Arizona Advances Bill Forcing Apple and Google To Allow Fortnite-style Alternative Payment Options (theverge.com) 108
The Arizona House of Representatives just passed landmark app store legislation in a 31-29 vote on Wednesday that could have far-reaching consequences for Apple and Google and their respective mobile operating systems. From a report: The legislation, a sweeping amendment to Arizona's existing HB2005 [PDF], prevents app store operators from forcing a developer based in the state to use a preferred payment system, putting up a significant roadblock to Apple and Google's ability to collect commissions on in-app purchases and app sales. It will now head to the state senate, where it must pass before its sent to Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey. The amendment specifically prohibits stores exceeding 1 million downloads from requiring "a developer that is domiciled in this state to use a particular in-application payments system as the exclusive mode of accretive payments from a user." It also covers users living in Arizona from having to pay for apps using exclusive payment systems. The bill specifically exempts game consoles "and other special-purpose devices that are connected to the internet," and it also bars companies like Apple and Google from retaliating against developers who choose to use third-party payment systems.
How would this work? (Score:5, Insightful)
So how would this actually work, in practice? They outlaw this thing...but wouldn't that just mean that Apple and Google could say, "sorry, since you live in Arizona, you're not allowed to use our store"? I mean, you can't compel Walmart to take Visa or AmEx, how do you compel Apple and Google to allow alternate payment processors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How would this work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sue and win. A state can set it's own speed limits but it can't lawfully prevent an uninsured driver from using its roads where the driver is licensed by another state which doesn't require insurance.
Apple can operate its app store in Texas and sign its developer contracts in Texas and there's nothing Arizona can do about it. Even if both the original supplier of the software was in Arizona and the ultimate buyer of the software is in Arizona. So long as Apple is the middleman and they're operating in Texas.
What Arizona -could- do is ban the sales of cell phones within Arizona tied to a single app store. They can regulate sales which actually happen within their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? States that require licenses for (for example) shotguns DO prevent people from bringing shotguns into the state without a license, even if the home state of the owner doesn't have such a thing as a shotgun license.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't any weirder than the initial fight the large online retailers mounted to prevent paying State taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I don't know if I follow your argument.
Who gets to decide which 3rd party payment system is used? The developer? What if their payment system is terrible or insecure or a front?
Well yes... the Developer.
How is this different from the situation in any non-walled garden?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's zero technical aspect involved with Apple for this. It's purely contractual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A state can not only set its own speed limits, it can require you to wear seat belts even if yours doesn't (one state doesn't) or ban non-school buses painted school bus yellow.
Re: (Score:2)
> What Arizona -could- do is ban the sales of cel
> l phones within Arizona tied to a single app store.
Even so, if their citizens order the phone from a website or company hosted or HQd in some other state, that would fall under "interstate commerce", and Apple could tell the crooked politicos to go pound sand, no? I do remember Tesla had to do a similar workaround because some of the more corrupt states' politicians were in the pocket of the middlemen dealerships that wanted to block electric car sal
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. And as you point out, companies like Tesla have used that loophole to duck state car sales laws. Not many, though, because it tends to impair sales.
Re: (Score:2)
States have jurisdiction over their roads.
Texas has every right not to require insurance.
Arkansas has every right to require insurance.
When you cross the border, the law does not follow you- you enter a new set of laws.
Re: (Score:2)
NH doesn't require automobile insurance. If you live in NH and drive a car with no insurance you can most certainly drive it in any state, as well as Canada. BUT, if you get in an accident you're up shit creek.
Re: (Score:2)
Some states have provisions that allow for recognition of out-of-state rights to drive; but you are absolutely subject to their jurisdiction, including prohibitions.
An example:
Say it's legal to drive under the influence in NH.
You cross into MA where it is illegal. The cops waiting at the border with breathalyzers are unconcerned about NH law.
Apply the same for speeding. Say NH has a statutory state-wide speed limit max of 75, and MA is 55.
The relevant MA statute that all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple and Google want to stop allowing access to their app store for Arizona residents, they certainly can go that route. If this purposed law passes then evidently you can compel Apple to take alternate payment processing.
This will open up these app stores to more competition and should result in better pricing for user and app developers. Sounds like a win win. Apple is clearly abusing a monopoly position. Not sure about Google because on android phones you aren't strictly locked to Google's Play store
Re:How would this work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not likely.
Because a law needs ot explain why exclusions exist.
Like why game consoles are exempt. We know why (Epic would be banned almost immediately), but there has to be legal justification for why one store is allowed, and not another.
That's like creating a law that applies to Walmart and Target, but not to another department store, like Walgreens.
There has to be a solid legal definition that defines what Apple and Google does as distinct from what Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo do, and other than really contorted arguments that really go into fine minutiae, it starts being complex.
After all, all the stores sell apps and games - granted you can do more with an iPhone than an Xbox, but then you have to define what that "more" is. That it can run Office? You can use Office with the Xbox, too (using O365 and the built-in browser).
And that's where all the nastiness comes in - because do it enough and it looks like you're just targeting Apple, which makes it a bill of attainder even without mentioning Apple by name.
And if you say "Xbox is a game console" well, what's the definition of a game console? Apple certainly makes "game consoles" by most reasonable definitions - their devices play games, some so sophisticated that they've jumped from mobile to PC and game consoles. (Yes, there are many really good non-ripoff mobile games, and quite a few moved from iPhone and Androids to PC and game consoles). And vice-versa, with many games on PC and consoles moved to mobile. It also can't be the fact that Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony screen developers, because for $20 you can write code for the Xbox (which is how the Xbox has even greater backwards compatibility these days, being able to do what Sony don't - play PSX and PS2 games). And given the heavy indie game push, it's even more dubious.
In the end, it's going to be one precariously narrow path to separate the two - which means all Apple has to do is change one thing and it's excluded again.
In the end, it's going to be a fun fight - because either Apple has to open up, which forces Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo to open up and Epic loses badly because they've just screwed over their golden goose. Or the law fails to pass and Epic still loses.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says consoles are excluded? It seems to apply to all kinds of app stores, not just Google and Apple ones.
Re: (Score:2)
it's in the text of the bill - 18-701.3-c states "this section does not apply with respect to special-purpose digital application distribution platforms."
this is followed by 18-701.3-e.7 "special-purpose digital application distribution platform" means a digital distribution platform for single or specialized categories of applications, software and services that are provided to users on hardware intended primarily for specific purposes, including gaming consoles, music players and other special-purpose dev
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I did not RTFA.
If I was an evil exec... (Score:2)
Parents would then stick to IAPs via Google/Apple for a good long while, to allow child spending to be restricted, as other providers lack th
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely.
Because a law needs ot explain why exclusions exist.
Like why game consoles are exempt. We know why (Epic would be banned almost immediately), but there has to be legal justification for why one store is allowed, and not another.
Agreed. This law is seriously flawed. That exclusion looks like a poison pill that is intended to make it easier to overturn the law in court, and quite probably put in by friends of Apple.
And if you say "Xbox is a game console" well, what's the definition of a game console?
I think the *intent* of the law was to distinguish between single-purpose devices, such as gaming consoles and simple MP3 players, and general-purpose computing devices, such as cell phones and computers. And there *is* a difference, but it is mostly a question of what capabilities are advertised at the time of sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this require Apple to allow other payments?
It seems to me it allows apps to sell direct to customers. I think that's a pretty big difference.
It still may not hand, but allowing Epic to use Epic Bucks (or whatever) purchased through the app is different that requiring Apple to take Epic Bucks.
Re: (Score:3)
This seems extremely optimistic. Publishers are the one screaming about app stores, not the actual people writing code. They know that the going price for a game (say) is $X and just want more of that $X for themselves.
I am willing to drop by cynicism if there is an example of a company like Epic who will drop their retail price from say $15 to $13, pocketing $13 instead of $10 because they don't have to pay 30% to, say, Apple.
I don't see that ha
Re: (Score:2)
Adults are allowed to make decisions.
You can actually install pretty much any app you want on your iOS device provided that you have XCode and a build of the app on your machine. I've heard there's quite a little side-loading community that does things that way, particularly for emulators and the like. Never really investigated more than that, though.
But your argument is ridiculous on its face; you would have us believe that owning any sort of game console disqualifies you from being considered an adult? Wh
Re: (Score:1)
That's not at all what it's saying. My interpretation is not forcing Apple and Google to use or take alternative payment processors. It seems to only be saying that Apple and Google cannot ban an app from their store for no reason other than they allowed an alternative payment provider. So if Fortnite wants to allow a user to enter their credit card to be charged directly by EA, stores over 1M downloads cannot ban the app for that reason. It means apps are not forced to use the in-app purchasing APIs provid
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were Apple, I would say that if you choose to use a separate payment processor, you need to pay $x per download, and $y per update. Then they are being fairly compensated for their work in providing the app store and hosting the files.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were Apple, every time the App opened up I would make a bloody great pop-up with a siren saying "Untrusted App, do you wish to continue at YOUR risk", and also get anyone getting these Apps agree to a disclaimer that the App may void their warranty, destroy their privacy.
And that's why you don't work at Apple. Doing that would get you into trouble with a whole load more laws. You might be able to get away with a one time warning but the legislation in no way forces you to take insecure applications into the app store so the same processes should apply for an app that is using alternative payment methods as applies to ones that are using Apple for payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple:
You fine them daily for infractions, and they either get sick of paying the fines and concede, or they refuse to pay the fines and you legally get to go into their massive datacenters located in your state and confiscate hardware to pay the fines, also royally screwing their business and service providing capabilities.
If they refuse to have any dealing with anyone in the state due to geolocalities you just introduce a massive tax on their datacenter targeting companies who use physical locations in t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you think either Apple or Google has data centres in Arizona, and moreover, that they couldn't move those data centres OUT of Arizona. Even if the data temporarily winds up on a CDN, they'd have to do an insane amount of intrusive traffic monitoring to determine that it was there and somehow levy a fine based on data passing through wires that happen to be in the state? This sounds impractical and unenforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
Geee, I wonder why, when 5 seconds of google can answer the question.
https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com]
O maybe this one.... https://www.azcentral.com/stor... [azcentral.com]
Oh look more Apple crap in AZ https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/0... [cnbc.com]
But yeah, Apple OBVIOUSLY never would have any presence in a tech center like AZ...
And if you think they can move a whole damn datacenter / data, you really don't understand the scales at work, OR the fact that the datacenters are region separated into specific regions for redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you read the labels on products that "They item contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer."? Even when you don't live in California?
A lot of times companies will end up catering to the lowest common denominator. If the market is big enough they'll relent across the whole country. If it's not, then they will indeed pull out (ie, since California requires that individual models of handguns be "certified" for sale there, the vast majority of companies don't bot
Re: (Score:3)
If Epic is selling items from within their game, then Apple deserves no cut of that revenue.
I'm not taking a side, but merely pointing out where this is flawed. Apple is providing the storefront and servers to download and update the app. So yes, there is at least some reason to deserve a cut in sales. Plenty of argument to be had over how much of a cut and what not, but there is a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
They are only "providing" that because they give no option of providing it yourself. I'm sure Epic would be quite happy to provide and facilitate their own storefront and servers to handle downloading and updating the app.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So how would this actually work, in practice?
They'd probably have to add an API that says "thirdPartyInAppPurchaseMerchantsAllowed" and make it return YES if you're in a city, state, or country where they're allowed by law, or if your credit card billing address for the App Store is in one of those locations.
Then, app developers would be allowed to show their own payment options, but only if that method returns YES.
They outlaw this thing...but wouldn't that just mean that Apple and Google could say, "sorry, since you live in Arizona, you're not allowed to use our store"?
I mean ostensibly Apple could just stop doing business with anyone who is geographically in Arizona or whose credit card billing address i
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would be if Amazon decided to require all of their third-party merchants to use Fulfillment By Amazon, and the government passed a law that says, "No, you can't do that." Another better analogy would be the government compelling eBay to stop requiring the use of PayPal after that acquisition.
Better than that, this is forcing Amazon to sell and ship the item, but they don't get any payment for any of their work as the manufacturer direct charges the customer and avoids paying Amazon for any of the delivery or even the cost of the product itself, and the web hosting of the listing.
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would be if Amazon decided to require all of their third-party merchants to use Fulfillment By Amazon, and the government passed a law that says, "No, you can't do that." Another better analogy would be the government compelling eBay to stop requiring the use of PayPal after that acquisition.
Better than that, this is forcing Amazon to sell and ship the item, but they don't get any payment for any of their work as the manufacturer direct charges the customer and avoids paying Amazon for any of the delivery or even the cost of the product itself, and the web hosting of the listing.
Not really, no. In-app purchases are not generally something "delivered". They're mostly things like "1000 crystals" or whatever — in-game things that you can earn in other ways or that you can pay for if you want to save time and effort. Occasionally, they're things like articles of clothing for a character, in which case, yay, Apple distributes an extra half a kilobyte as part of the app bundle. Maybe. But nothing prevents app developers from giving those things away, too, nor does anything pre
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing, and I mean nothing prevents Apple from having an iOS Apple ID program like they do for Mac apps
And by that, of course, I meant "Developer ID program".
Re: (Score:2)
It simply isn't reasonable for Apple to decide to be the sole distributor of apps for iOS, and then turn around and use that to their advantage, claiming that they deserve to be the sole provider of in-app purchase payments because it costs them money to distribute the in-app assets. You don't generally get to claim hardship for the natural results of your own choices.
Except, you're wrong. There are reasons Apple does it, and they are legitimate reasons... like security. There are a LARGE number of customers that actually prefer it this way. That isn't to say Apple should/shouldn't be allowed to continue as is. It just means there are actual legitimate reasons for what they do. You trying to say otherwise is just harmful to any argument you make.
Re: (Score:2)
It simply isn't reasonable for Apple to decide to be the sole distributor of apps for iOS, and then turn around and use that to their advantage, claiming that they deserve to be the sole provider of in-app purchase payments because it costs them money to distribute the in-app assets. You don't generally get to claim hardship for the natural results of your own choices.
Except, you're wrong. There are reasons Apple does it, and they are legitimate reasons... like security.
Let's examine that statement a little more closely. I have my Mac, and I have my iPhone. My iPhone has pictures that I've posted to Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or whatever, plus a bunch of games, music, and other consumed content. There's almost nothing of any value, nor any crazy privacy issues with what's on it. My Mac, on the other hand has my tax documents for the past ten years, unreleased musical compositions, unreleased software, and so on.
Clearly it's not a serious security problem for Appl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they have a choice. I said they have legitimate reasons to choose they way they did. As for computers not having the same level of security, that's because the ship already said decades ago. They can't do it without pissing off their customer base, but they do try to encourage people stick to their curated store. That's why there is an app store on Windows and Mac.
That approximately nobody uses.
Further, some people want the extra security on their phone.
No, people *say* they want extra security on their phone. And then they use their face to unlock the phone. The average user has no idea what does or does not benefit security. Asking the average user whether they feel safer because Apple protects them from malware is just silly.
Yes, you can argue that those people can opt to use 3rd party like on Android. I wouldn't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out that you're ignoring legitimate reasons for Apple to do what they're doing and acting like they're only doing it to make more money.
No, I'm not ignoring legitimate reasons. I'm saying that the claimed reasons are pure bulls**t. And unlike the average user, I *do* have an understanding of how this stuff works. I have a really
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not ignoring legitimate reasons. I'm saying that the claimed reasons are pure bulls**t.
And you would be wrong. So, enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not ignoring legitimate reasons. I'm saying that the claimed reasons are pure bulls**t.
And you would be wrong. So, enjoy.
That's your opinion. So whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you are saying is not a truth. Unlike you, I justified my opinion with actual facts.
The app store review process does almost nothing to ensure actual security, as proven repeatedly by folks sneaking things past them with minimal effort, either intentionally or accidentally. That's a fact. In fact, it is provably infeasible (maybe even impossible) to guarantee that developers aren't pulling a fast one, because there's no plausible way to prevent someone from calling arbitrary private methods using s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What fact? That some users care about security? That's not the same thing as saying that the policy actually improves security, which the facts prove that it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but see this stepping squarely on the toes of the interstate commerce clause. I know the clause is overused at times, but this seems to be just the sort of thing it's meant to cover. Unlike rules about "devices must be safe" or "shall not pollute more than X", this is about how to pay for a product which seriously feels like a Federal issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The Interstate Commerce Clause applies most strongly where Congress has explicitly legislated, which they have not done here.
There is the "Dormant Commerce Clause" doctrine, where deference is shown where Congress chooses not to regulate, but that mostly limits states in regulation that disproportionately affects interstate commerce or out-of-state entities. This kind of law treats in-state platforms the same way as out-of-state platforms, so there's not much traction for a Commerce Clause argument.
Re: How would this work? (Score:3)
There is the "Dormant Commerce Clause" doctrine, where deference is shown where Congress chooses not to regulate, but that mostly limits states in regulation that disproportionately affects interstate commerce or out-of-state entities. This kind of law treats in-state platforms the same way as out-of-state platforms, so there's not much traction for a Commerce Clause argument.
It throws up an impediment to interstate commerce and has a feeling like Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines. What happens if New Mexico says that developers can only use the platform's payment systems and Utah says that it's up to the contract between the parties? For fun, Colorado passes a law like Arizona's but the definitions are different to in some ways apply to more platforms (like consoles) and in some ways apply to fewer (the dollar figures / user number figures are different).
Go to Four Corners and downl
Re: (Score:2)
There is a valid interest by the State, and a valid interest in not causing an undue impediment on interstate commerce.
Specifically, the diametrically opposed Arkansas law required truck drivers to stop at the border and change their mud flaps, which wasn't trivial.
.Unless we can conclude on the whole record that "the total effect of the law as a safety measure in reducing accidents and casualties is so slight or problematical as not to outweigh the national interest in keeping interstate commerce free from interferences which seriously impede it we must uphold the statute."
Basically the court said, "Come on. Arkansas still requires mud flaps, and the ones you require aren't significantly different."
Will courts determine
Re: (Score:3)
They could, and it solves the problem so it's a pretty good outcome.
OTOH if one of them opts out of the AZ market, I don't think you're going to need any force (or even persuasion) to watch the other come rushing in, happily offering legal payment options.
But if for some reason they don't give in and simply exit the AZ market instead, that's ok. There's a huge need for more OS com
Re: (Score:2)
Except AZ has barely 8M population. Assuming all 8M people buy this new handheld computer, every year, it's nowhere near a viable market for a whole new OS handheld. Amazon's attempt at a new OS handheld tanked selling 35K phones into a 350M person market. CA, TX, or FL might have that kind of pull, but it's still highly unlikely and they're each 3-5x the size of AZ.
Re: (Score:2)
(You're talking about Amazon's "Fire" products sold in US, right?) Amazon's 350M person market had established competitors already there. We're hypothesizing a situation where those major competitors have pulled out of the 8M AZ market. If that happens, AZ residents aren't simply going to do without. They'll resurrect Ubuntu Touch or WebOS before that happens. Or, more likely, just an Android fork without the Google services (which would be disappointing from a nerd perspective, but solve the problem).
In ad
Just ban arizona developers (Score:2)
To be clear this would not ban arizona users just arizona developers. I suspect this will backfire for AZ
Re: (Score:2)
No, Apple isn't going to "pull out of AZ"
They're going to find a way to implement rules that follow AZs laws in the places where AZ laws have jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
So how would this actually work, in practice? They outlaw this thing...but wouldn't that just mean that Apple and Google could say, "sorry, since you live in Arizona, you're not allowed to use our store"?
In other words: "we two are the only games in town, and we're too big to be regulated, so you'll have to change".
I think society would rightfully focus on the "we're too big to be regulated" bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you can't compel Walmart to take Visa or AmEx...
Maybe not for Walmart stores, but for Amazon Go bricks-and-mortar stores, they have been compelled to accept cash in some local jurisdictions. https://techcrunch.com/2019/04... [techcrunch.com]
And in California at least, tow truck drivers have been compelled to accept all major credit cards on the spot for half the towing fee if you catch them before they drive off with your vehicle.
Just note that this law doesn't apply to repossessed vehicles for bad debt, that the name on the credit card must be your own name, and that ca
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you can't compel Walmart to take Visa or AmEx, how do you compel Apple and Google to allow alternate payment processors?
Yes, you can
Retail stores, even large national chains, follow state payment requirement laws. In particular, you see these with EBT payment options, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. I mean, if Walmart decided that they only wanted to take cash, they could. And lots of places only take one credit card or another.
I think everyone still has to take cash, but that's it. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. I mean, if Walmart decided that they only wanted to take cash, they could. And lots of places only take one credit card or another.
Walmart can decide they only want to take cash.
They could decide they only want to accept horse shoes.
State law can override whatever they want though, in that regard- and you've pointed out a particular instance where that has already happened (though not with Walmart, specifically)
I think everyone still has to take cash, but that's it. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
They do not have to accept cash (Federally speaking) though states and municipalities have passed laws requiring it in their jurisdictions.
Notable examples are NJ, RI, and MA.
San Francisco on the municipal side.
The point i
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be noted that depending on your location, Google already allows people to pay for apps through their phone bills. In other words, it already allows third-party payment processors.
Now does that mean that the commission is reduced because of that? No, it doesn't.
When that happens, the rest of the commission stays exactly the same because payment processing is only considered a tiny part of the service provided by Google. The line item for the credit card transaction fee part is only listed as 2
Cue the suit in 3... 2... 1... (Score:3)
I see a Commerce Clause lawsuit in Federal court coming very soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cue the suit in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
Arguably making this a bill of attainder.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could be less greedy and allow payment processing competition to take place. It will ultimately come down to how much these App stores want to chase after money in Arizona. This likely won't stop here and I wouldn't be surprised if other states do something similar.
Also, this law only affects Arizona. Apple could always stop operating in Arizona because of undue hardship. Kind of like how Google or Facebook can choose to not serve the Australian market because it isn't worth the effort. Microsoft de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I see what you are saying. Your saying Apple and Google can just stop allowing developers from Arizona into their store.
That would seem counterintuitive to what would help Arizona. The idea behind the law would be to compel the play store operators to allow developers to use other processors. Your saying Apple and Google can just stop allowing developers from Arizona into their store, which makes sense from their position.
I don't know. Seems very strange the people crafting this bill wouldn't s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really about greed though? Do you think it is fair that Epic is intentionally ducking paying for the services that Apple is giving them?
Still need to take Apple Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks.
If i have to purchase in-app purchases through something other than Apple's mechanism, I still want them to use Apple Pay. I still want any subscriptions to show up in my manage subscriptions page. Otherwise it's just a hassle of entering credit card / paypal info, and dealing with subscriptions on apps that I may have deleted and forgot about the subscriptions.
They should do this for realtors too (Score:5, Insightful)
Say you're going to buy a house. You and the seller agree on the price. Then you have a revelation: why should we pay commission to these realtors? Instead, you agree to buy the house for $1, so you only have to pay $0.14 in commission. Then, you make a side deal where you'll pay $399,999 for a houseplant. Super clever right? And if the realtor tries to call you on this, go complain to the government - and they'll pass a law saying realtors can't retaliate against you and your clever idea.
I don't like realtors - but if I use one, I accept I'm going to end up paying their commission. If I don't want to pay that commission, then I accept I'm not going to get their services.
Similarly, if you don't like Google's price, then don't contract with them or buy their service (the service here being the Google store). Make your own store, your own OS, or your own phone. And then you can have your own set of abusive practices - just like Epic has in their PC game store.
If they want to legislate that "making your own store" has to be easier (or possible, in the case of Apple), fine. Maybe that's necessary as a hedge against monopoly. But forcing these companies to give away this service seems pretty strange.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the realtor tries to call you on this, go complain to the government - and they'll pass a law saying realtors can't retaliate against you and your clever idea.
By clever idea, you mean that both you and the seller probably have signed contracts that means the realtors are paid regardless if you bypassed them, then go ahead. I would however lawyer up as you are likely to be sued. Depending on the real estate company they may have way deeper pockets than you.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... I'm not actually suggesting people try that. I was doing an argument ad absurdum.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a very good analogy to what is occuring in the Apple vs Epic fight, and this new law.
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference (at least on the Apple side) is that you are not allowed to sell that houseplant to the person. With Apple the only way to get on a device is via the app store (yes, technically there is sideloading, but the limitation make it functionally unusable).You are not forced to go with that realtor and pay their price or use them at all while you are forced to use the Apple store if you want to sell anything for iphone. Google is different in that you can sell your app via the Google store or Am
Re:They should do this for realtors too (Score:5, Insightful)
If people demand the wild wild west, fine, but everyone needs to bring their own shotgun, cause there's no sheriff.
Mobile target (Score:2)
That the case specifically targets mobile, while not taking on the same issue on other closed platforms like consoles causes some concern that this is a politician being funded by a specific app maker, versus a real statement about walled gardens in general.
Do it for game consoles, too (Score:1)
Dev tools (Score:4)
Are these alternative payment systems going to provide a full set of dev tools and APIs?
A store front with over a decade of customer traffic? An assurance of security for user accounts?
Their own individual encryption methods running thru the secure enclave hardware?
Make an investment in GPU tech to make sure the games run as good as possible?
Compensate Apple for the engineering time needed to implement integration with the existing store?
Then they might as well just make yet another shitty Android phone and be done with it.
Why/How are game consoles special? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? Isn't this damn near exempting the very situation they're trying to address?
If it's a good idea for iPhones and Pixels, it's a good idea for XBoxes and Playstations. They're the same thing!
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta love the incessant legal protections/exemptions that serve only to proliferate this whole loss-leader business model—one that may not even be so severely devastated if consoles were to simply be held to the same standards as every other consumer electronic device.
What incessant legal protections? What other standard is there for consumer electronics? Everything, the entire spectrum of consumer electronics, from game consoles, TVs, cars, toasters, refrigerators, calculators, etc. and so on, don't have to have general purpose processors and program storage in them, and if they do, there is nothing anywhere saying the manufacturer has to LET you do ANYTHING with them, that I've heard of anyway, please correct me. There's no law (in America, AFAIK) that tests a devic
Gotta love Epic Game's effort here (Score:3)
I mean they have paid huge sums of money to lobbyists in states all over the country to get this text drafted into legislation. But even as they were struck down one after they other they persevered until their paid for legislation was passed by someone. And hey, I don't blame them. They're about to lose a large lawsuit, so it stands to reason you want to get in and change laws in your favour first.
God bless America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find a definitive link between this particular legislation and Epic, but it's funny how this legislation as well as the legislation in several other states all popped up at the same time, and the legislation in North Dakota was outright written by a lobbyist under contract from Epic.
It's a conspiracy :-)
Apple is successful... (Score:3)
Apple is successful, we must punish them.
Re: (Score:2)
Close. Remember, this is Arizona.
"Apple and Google are part of Big Tech which helped Biden cheat to become president when everybody knows that Trump won by eleventy billion votes."
Call. Their. Bluff. (Score:3)
So many homeless people are eyeing Apple's nice manicured lawn and thinking "gee wouldn't that be a nice place to take a huge steaming dump. Much nicer than those other yards where I usually take my steaming dumps". Maintain the electric fence, Apple. It's a big reason why your devices are so popular.
So correct me if I'm wrong here.... (Score:2)