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
Sorry, but I support Apple on this issue. I'm old enough (77) to remember the horror of malware from "the old days". I was a solid Dell user in my one4 man business, but then Dell shifted their customer support to India and the **** hit. After reinstalling Windows time after time for a week I went down to CompUSA and bought a PowerBook and haven't looked back. Who is going to protect me with this new "approach"?
Another issue will be who will have the authority to kill malware that is causing major problems? Are customers going to be considered suckers for buying outside protective envelope? Can Apple refuse to list any top n their AppStore, ofr will the developers start their own store(s). Apple should not be required to list apps for free. No revenue, no listing, If dev4lopers do not want Tod pay Apple then they need to do all the work that Apple does for them.
If the protective Apple has developed is killed I'll still only buy from the Apple App Store, but I want Apple to make a note that this is a traditional AppStore purchase and without that note it is a Buyer Beware situation.
Oh, and One More Thing. South Korea politicians need to remind themselves the level of Apple purchases they make from Korean Component Suppliers.
Another issue will be who will have the authority to kill malware that is causing major problems? Are customers going to be considered suckers for buying outside protective envelope? Can Apple refuse to list any top n their AppStore, ofr will the developers start their own store(s). Apple should not be required to list apps for free. No revenue, no listing, If dev4lopers do not want Tod pay Apple then they need to do all the work that Apple does for them.
If the protective Apple has developed is killed I'll still only buy from the Apple App Store, but I want Apple to make a note that this is a traditional AppStore purchase and without that note it is a Buyer Beware situation.
Oh, and One More Thing. South Korea politicians need to remind themselves the level of Apple purchases they make from Korean Component Suppliers.
App reviewer makes $34/hour. One of my previous app reviews took the reviewer about an hour to do.
$99 is barely enough to cover 3 app reviews.
Why on earth would someone build a store that they don’t make a profit on. They would just close the App Store in that country and keep it moving.
Apple us building and maintaining the platform, the APIs, security and support etc. Create a Web App or bring your own customers. These people want Apple to develop and maintain the platform, give them access to their customers and use Apple’s goodwill and trust, but exclude them from profiting on the billions they spend every year. That’s nuts.
Some of my random thoughts on the “Open app markets act”, but they could apply here.
This bill seems like a direct attack on a foundation (or at least part of it) of Apple’s “Why”. From what I’ve seen, two of Apple’s main ideals are reducing the “paradox of choice” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice) and protecting users from themselves. This bill would completely undermine both of those.
As far as I know, Apple has never presented iOS/ the app store as an open system. It’s always been presented as a closed / imbedded system. And while some people who buy iOS devices might want a more open system, it was never sold as such. And there are probably many others who buy iOS devices precisely because (or at least one of the drawing aspects being) that it is a more simplified system where they don’t have to bother with several app stores and a dozen payment systems. Yes, they could choose not to use all the extra options (but Apple being forced to have them at all would invalidate Apple’s reduction of “the paradox of choice”.) Besides, they already made that choice when they chose to buy an iPhone.
Also, with Apple controlling the software and hardware end to end, it has the ability/potential to make more stable products. Every time extra interoperability is added, it can add a level of complexity to the testing/production process.
If someone, on their own, figures out a way to side-load apps on their personal device, then I completely agree that it should not be illegal. (as long as it’s not resold as an official Apple product etc.)
However, I do not believe Apple should be forced to do it for them, especially since it was not sold, and never has been (as far as I know) as an open system. If it had been sold for years as an open system like Android, and then out of the blue Apple decided, “Well, now that a lot of people are invested in this, let’s make it a closed system and start extorting people” I would be more understanding of people being upset about it.
- Apple’s “Why”
This bill seems like a direct attack on a foundation (or at least part of it) of Apple’s “Why”. From what I’ve seen, two of Apple’s main ideals are reducing the “paradox of choice” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice) and protecting users from themselves. This bill would completely undermine both of those.
As far as I know, Apple has never presented iOS/ the app store as an open system. It’s always been presented as a closed / imbedded system. And while some people who buy iOS devices might want a more open system, it was never sold as such. And there are probably many others who buy iOS devices precisely because (or at least one of the drawing aspects being) that it is a more simplified system where they don’t have to bother with several app stores and a dozen payment systems. Yes, they could choose not to use all the extra options (but Apple being forced to have them at all would invalidate Apple’s reduction of “the paradox of choice”.) Besides, they already made that choice when they chose to buy an iPhone.
Also, with Apple controlling the software and hardware end to end, it has the ability/potential to make more stable products. Every time extra interoperability is added, it can add a level of complexity to the testing/production process.
If someone, on their own, figures out a way to side-load apps on their personal device, then I completely agree that it should not be illegal. (as long as it’s not resold as an official Apple product etc.)
However, I do not believe Apple should be forced to do it for them, especially since it was not sold, and never has been (as far as I know) as an open system. If it had been sold for years as an open system like Android, and then out of the blue Apple decided, “Well, now that a lot of people are invested in this, let’s make it a closed system and start extorting people” I would be more understanding of people being upset about it.
- Government overreach.
scheinderrob proposed how it worked, not me.
think about who you should respond to before you say it.
Transaction security isn't always equal though. There are news reports all the time about credit card numbers being stolen in data breaches. As I said in my post Amazon and PayPal are the only places online that directly get my credit card number.
It seems very likely that if these kinds of efforts pass there will be apps that drop Apple's first party payment systems all together and/or move off to a third party store. Then my preferred options go away. That is what I'm most concerned about.
This would be like my favorite brands of food pulling out of the grocery store in the good part of town and requiring me to go to a part of town I don't trust to get my groceries.
Benedict Evans really wants us to believe Apple doesn’t do any financial tracking of the App Store? Seriously?Regarding no App Store on Apple Profit & Loss statements
Benedict Evans has long covered apple and is a pretty neutral voice. Wrote a great piece on this issue im reading as I type. One thing I should note from you is your thinking assumes developers only take from Apple the way you broke down the costs of different app store functions. It would help to measure the impact of 3rd party apps on iPhone sales and the entire apple ecosystem for that matter. The app store charts are a good start. None of Apple's optional apps even rank in there. 3rd party apps sell Apple products. Apple provides the shovel (Dev tools), we dig for the gold. Even if they provided the shovel for free, they still make money from the gold we dig. The InAP argument is about how much profit they make per shovel which is trivial compared to GOLD!
Do App Store Rules Matter? — Benedict Evans
After a decade of arguing, regulators will change Apple’s App Store rules. How much money is involved, what might happen next and, most importantly, who cares? This is a big deal for Spotify, but does it matter to anyone else?www.ben-evans.com
To innovate, you must go outside apples in-app purchases. What alot of people fail to note is payment innovation has enabled so many business models. Amazon is an ecommerce giant becasue for 17 years they held a patent on on-click checkout. Imagine what this in-app purchase policy is doing to the digital economy in terms of business models its preventing.
View attachment 1822810
Wow you must not be old enough to remember when people actually paid for OS upgrades...
We are lucky we dont pay for them anymore.
But even some Windows OS users pay still. Many dont.
So if OSes are free, should all software be free just because you want cheaper prices?
Who pays for the dev work?
Apple devices are still premium prices. The extra cost for extra memory is still way over true market cost.
But if you dont want to pay it there are plenty of Android phones. It's buyer choice. Free market.
If you dont want to pay for app store purchases then same thing. Android.
I use both platforms.
I buy very few Android apps.
And are wary of side loaded non-PlayStore installs. Even free ones.
really? can you point to mac devs that quit because they were not making money? because I can name more than few iOS devs that quit for that reason..
I use iOS devices because they have a closed eco system. If I wanted to side load apps and have more customization controls I would buy an android or Linux device. Forcing Apple to loosen restrictions is literally the opposite thing I want.
I doubt their inability to be profitable lies in the iOS marketplace or IAP payment partners, it most likely is caused by the freemium model where rip off apps are churned out overseas (China) where the labor rate is a joke.
You will NOT get lower prices if this moves forward. All developers will just keep the exact same price and get a bigger commission, that's all. If anybody has told you different, they are lying.
ArsTechnica and many studies have proven again and again that whenever platform fees go down, the prices remain exactly the same.
Besides, saying Apple prices are high is nonsense for many people in pretty much ALL developing countries.
The cheapest prices are Apple's prices. In Brazil the current exchange rate for USD $1.00 is BRL $5.30 but buying from Apple they treat it as BRL $3.50. It's by far a lot cheaper to buy from Apple's payment systems. If the developer doesn't support in-app-purchases I don't even look at their app.
That means everything is usually 34% cheaper (sometimes more!) for everything when buying inside Apple's ecosystem. It's great!
I’ve been following this subject for a few years, even promoted the reduction of fees from 30% to 15% but didn’t expect alternative app stores, payment means or side loading of apps to be legally required.
Under the circumstances, I now think Apple could reduce App Store fees to a flat rate of 10% which would include the service of a curated app listing and the payment gateway & Apple compatibility. If there is enough fees collected they could go towards services such as marketing budget for category search results or promotions, potentially hosting services. If the AppStore fee does’t add up to be enough for promotions or hosting, the app could pay more for services.
Free apps and those using alternative payment methods would still need App Store vetting. A fee would be appropriate and would be included in the 10% flat fee if they shift payment to Apple.
As for alternative app stores, they would need to comply with Apple standards anyway to avoid customer & device harm, or warranty issues. The vetting process by Apple of the other app stores would be costly. If customers or an alternative App Store wants to completely and independently avoid Apple vetting they can jailbreak, that’s an option but beware - jailbreak automatically voids Apple warranty & support, Apple accredited accessory compatibility, access to App Store & software upgrades. What’s the market share for jailbreak app stores and apps void of Apple assured compatibility etc?
Under the circumstances, I now think Apple could reduce App Store fees to a flat rate of 10% which would include the service of a curated app listing and the payment gateway & Apple compatibility. If there is enough fees collected they could go towards services such as marketing budget for category search results or promotions, potentially hosting services. If the AppStore fee does’t add up to be enough for promotions or hosting, the app could pay more for services.
Free apps and those using alternative payment methods would still need App Store vetting. A fee would be appropriate and would be included in the 10% flat fee if they shift payment to Apple.
As for alternative app stores, they would need to comply with Apple standards anyway to avoid customer & device harm, or warranty issues. The vetting process by Apple of the other app stores would be costly. If customers or an alternative App Store wants to completely and independently avoid Apple vetting they can jailbreak, that’s an option but beware - jailbreak automatically voids Apple warranty & support, Apple accredited accessory compatibility, access to App Store & software upgrades. What’s the market share for jailbreak app stores and apps void of Apple assured compatibility etc?
know what would solve a lot of the problem you're mentioning? Allowing other app stores
You know no-one "protected you" this way with your PowerBook either, right? The reason why windows malware was so out of control way back when was both flaws in the window's security model and a lack of built-in antivirus on the platform. Windows is decently secure today, as is MacOS and iOS.
Do you actually own a mac? None of those restrictions from iOS exist on MacOS, you can install software from anywhere, and pay with anything....
That's certainly your choice, no one would take that away from you
So no government should regulate any business?
It’s apple’s store so they make the rules, I am not a fan boy and actually rarely side with Apple But this is government over reach.