phones would not make a difference to Apple or Google Play bottom line. They would still opt for the App Store or Google Play … simple. The fact that you are afraid such would not work in favor of Apple App Store or Google Play, just shows that indeed customers may not be really voting through their wallets the idea of a single store for all/most of their digital goods when they buy a Smartphone. Deep down you know they need to be guided, policed by these companies to do so otherwise …
Honestly, this little South Korean bill, is the best of the option for Apple and Google. Far better than what is being currently proposed in the US as far as I understand. Other options exist that can be far more limiting … take what happened to Microsoft for instance. That is micro regulation at its peak … today unnecessary.
The other alternative is for Apple and Google build their own network apart from the Internet from the ground up as an alternative … heck call it App Store and Google Play if you will … but I guess that would not stick as well. It might work as s business … who knows … In abstract it’s not much different than say asking Epic, Netflix and others to build their own devices and OSs to compete relatively equal terms with Apple‘s digital services / apps. Personally I have no use for such a thing … but hey … that is the thing of innovation … you think you have no use until it is revealed how useful it can be. As SJ would said … don’t ask people what they need, show them what they need.
Last edited:
Not sure why net neutrality keeps being brought up. This doesn’t really have anything to do with net neutrality (not that I completely agree with net neutrality anyway, but that’s a tangent for another time).
According to Wikipedia:
“Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.”
iOS isn’t an ISP anymore than Firefox is.
Also, you already can use different payment systems when buying something from the App Store (Credit Card, PayPal, etc), it just goes through Apple’s “checkout” system, same as if someone buys a tv show on Amazon, they can use different payment methods, but the purchase still goes through Amazon. If a new season is released on Amazon, they also buy it from Amazon.
On a personal note, I find it interesting when companies say Apple is gouging them with in-app-purchase commissions, but seem to be okay with gouging their app users. I’m not likely to buy a racing game, if I have to pay real money every time my digital car needs gas. (though if it works for some people, great for them - and yes this is an extreme example, some things might work with IAP)
According to Wikipedia:
“Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.”
iOS isn’t an ISP anymore than Firefox is.
Also, you already can use different payment systems when buying something from the App Store (Credit Card, PayPal, etc), it just goes through Apple’s “checkout” system, same as if someone buys a tv show on Amazon, they can use different payment methods, but the purchase still goes through Amazon. If a new season is released on Amazon, they also buy it from Amazon.
On a personal note, I find it interesting when companies say Apple is gouging them with in-app-purchase commissions, but seem to be okay with gouging their app users. I’m not likely to buy a racing game, if I have to pay real money every time my digital car needs gas. (though if it works for some people, great for them - and yes this is an extreme example, some things might work with IAP)
Is this the same as going around in circles?
The point is there are similar business models to the iOS App Store.
Can you dissociate a Starbucks coffee shop from Starbucks?
I think your saying people can tell the difference between Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks. Although I suspect one can makeover a dunk in donuts coffee shop to look like Starbucks.
This is blatantly false and if your argument depends on this everything that follows falls flat.
Nobody, no one is gating the Internet. Is there technology to stop you from seeing what you want in a browser? Or are you saying every browser jn every okatofrom should perform identically?
Like threatening vendors that manufactured computers with intel chips?
No they weren’t.
Different argument. You have concluded the iOS App Store is a monopoly to make the above argument. That is not the case.
Who wants to regulate net neutrality? Net neutrality is a principle, I’ve already posted a prior link.
Digital services like home monitoring? The purpose of net neutrality is to ensure the bottom feeder websites can be connected to as well as corporate conglomerates like Netflix.
Whose afraid? I’m arguing multiple app stores are like a garbage dump in back of an apartment. Hopefully it doesn’t bear repeating.
The South Korean. I’ll is the equivalent of do you want to die by firing squad or electrocution.
Why do this when there is a functioning ecosystem already in place.
Bottom line I oppose government micro-regulation. Its Robin Hood punishing the successful companies.
They are quite different. A business model is not only characterized by selling goods and or services. Such is simply a requirement to be a business.
Does the App Store sell the iPhone or iOS? Last time I checked it did not. But hey, this regulation does not look to disassociate the App Store from iOS anyway. So why are you talking about it.
??
I’m on a different opinion. When the combination of an OS with an single App Store, dincriminating digital services on what is at its core an Internet device it works as a digital gate entire Internet. Now, if small percentage of the population use such a device is not much of a problem … but when a huge percentage uses such a device … the digital gate holds an incredible power of the Internet economy.
Up to going after tiny companies with a Pear shaped logo?
No. Actually didi not.
A principle followed by the FCC when regulating internet communications … applied only to ISP at the moment.
?? No … digital services like any digital services.
I guess than the business world, as it is stores everywhere, is a garage dump in the back of an apartment? Or is this an phrase only applicable to iOS? Makes no sense.
Suicide Squad
Last edited: