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 Korean Bill That Could Allow Third-Party Payment Methods on the App Store Gains Support Ahead of Vote
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No it doesn't. The Epic direct payment (Epic's custom payment option that doesn't include Apple as a middleman) is cheaper than the Apple-based payment option.
You seem to be unaware of the existence of anti-trust laws. And nobody said they have to offer their development resources for free either. However, their current business models are under a high level of scrutiny. What you're advocating for is that large, popular, and successful developers subsidize the small or unsuccessful ones. You think that is somehow fair? Why should other developers subsidize the small developers rather than Apple themselves? Apple actually benefits from having as many apps on the app store as possible. On the other hand, how does Epic benefit from a small-time developer coming out with their own app, which Epic themselves helped subsidize? They don't.
Last edited:
Fully agree with the bolded sentence. And it is because of precisely this fact that governments all over the world are looking to rein in the power of big tech.
I am sure Sony and Microsoft are going to let anyone use their ecosystems that they built and maintain for free. If you want a pure standalone game they might get away with it, but if they want to use all of the community features of the console platform well that is not going to be free.
If developers want access to all the services wrapped up in the iPhone architecture it has to get paid for somewhere.
And you're under the impression that they don't cover the app store? Though this is South Korea and I'm rather unfamiliar with their laws, as I would guess are most here.
This is stupid. If I go to safeway, can doritos put their own cashier in the checkout lanes so they can charge me less money?
The right move would be to force Apple to allow other app stores. It may not be pretty, but forcing Apple to use other payment processors won’t end up well for developers or users. IE: expect to see a lot more ads
The right move would be to force Apple to allow other app stores. It may not be pretty, but forcing Apple to use other payment processors won’t end up well for developers or users. IE: expect to see a lot more ads
This is ridiculous, Apple should listen to Macrumors. Pull out of the Korean Market!
I'm not saying Apple's in violation of antitrust laws.
I said governments could go after Apple using antitrust laws if Apple were to suddenly start charging app developers a per app download fee, something which Apple is currently NOT doing, if governments ordered Apple to open up their app store to 3rd party payments as a way to recover lost revenue.
How do you think governments would view such a move by Apple?
It's not as if the U.S. government is not investigation Apple on antitrust grounds already
Apple’s App Store Rules Scrutinized in U.S. Antitrust Probe
About a year into a U.S. antitrust investigation of Apple Inc., Justice Department lawyers are scrutinizing rules that require many app makers to use the company’s payment system, according to people familiar with the matter.
www.bloomberg.com
A per app download fee just adds more fuel to the fire.
wow your really riding apples stick hmm your analogy is flawed. using ur logic it would be more forcing grocery store chains to not tac on an extra 30 percent margin on non generic store brands or companies that provide high speed bandwidth to not prioritize their content over others. It really just seems like you don't really understand how this works.
no one is asking for a ****ing free ride. All everyone wants is the ability to utilize software without apples constraints that may mean an alternitive store which will NOT use apple backend or infastructure which means they pay their own hosting and merchant fees and that people who OWN their devices can choose if they want whats being sold. all be told apple wants to shift to services so u rent software and keep paying and keep paying the tax I'm perfectly happy to purchase softeware and not need a forced upgrade to a sub thank u.
Do you know how to math?
Publish Apps, Games and Software on the Epic Games Store.
Learn how to publish apps, games and software on the Epic Games Store to access over 100M players on PC and Mac.
Developers on Epic get to keep 88% of revenue. In other words, Epic gets a 12% cut. Apple gets a 15% to 30% cut from their App Store.
12% is LESS than 15%
This is a TERRIBLE idea. What's to stop an app from using some malicious payment system that steals my credit card info? - apparently nothing - I buy stuff online, but ONLY, ONLY from selected trusted sites. On the app store I can buy from some never-heard-of developer and trust that my info isn't going to be stolen! Am I really going to trust purchasing though "Amanotes Pte (the company behind white tiles)"? Really?
Before (under the app store) I can buy anything I want, I KNOW it's safe, it's legitimate. But after this, the app store will become just like the internet, open, and completely unsafe, where everything I do I have to watch, and be suspicious of.
Also, the 30% cut apple is taking is NOT just some exorbitant credit card fee. Apple allows for apps to be hosted for free, which allows some developers to make good money on advertiser supported apps. The 30% covers the entire transaction: Running the app store, vetting the app, hosting the app, servicing the download, running a secure payment system (i.e. Paypal) and processing the transaction. - one could argue that it shouldn't apply to in-app purchases, but then apps would be "free" - but license locked and you IAP a license to unlock the app, thus cutting apple completely out of the transaction..
I still think a better option would be to allow other stores (with appropriate warnings) - I as a consumer, just like in the real world, only shop at stores I trust. When I go to Costco, I need to know that everything I buy is sold by Costco, covered by Costco's return policy, and payment is processed by Costco. How terrible would it be if you went to Costco, bought a TV, only to find out that it was sold DIRECTLY by TCL, and you have to take up any issues with them directly? That TCL was actually the one who processed your payment, and leaked your credit card onto the internet. How onerous would it be if everything in your cart was sold by a different vendor? TV by TCL, HDMI cables by some no-name Chinese company without a US phone number, etc... it would be a nightmare, and I wouldn't shop at Costco.
Other options I see that are better:
1) Offer other stores (with some stern warnings)
2) Apple could allow for a sliding scale for in-app purchases, 30% of the first $200,000, 20% of the next $300,000, 15% of the next $500,000, all the way down to something like 7% (Paypal charges 3.5% and they just do the credit card transaction) - this would, I think, appease the big guys like epic.
Before (under the app store) I can buy anything I want, I KNOW it's safe, it's legitimate. But after this, the app store will become just like the internet, open, and completely unsafe, where everything I do I have to watch, and be suspicious of.
Also, the 30% cut apple is taking is NOT just some exorbitant credit card fee. Apple allows for apps to be hosted for free, which allows some developers to make good money on advertiser supported apps. The 30% covers the entire transaction: Running the app store, vetting the app, hosting the app, servicing the download, running a secure payment system (i.e. Paypal) and processing the transaction. - one could argue that it shouldn't apply to in-app purchases, but then apps would be "free" - but license locked and you IAP a license to unlock the app, thus cutting apple completely out of the transaction..
I still think a better option would be to allow other stores (with appropriate warnings) - I as a consumer, just like in the real world, only shop at stores I trust. When I go to Costco, I need to know that everything I buy is sold by Costco, covered by Costco's return policy, and payment is processed by Costco. How terrible would it be if you went to Costco, bought a TV, only to find out that it was sold DIRECTLY by TCL, and you have to take up any issues with them directly? That TCL was actually the one who processed your payment, and leaked your credit card onto the internet. How onerous would it be if everything in your cart was sold by a different vendor? TV by TCL, HDMI cables by some no-name Chinese company without a US phone number, etc... it would be a nightmare, and I wouldn't shop at Costco.
Other options I see that are better:
1) Offer other stores (with some stern warnings)
2) Apple could allow for a sliding scale for in-app purchases, 30% of the first $200,000, 20% of the next $300,000, 15% of the next $500,000, all the way down to something like 7% (Paypal charges 3.5% and they just do the credit card transaction) - this would, I think, appease the big guys like epic.
Obviously whatever apple doing is legal if the there has to be laws made to counter Apples' business model.
And there goes innovation. The government is adept at screwing up all sorts of things it has no business regulating. See for example the breakup of ATT; the best example of how consumers didn't reap any benefit.
Of course, we'll all have our opinions, but I'll believe all of this hubris when I see either alternate app stores or alternate IAP payment options or so-called sideloading.
Look, I just want my cake, and I want to eat it too.
(Side note: why is that a bad thing?)
Yes, the 'demise of innovation'. The frequent boogey man that's thrown out there any time someone doesn't like one regulation or another.
Yup. Because there is no upside to this, except to the rich corporate developers who want their cake and eat it also.
In this thread I've heard the following:
- Apple needs developers
- Developers need Apple
It sounds like a symbiotic relationship, right?
So maybe the percentage should be 50% for Apple and 50% for developers.
If Apple did that... I think developers would quickly beg for the old 70-30 or 85-15 deal...
- Apple needs developers
- Developers need Apple
It sounds like a symbiotic relationship, right?
So maybe the percentage should be 50% for Apple and 50% for developers.
If Apple did that... I think developers would quickly beg for the old 70-30 or 85-15 deal...
The upside is consumers paying lower prices, developers making more money, or some combination of both. The status quo also requires more profitable developers to subsidize less profitable ones. Why should Epic be subsidizing the cost of Apple's development ecosystem on behalf of Jian Yang's Hot Dog/Not Hog Dog app? Epic derives no economic benefit from such an app while Apple does. If app developers took home more of the income they generated, they could use that to further other economic benefits, say by hiring a larger development team which would help enable further innovation. Apple already has more money than they know what to do with. They have somewhere around $200 billion in cash on hand. Just that cash alone would make Apple something like the 55th most valuable company in the world. It would seem to me that allowing more money to flow back to third-party developers would better spur innovation than having that money going to stagnate in Apple's bank account.Yup. Because there is no upside to this, except to the rich corporate developers who want their cake and eat it also.
Umm @ checkout, you are allowed to use cash, debit, credit cards.
Consumers are not going to pay lower prices. Devs are going to pocket the difference and Apple gets cut out.
The status quo requires everybody to pay the same rate, I don't know where you believe anyone is subsidizing anyone else. Only someone from inside Apple would know that.
Apple should raise fees in other areas to compensate. This means the barrier for entry will be higher and innovation will drop. And sure, both of us are singing "hypotheticals r us".
At any rate, what will happen will happen. I don't have to be for it though.
Let's say a developer is allowed to use 3rd-party payment methods. You can use Stripe, Paypal, your own homegrown system, or whatever.
But payment processing is only a small part of Apple's 15% or 30% fee, right?
Sure... you can move the payment somewhere else... but your app is still in the App Store... it still goes through App Review... you're still uploading your files to Apple's servers and CDNs... you're still using Apple's development tools, APIs, SignOn services, AppleID, etc.
Ok fine... you can use Stripe to handle your IAP payment.
But what's Apple's fee for literally everything else that they provide?
EVERY store charges some kind of fee. Let's not forget that.
But payment processing is only a small part of Apple's 15% or 30% fee, right?
Sure... you can move the payment somewhere else... but your app is still in the App Store... it still goes through App Review... you're still uploading your files to Apple's servers and CDNs... you're still using Apple's development tools, APIs, SignOn services, AppleID, etc.
Ok fine... you can use Stripe to handle your IAP payment.
But what's Apple's fee for literally everything else that they provide?
EVERY store charges some kind of fee. Let's not forget that.