Based on South Korean parliament records, the amendment bans app store operators with dominant market positions from forcing payment systems on content providers and "inappropriately" delaying the review of, or deleting, mobile contents from app markets.
It also allows the South Korean government to require an app market operator to "prevent damage to users and protect the rights and interests of users", probe app market operators, and mediate disputes regarding payment, cancellations or refunds in the app market.
> I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.
Most of the arguments I've seen here, that you are probably classifying under this aspersion, are probably some variant on:
- This doesn't look illegal under current (US) laws
- New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US)
- If this happens a lot of the good parts of the ecosystem get thrown out also (arguments through security, fraud)
Whereas an awful lot of the other side looks like "This is unfair so must be illegal!" (30% arguments, very narrow definitions of the word "monopoly" that favour the arguer). Very few seem to actually argue that anything Apple/Google have done are illegal under current laws. I don't think the segment you are attacking for pure "It is free market therefore good" ideology exists.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when other countries, who aren't tied by the same conditions, start restricting this stuff.
Everything was legal until it wasn't. It was the same for Standard oil before 1911: they said it's all legal to have such a monopoly on oil.
For some people at the time, it was obvious this was an unfair advantage on the market, so they fought to make it illegal.
It's the same now. Of course Google and Apple mostly respect the laws of the land, but if a large swath of the population/industry thinks they are unfair, their position will soon become illegal as well.
The reality is that there's a vocal minority (looks around here) and the vast majority of people couldn't give a shit less.
Not once in my life has my dad, my grandma, or some random friend I met up with at a bar gone "jeez, Apple and Google sure do have a monopoly on pricing in their respective app stores and this harms me as a consumer". Nobody cares. In fact, most people probably think everything is amazing how it is now and don't think there's a problem. Personally, I'm knowledgable enough and I think things are way better now than they might be in a future state where this is changed. I know exactly what is going to happen. They are going to be forced to allow competing app stores (in the case of Apple) and then everybody I know is going to have like 5 stores installed, garbage apps spying and harvesting personal info, and it's going to just be a shit storm of stupid knock-offs, crappy products, and outright theft. There's no way around it and if you don't understand that you're now going to have to fix your grandma's iPhone now because Facebook wasn't on the Apple App Store but was on the whatever App Store you're living in a fantasy bubble where people are even moderately technically literate.
There's just a few disgruntled developers who don't like the rules so they complain loudly, and some billion dollar corporations who can make some money if they win legal cases. Small, but vocal players.
Unfortunately that's how a democracy in a country as large as the United States works. Most people don't care about something so one group can just shout loudly and eventually get their way, even if it is bad for the country as a whole. Then they get entrenched and laws are nearly impossible to repeal now. Then we overcorrect and pass new laws, but then these laws have loopholes or carve out exceptions. /rant
It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
What we have today is a significantly larger momentum against tech monopolies.
Look at some of the practices that brought the case forward:
"An office boy working at the Standard Oil headquarters was given the job of destroying records which included evidence that railroads were giving the company advance information about refiner's shipments.[85] This allowed them to undercut the refiners"
Does that sound familiar? Google knows everything that happens on your phone; and they can just undercut every other successful app if they wish so? Or how Amazon can simply analyze all the sales and create their own version of the successful products?
> You should read upon the woman who brought down Standard Oil ... It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.
She lost, she didn't win. Tarbell's confrontation with Rockefeller & Standard Oil and the legal actions of the authorities did the exact opposite of taking down Standard Oil. Standard Oil became even larger and more powerful. JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward. The Standard split itself into a more potent back-office interconnection of separate state chartered monopolies. No longer was there one monopoly controlled by Rockefeller, but numerous, all operating in concert as an oligopoly behind the scenes. The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any anti-monopoly/trust action taken in the US that's been a net positive to the consumer. Can anyone point me to one?
Breaking up Ma Bell into baby Bells just created regional monopolies instead a national one. This was largely before my time, though. I've heard anecdotally that consumer prices went up as a result, but I don't know for certain.
I was negatively affected by AT&T being forced to divest their cable internet business, leading me to become a long-time Comcast customer through no desire of my own. Now, I'm back with AT&T with fiber to the home. Before AT&T ran fiber (just within the last 2 or 3 years), it was a choice between Comcast/Xfinity or terrible DSL.
"JD Rockefeller's family got far richer afterward."
"The strings continued to be pulled by the Rockefellers just the same (which you can read about in eg Titan by Ron Chernow). It's the Sorcerer's Apprentice outcome that people were so afraid of in the Microsoft anti-trust trial. Tarbell accomplished very little other than some harm to Rockfeller's reputation by exposing a few corners of that empire."
Yeah, right, Rockefeller's family got richer but the influence of the founders rarely lasts more than a few generations before either the company goes belly-up or it settles into the position of an also-ran.
Sometimes it isn't true but it's more often than not the case with companies that have come to power and riches on a new wave of tech where the founders were instrumental in developing the tech. There are hundreds of examples. Let me list just a few:
* Baldwin Locomotive Works: if you'd said to anyone in the U.S. in 1900 that this famous company would eventually go belly-up in a couple of generations then they'd have said you were mad and would have escorted you to the asylum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_Locomotive_Works.
* The Stanley Rule & Level Co. Also around 1900 many would have almost said the same about Stanley, today it's hardly even an also-ran (it now just packages tools made by others). In the latter half of the 19th Century, Stanley along with other parts of New Britain's manufacturing sector was known as the Patent Center of the world. Stanley, had hundreds of patents and one of the key innovators of the time, Justus A. Traut, whose patents Stanley used, was known as the Patent King. Today, few techies would have ever heard of Justus Traut let alone know what he did for the U.S. tool industry.
* Marconi Company, aka the Wireless Telegraph & Signal Company. The once famous Marconi company was one of the biggest and most important electronic companies in the world, it's now long defunct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Company.
* RCA/Radio Corporation of America. Another Guglielmo Marconi operation with the once legendary/infamous David Sarnoff at its helm—it too is now defunct (1986). Not long ago this was the biggest electronics company in the world. For starters, by about 1970, RCA was the principle equipment supplier to over 80% of all radio and TV stations in the U.S. alone (supplying complete turnkey operations). RCA built everything from semiconductors—transistors, ICs (e.g.: its famous 4000 series CMOS) to broadcast videotape recorders to satellites and everything in between. Now there's nothing left but scraps—the best of which were picked up by other companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA. (BTW, I'm quite familiar with this company as I once worked for it, excellent job it was too.)
Like it or not, Microsoft, Google and Apple will most likely go the same way for the very reason that those I've listed above have. In the end, history is against them surviving. Their tech will get tired and outdated and they will not adapt quickly enough (it's especially so with high tech after the founders leave or die off).
If you're a Microsoft, Google or Apple devotee then this seems an inconceivable outcome, for others it cannot come soon enough. However, the majority of the population couldn't give a damn either way.
I'm not arguing that all tech companies are or are not monopolies. I think Google and Facebook are specifically candidates for anti-trust regulation. But I don't see it with Apple at all, especially around this App Store issue, and I'm not really convinced that Amazon is either.
50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.
You can't reach them without paying Apple tax. You can't write software and be done with it - you have to make their arbitrary reviewers happy and wait for releases. No matter what your business is.
They also keep you from forming a relationship with the customer. You don't get an email or anything. You're on their payment rails most of the time, which significantly increases risk.
One press of a button, and your business is obliterated.
Imagine if every car was either Ford or Tesla, and Tesla charged your destinations 30% on everything you do. Every bagel you buy, or every concert you attend.
Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.
> 50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.
Isn't this article about Korea? Anyway.
> You can't reach them without paying Apple Tax
And? If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users. Can you not make money on the other 50% of users who use Android? If so that's kind of telling on its own. Or is it that you want your own business to be more lucrative? The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers, and as a developer you don't like that. As a consumer, I love it. If they stop passing those costs and stop collectively bargaining against developers for me then the cost of the iPhone goes up.
> Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.
Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model? If it comes to having fewer apps on the Apple App Store or having multiple stores, as an iPhone user I prefer fewer apps for sure.
I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more.
> Isn't this article about Korea?
The choice Korea is making is the same one the EU, Japan, etc. should be making. And ultimately, the same one to make right back at home.
> If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users.
I'm pissed that I could write software for everyone pre-App store. This is all artificial nonsense that Apple invented. There's no cost to run instructions on your mobile CPU.
I hope Tesla starts charging businesses when Tesla customers arrive. Or maybe your clothing brand can charge stores because they keep you from being nude so you can safely buy things without being obscene. It's the same analogy.
> The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers
What costs? Their cartel is pure margin.
They don't charge websites, because it would be impossible and they'd never have been able to bootstrap their device. (Yet they certainly bar browser runtimes so that they maintain complete control.)
> the cost of the iPhone goes up.
No it doesn't. They want more people on their hardware platform so they reap services revenue and can cross sell other devices. They're already making a killing.
Apple can innovate new products and revenue streams with all that money and all those engineers. If the only innovative business they can do is imposing an artificial tax, then they're simply a market distortion.
> As a consumer, I love it.
You love our pain?
> Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model?
> I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more
What if we already listened to the arguments and discussion and just disagree? Maybe you should empathize more with me and not try to change something that I enjoy and have enjoyed since it was originally released? Where's your empathy?
> What costs?
Apple makes money. That money funds the development of the iPhone. It also funds and allows them to create programs and initiatives I support like data privacy labels. If Apple is forced to throw this stuff out, those are costs that I now bear as a consumer. Apple might have to raise the price of the iPhone either directly or indirectly. Or competitive pressures may force them to remove simple payment methods like Apple Pay, not force developers to allow anonymous sign-ons, and other things. From my perspective there is nothing to gain. I don't want two or more App Stores. Period. I want one, just how it is, with Apple dictating the terms. It works well for me. Apple and I are on a team here.
> Their cartel is pure margin. They invented this scheme
Weren't you just complaining about not having high enough margin? So only you get to make money and not Apple or other companies? I'm an Apple shareholder (directly and indirectly). Their margins benefit me directly. Yours? Not so much. So let's not act like it's some big evil David vs Goliath thing. You're running just another business.
> You love our pain?
It might be pain to you, but it certainly isn't to me. I'd rather have far fewer apps than to see things change or have to deal with another App Store. I love my walled garden and developers like you are metaphorically barbarians at the gates coming to destroy a system I enjoy and works well for me. But why would you care about that when you want to make higher margins for your business? Something about empathy I think?
Sorry to sound like an asshole here. Just a hot topic.
Our field is being carved up by giants. It's a harvesting.
Companies like Apple decided to put energy into extraction rather than enrichment.
It's a shame. I wish I or someone like me was in charge, because I see a way to run things much differently and still produce great value for customers, shareholders, and the ecosystem.
Hoping the DOJ or Congress breaks this up since the Apple leadership won't.
Neither did any consumer complain to EU about credit card processing fees. Because they dont know. But EU business did. Just the same as App business in other country that are complaining now.
And EU took action on Visa and MasterCard processing fees.
And is the same argument, It is Apple's App Store, they can do what ever they want with it. Fine. Perfectly valid argument. But it is also EU's Market ( or in this case South Korean Market ), if Apple dont like it, do what the MacRumors comments have been telling Apple to do, Pull out of the EU and South Korean market to retaliate.
> Neither did any consumer complain to EU about credit card processing fees. Because they dont know. But EU business did. Just the same as App business in other country that are complaining now.
Sure but that's not a great comparison. The experience for users is the same, you're just shuffling around who gets paid. A better comparison would be a business that only accepts cash who then has to accept credit cards so they raise prices for everyone.
Either way, in the case of Apple and the iPhone it changes the user experience and the ability of Apple to collectively bargain against developers for the interest of consumers (where we are aligned). With 3rd-party App Stores you can now take a company like Facebook with abusive privacy rules, or manipulative and scammy apps and they basically get back into the ecosystem. So you're going to lose a lot of good things for not much value.
I think the writing is probably on the wall for Apple, but hopefully the experience isn't destroyed too much. Sucks that we're going to a worse future.
> And EU took action on Visa and MasterCard processing fees.
And did those businesses lower prices or keep the prices the same but pocket the extra margin they were padding on for the fees?
I'm not saying it wasn't a good move, Visa and MasterCard are useful middle people but middle all the same, but it seems to me to just be shuffling around who is getting paid. Where this affects small businesses, great! Where it affects large companies? Meh.
> And is the same argument, It is Apple's App Store, they can do what ever they want with it. Fine. Perfectly valid argument. But it is also EU's Market ( or in this case South Korean Market ), if Apple dont like it, do what the MacRumors comments have been telling Apple to do, Pull out of the EU and South Korean market to retaliate.
I mean yea I'm not disputing that. The EU can pass whatever laws it wants, as can Korea. I just think it's anti-consumer. I don't think Apple will leave the markets though, they'll likely implement it and it'll just be a worse experience for EU citizens and South Koreans who have iPhones. I'm against it, personally.
It's probably true that the vast majority of people don't have an awareness of the impact and/or have little care but that doesn't make the issues unsubstantial.
You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nearly as dominant. As with most anti-trust arguments -- market domination is temporary unless granted by the government, e.g. AT&T. In general it is sour grapes from those who can't compete.
You should look at Standard Oil. Yes, it lowered prices and increased access. And it did things that were clearly blatantly unfair competition.
For one example, it demanded kickbacks from railroads on oil shipments - all oil shipments, including competitors'. It's pretty hard for a competitor to be able to compete in that environment.
If you're referring to drawbacks - then you have to ask, why did the railroads grant them? Why would other oil shipments pay a higher rate?
Is it because the volume and stability standard oil offered, as well as ownership of tankers and other critical infrastructure needed to be compensated for?
Once again, their market share was falling while these programs were going on so clearly it didn't hamper competition.
Why did the railroads grant them? Because Standard Oil was a huge amount of business. And back then, railroads had other railroads that competed with them. The railroads granted them under the threat of Standard Oil taking a huge amount of business to the competition.
Was it for the ownership of the tanks? No, I don't think so... but I can't prove it.
That it doesn't look illegal under current laws is not because the laws as written didn't anticipate it, but rather because the laws were reinterpreted in a way that is more convenient to monopolies:
Isn't that the point of laws and governments? That if enough people think something is bad or unfair, but is not currently illegal, then you introduce new laws to make it illegal?
I think ultimately this is why Apple and Google will get off with a slap on the wrist - like Korea, Japan, et al, we have our state industries that compete in the global economy. Apple and Google are our champion competitors, and while the US wants to appear principled, we also want to crush our global competitors. There is a snowflake's chance in hell that the US is going to cripple our champions in the name of principles, because it's not principles that are the concern, but the appearance of being principled. Why would we help the non-US businesses compete with the home team?
"Why would we help the non-US businesses compete with the home team?"
Because your home team is trashing your house, racketeering your businesses and pissing in your garbage bins. They harm US consumers first and foremost
Problem is, it's hard to find these consumers who are 'harmed' and clamoring for redress of their grievances. I'm one of them and I'm actually very happy with the value delivered per dollar in the existing mobile space.
Other businesses harmed? Maybe, but if you think that Epic is going to drop their prices 30% in lockstep with a hypothetical elimination of app store fees, I have a bridge to sell you. This dream of a breakup of Google and Apple is not going to be the boon to consumers that some idealists are imagining.
> if you think that Epic is going to drop their prices 30% in lockstep with a hypothetical elimination of app store fees, I have a bridge to sell you.
While not 30%, they did drop 20% when switching to their own payment processing [0]. And even if they didn't, more money to them allows them to hire more developers to make their games better for their customers.
> I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.
No one i know outside of SV bubble has even thought about this issue at all. Most immediately say "isn't it good that apple protects people?" and gives it no more thought.
As much as businesses would love it, i think attacking apple is still a hard political sell.
This is slap on the wrist considering the repeated crimes (bribery, corruption) - courtesy to his position in a vitally important chaebol. Having a CEO take a 1-year hiatus while serving a prison sentence wouldn't fly at any publicly listed American company, very few private companies with independent boards would countenance that either.
This is a move on the right direction, and is better than nothing.
However, I think that a better move is to force HW platforms (maybe starting at a certain magnitude) to let the users use any software market they desire. This way Apple and Google can continue forcing the apps on their own markets to use their payment systems and "keep the users safe", while the other markets can do whatever they like
I would go further: software should always be optional in any hardware purchase and the price of hardware with software should be higher than the price of the hardware alone. Discount bundles with software + hardware should not be allowed. So no iPhone + iOS or laptop + Windows as one item.
Selling hardware and software separately ensures that the hardware can be repurposed with independently sourced software. That gives control to the user and reduces e-waste.
This should include 'firmware'. The benefit for the manufacturer is that they can charge for software updates. But the consumer can choose to get the update from elsewhere.
This is such an awful take.
First of all 95% of consumers have no idea about how software and hardware works, they'd have to install the OS, drivers and basic programs.
Most consumers value commodity above all, and they are more than willing to pay for it.
The real issue here is DRM and nonstandard/undocumented* platform interface (e.g. fixed attestation keys and tamper-protected chips preventing efficient RE work). Even if they manage to comply, competitors (even free software options) would still be locked out of market and the no-OS option would be next to useless to average users.
One vendor who can ship a product that is very old and still not truly-fully supported. It's a tremendous task that takes more than enthusiasts for great results.
Ah. Agreed. Then let's solve the problem of printers altogether. Why let them enforce the use of only certain ink refills? Surely that also is monopolistic behaviour?
In markets in SE Asia, I've seen people still use older Canon models because it allows them to fill their ink cartridges and beat the cost of having to buy official ink cartridges. Those printer still work well afterwards. A business I once consulted for had a 10 years old printer that still was chugging on happily with cheap ink fills.
Remember Windows K or Windows KN? These were specifically made for the Korean market in the days when Windows Media Player or Windows Messenger were blocked by the Korean FTC because of its dominant position. You'll probably see something similar to keep the Korean government happy.
This itself I support, but I still think Korea favors its internal tech companies a little too much. One example: my experience using Google in the states is so much better than Kakao maps here, only because Google was barred from collecting geo data. I get a similar feeling that other foreign companies/services fail to stick here not due to inferior technology, but legal barriers.
Success of South Korea was built on protectionism and dogfooding its companies.It worked for them, it worked for China and again it worked for Singapore.
That pattern is clear and only those incompetent or weak were unable to resist big corporations.
Can you share more about industrial protections used by Singapore? And didn’t China grow as an export manufacturer long before it had any homegrown industrials? In fact, IP from the former was likely an input to the latter in my understanding.
Agreed, they are almost universally badly written, uncompetitive, and basically only exist due to this protectionism.
I honestly don't know anyone that wants to use KR-specific services, including Koreans themselves. At least for this generation, they know that everything is surveilled on a level that even FAANG does not do - discussing questioning being LGBTQ with your friends gets sent to your parents, depression jokes get sent to your parents. Phones are keylogged, parents are notified if you search for things like 'pregnancy'. The mandatory by law first keylogging app also had so many vulnerabilities the government pulled it and told people to use others due to how bad its security model was.
Security is consistently and always an afterthought in SK, and I honestly don't know why. There are numerous anticheat providers based out of South Korea, and the engineering in them is always absolutely terrible. Like, indescribably bad. Unlike EasyAntiCheat or Battleye for instance, the KR ones frequently like things such as inventing your own crypto that's broken, sending PII and collecting user personal information, clipboard, files and sending them over the internet unencrypted to a bare Korea Telecom IP plaintext. They also love broken, vulnerable kernel drivers in everything that can be used as jumping points to execute high privilege code via vulnerabilities. And all of these are used with games that are badly written and full of holes as a bandage.
Free speech is incredibly chilled, commenting and talking is not permitted unless linked to a KSSN in some way (mobile phone, SMS verification, etc - all require KSSN). Heavy website censorship akin to the Chinese GFW exists (warning.or.kr hijack redirects).
Even people on the censorship committee get their comments taken down[0] and aren't allowed to speak badly about it.
That particular example is less about protectionism, though I’d agree South Korea does that plenty. SK has laws against exporting map data, for reasons related to their saber rattling neighbor.
It seems the time has arrived for each country where international services have a market presence to have regulators who regulate how they operate in country.
It makes little sense that US or Chinese laws or customs should be applied world-wide.
Countries should exercise their own rights and not cede them to corporations who are voracious for profit and occasionally dabble in cultural imperialism and quite frequently detract vast amounts of personal data from citizens to the benefit of the companies.
South Korea has been regulating its Internet with an iron fist for a long time, with dubious results. For many years, IE was de facto the only browser because the only authorized sign-in method for govt services relied on an ActiveX plugin, and to this date the functionality of eg Google Maps in Korea is crippled because laws regulating maps force all map data and associated services to be in Korea.
Because information isn't a rival or exclusive product like soft drinks or precious metals. What you're advocating for is a Splinter-net/Great Firewall.
This is technically how it has always been, but tech companies try to employ tricks to avoid it, like claiming it's too hard to comply with individual national or state laws. Another exciting prospect for harmful companies is to enshrine the laws they want in place as a treaty that countries can't easily legislate around: That's what the Trans-Pacific Partnership was about. When you see a massive trade treaty, you'll find an insane amount of shadow lobbying investment in everyone getting their preferred laws enforced on other countries, which also often includes prohibitions on countries passing laws that do certain things.
This last one is pernicious. I’m so glad it was scuttled. Even Bernie was for scuttling it but most everyone else curiously was clamoring for it, especially Clinton and Obama “gold standards” as they called it.
Interesting to note here is that SK has a healthy local "online services" industry.
They have their own Google equivalents, like Naver, that have comparable(and sometimes better because optimized to SK) services and don't have that much of an incentive to keep Google "happy".
Local online services yes, but healthy I think is debatable. Kakao is quickly spreading its influence beyond just information technology. Messenger, search, payments, banking, blogging, maps, taxi, webtoon, celebrity management, music, character goods, games, golf, etc.
Naver runs a wide variety of services you'd expect, like payments, an online translator, a Yahoo Answers equivalent, messaging(LINE, which is ubiquitous not just in SK), a free blog offering, a search engine and a web browser.
I don't know if it's still the case but last I was in SK, there were no walking directions on Google Maps. My understanding was that Google was prohibited to incorporate this in order to favor local competitors.
"Following the Korean War, the Spatial Data Industry Promotion Act and the Promotion of Military Bases and Installations Act were put in place to bar the export of map data outside the country. This is presumably to prevent sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands, especially given the hostility from north of the DMZ. Inevitably, however, the national security measure also has the effect of limiting foreign companies’ presence in online mapping and navigation.
Google stores its maps on foreign servers and therefore has not been allowed access to South Korea’s map data. In 2016, South Korean officials offered to hand their country’s map data over to Google under the condition that the tech company reduce map resolutions for important landmarks like military outposts and government offices. Google turned down the offer. So, streets and buildings remain low-resolution online and on the app.
These restrictions apply to Apple Maps as well. Its mapping services are even more rudimentary."
That is correct. Also Google Maps accuracy in SK (can only speak for Seoul, Busan) is not as good as the South Korean ones. Which is not the case for most other countries.
Funny side effects is the navigation and cruise controls in foreign cars don't work. They will set the wrong speed limits and cruise at the wrong speed. I guess it helps the local businesses tho
If you wanted to trade on the growing likelihood that they'll be forced to cut fees, which companies will benefit the most? For example Match Inc. gets most of their revenue from Tinder, so any savings would go directly to their bottom line.
In that case I wouldn't look for the ones that benefit from having a slight decrease in their Costs (like the Match Inc example you mentioned). The advantage won't translate explosively in stocks (assuming you are talking about that)
I would look for the ones that are ready to launch "the next Apple Store" which will compete directly with Apple and become #2 in market share of apps revenue in a few years. Those ones will be much more profitable to trade on.
FYI, the US senate also prepared a bipartisan bill (Open Markets Act) to enforce big techs to allow third party payment system and app stores, which is a stronger measure (but within a reasonable level) than the proposed S.K. bill. Given the bipartisan nature of the bill this has a decent chance to pass with a slight modification.
Will this set a precedent for other countries or economic regions to follow suit? I could see France for example pointing to SK as a successful model and implementing it. Probably other EU powers will disagree, but they seem like the most like EU contender to limit Apple and Google.
There may be issues with Steam's hold of market share (or not), I won’t debate that. But I don’t think it’s comparable at all to the topic at hand. If you want to sell a video game to PC (personal computer, not necessarily Windows) users, there are many options besides Steam and Steam has no special position of privilege on any platform it's available on (Windows, Mac OS, Linux). You could still distribute your game by CD if you wanted to and it would work as well as any game bought on Steam. There are also many other digital games distribution platforms. They may not be as popular as Steam, but Steam has no inherent advantage over them. On a Windows PC, for example, Steam has no advantage over Origin, or GOG Galaxy, or any other.
Its popularity is due to other factors, not some privileged position it occupies. Unlike Google’s or Apple’s app stores which absolutely have a privileged position on their respective platforms.
Steam doesn't own the underlying platforms that they are selling on. This is the biggest issue for me regarding Apple. Even with Android, at least you have some escape hatches, although they are not very user friendly.
Sounds like an unrelated topic designed to get people to not focus on the main Google and apple topic. There are dozens of industries that could be broken up but aren’t. Take D*sney’s near monopoly on comic book/fictional characters/plotlines ect. No one bats an eye about that, why would anyone care about steam? It’s all just entertainment. Google and Apple aren’t just about entertainment as they touch almost every part of life in modern society.
That article doesn't make sense to me, even (or especially) in 2017. It sounds like it's conflating IAP (which doesn't have to go through the Steam store, unlike other platforms) with game purchases, but even that doesn't fully account for it to me.
Where's all the rest of the money supposedly going through?
Trying to dig into the sources of that article a little bit, what makes the most sense to me is that the $4.3 billion number is Steam's cut of the sales. If you go for a 3-4× multiplier, then you're looking at somewhere around half the total PC gaming market going to Steam.
Which kind of feels about right: there are other game stores; Ubisoft and Origin are the ones that cater to AAA publishers as well. Not to mention that things like the Microsoft Store could well cater to the surprisingly large casual game market (one of the sources quotes $5.2 billion for "Browser PC Games", which I think is reflective of how big casual games are). And you can find people who publish and distribute games outside of Steam.
So saying that Steam has a dominant but not overwhelming market feels correct. The numbers I see most bandied about are 50-75%, which look to be estimated from very old data from what I see. I'm sure if any competitor to Steam had reason to believe they were larger than Steam, they'd be trumpeting it as loudly as they could.
How is he defining market share? I find that number hard to believe simply because Steam doesn't have some of the most popular PC games like Warcraft, Fortnite, and League of Legends.
> bans app store operators with dominant market positions from forcing payment systems on content providers and "inappropriately" delaying the review of, or deleting, mobile contents from app markets.
Does steam block or make it hard for people to download the same programs via other means? looks more like a premium platform rather than a gatekeeper.
Steam has competition - Epic Game Store, Windows, or direct distribution. It is a lot more feasible for a consumer to switch between these stores, so there can be an effective market that choses which service to use.
This does not exist for iOS because there's no other stores on the platform, and you cannot "just" switch to another the Play Store.
May be because gaming industry is not as important as yet as a the device that is used by almost majority of the world population?
Also no one is forcing anyone to install steam. And steam is not the only way to get games to work as intended on your PC.
Steam is not really big enough in Korea to be on the radar. Single player pc games aren't really that popular, and the dominant ones like LoL or other MMO RPGs have their separate installer/launchers
What about Amazon? Or any other dominant player in any market?
Steam does not come pre-installed on nearly every device unlike Apple's and Googles offering. Future Steam Deck not withstanding, but that will be miniscule player.
They don't prevent any other store from operating. So I don't see how they are comparable to anything Google or Apple does. Windows Store might qualify if they forced themselves on Windows in same way. But certainly Steam is entirely different.
This seems like a disingenuous whataboutism. You are free to not use Steam as a publisher. You can use Epic/GOG or choose to self-host. The biggest advantage of Steam is the convenience of payments, marketing and infrastructure. If that is not an attractive option for you, you can skip it.
This option is not available for iOS at all and is quite limited on Android.
If I was Apple or Google I would tell the country they are not in compliance with our operating policies and access to service is being rescinded until legal alignment can be restored.
Let that be a message to any country that tries to mess with the money. The country will riot to get their phones working again.
I can't imagine that sovereign nations like being blackmailed by tech companies, so whilst in the short term this could work it seems like the exact move that would cause the country to go the other way and outright ban Google and Apple products.
It also allows the South Korean government to require an app market operator to "prevent damage to users and protect the rights and interests of users", probe app market operators, and mediate disputes regarding payment, cancellations or refunds in the app market.