[HN Gopher] S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, A...
___________________________________________________________________
S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission
dominance
Author : minwuekim
Score : 238 points
Date : 2021-08-25 09:32 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| jefftk wrote:
| _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._
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| It's clear the days of this oligopoly operating unchallanged
| are numbered.
|
| I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is
| buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.
| misnome wrote:
| > 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.
| nabla9 wrote:
| > - New laws to restrict this are hard to write
| constitutionally (in the US)
|
| This is obviously not true. The current Borkist
| interpretation of antitrust is barely 40 years old.
|
| The movement towards "New Brandeis" antitrust philosophy is
| just going back to old normal with adjustments to new
| environment.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| 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.
| ericmay wrote:
| 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
| ksec wrote:
| >Not once in my life has my dad, my grandma, o
|
| 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.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| You should read upon the woman who brought down Standard
| Oil
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell#Standard_Oil
|
| 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?
| ericmay wrote:
| 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.
| echelon wrote:
| 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.
| ericmay wrote:
| > 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.
| echelon wrote:
| 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?
|
| And you blame me?
|
| Ugh.
| ericmay wrote:
| > 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.
| echelon wrote:
| 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.
| adventured wrote:
| > 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.
| hermitdev wrote:
| 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.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" 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.
|
| https://datamp.org/patents/search/xrefCompany.php?source=
| xre...
|
| https://www.datamp.org/patents/search/xrefPerson.php?id=1
| 24
|
| https://eaiainfo.org/2018/01/06/trauts-model-shop-
| chamfer-pl... _(BTW, note the quality of the patent
| drawings, all of Traut 's patents are of this quality.)_
|
| * 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.
| jollybean wrote:
| 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.
| dantheman wrote:
| 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.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| _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.
| int_19h wrote:
| 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:
|
| https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/02/06/the-borking-of-
| amer...
|
| So how about we just get back to the original intent of the
| law, for starters?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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?
| pjmlp wrote:
| Nope, since it is South Korea, it is obvious Samsung is at
| play here.
| tooltalk wrote:
| Are we talking about the same company whose CEO was paroled
| recently after spending much of the year in jail in South
| Korea?
| sangnoir wrote:
| 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.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Yep the same.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > 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.
| realmod wrote:
| > It's clear the days of this oligopoly operating
| unchallanged are numbered.
|
| Funnily enough, South Korea is a country essentially full of
| monopolies almost as large as the state.
| sooheon wrote:
| It is a country built on state-sponsored oligopoly as
| competitive advantage.
| mullingitover wrote:
| 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?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "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
| mullingitover wrote:
| > 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.
| mrep wrote:
| > 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.
|
| [0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-
| fortnite-m...
| mullingitover wrote:
| I don't see what's stopping them from doing that right
| now, they're running very fat 43% profit margins
| currently in their tech sweatshop[1].
|
| [1] https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/23/18507750/fortnite-
| work-cru...
| Popegaf wrote:
| 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.
| yuvalr1 wrote:
| 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
| oever wrote:
| 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.
| oshiar53-0 wrote:
| 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.
|
| *edit
| Avamander wrote:
| > The real issue here is DRM and nonstandard platform
| interface
|
| Undocumented hardware, really. It's very hard to run
| anything if you can't even init the chipset.
| fsflover wrote:
| So basically what Pine64 is doing.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Basically what a large chunk of the PC world was for a few
| decades.
| Avamander wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway59553 wrote:
| 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.
| TotempaaltJ wrote:
| It seems reasonable to me that a small but not
| insignificant market could emerge around providing
| convenience for this.
| detaro wrote:
| So they can choose the option to have the hardware with
| software and pay for it? Consistent with parent's proposal.
| rntksi wrote:
| What does HW mean here? Handheld Wearable?
|
| Would that mean letting e.g. Sony PS5 devices allow homebrew
| markets to be used legally on their consoles? That would be
| awesome for the consumers.
| saganus wrote:
| 'Hardware' probably
| rntksi wrote:
| 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.
| nimish wrote:
| If the ftc had teeth it would be good for it to a enforce
| restraint of trade laws against hardware lock-in like
| this.
|
| Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why let them enforce the use of only certain ink
| refills? Surely that also is monopolistic behaviour?_
|
| Who has a monopoly? Anticompetitive behaviours are legal
| if you aren't a monopoly--they're what businesses call
| moats.
| yuvalr1 wrote:
| Yeah... Maybe hardware is a bit broader than what I had in my
| mind. My thoughts currently are "if it has one app market,
| then it has to have more".
|
| I didn't mean firmware. This sounds like an interesting
| discussion for another day...
| 1-6 wrote:
| 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.
| lunarboy wrote:
| 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.
| mathverse wrote:
| 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.
| space_rock wrote:
| These countries have terrible software. Korean uncompetitive
| local services never expand internationally
| ev1 wrote:
| 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.
|
| [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/south-korea-only-
| thing...
| shuckles wrote:
| 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.
| watwatinthewat wrote:
| For sure this bill exists because Google and Apple are in the
| position rather than Samsung and LG.
|
| Regardless, good if it makes meaningful change.
| eric-hu wrote:
| 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.
| kaiju0 wrote:
| 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.
| alichapman wrote:
| 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.
| meibo wrote:
| 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".
| lunarboy wrote:
| 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.
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| Could you list examples of the local equivalents that are in
| common use?
|
| I know of Naver maps https://m.map.naver.com
| nvrspyx wrote:
| I don't really have a list, but in addition to maps, Naver
| also has search, email, calendar, cloud storage, etc.
| neom wrote:
| Naver (search), Kakao(message+maps+transit),
| Daum(search/blogs etc), Coupang(online ordering), Shuttle
| Food Delivery / Yogiyo (uber eats) - few examples.
| meibo wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naver_Corporation#Products_a.
| ..
| rmac wrote:
| Kakao: Wechat/Uber
|
| Ahnlab: Symantec/Norton
|
| Hancom: Microsoft Office
|
| Snow: Snapchat
|
| Melon: Spotify
|
| Cyworld: Myspace
|
| Afreeka: Twitch
|
| Toss: Venmo
|
| NCSoft: Blizzard
|
| Coupang: Amazon
|
| Carrot: Ebay
|
| Daum: Google/Medium
| NonContro wrote:
| What about Steam? They control 90% of PC gaming and even charge
| regressive commissions, with higher rates for smaller developers.
| nkrisc wrote:
| 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.
| lifty wrote:
| 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.
| anaganisk wrote:
| 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.
| suifbwish wrote:
| 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.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Actually I'd say Disney cornering so much of childhood
| entertainment is a concern.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| > 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.
| pranau wrote:
| 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.
| tpmx wrote:
| Do they really control 90%?
|
| This four year old article puts Steam game sales revenue at 13%
| of the total PC gaming sales revenue (and 18% of digital sales
| revenue):
|
| https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-revenue-2017
|
| Couldn't find any newer stats, but surely it hasn't grown from
| 13% to 90% in just four years?
| NonContro wrote:
| According to Tim Sweeney, yes:
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/01/14/epic-
| games...
|
| "Exclusives have been critical in gaining momentum in the
| presence of a competitor that began 2019 with more than 90%
| market share"
| Wohlf wrote:
| 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.
| eropple wrote:
| 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?
| jcranmer wrote:
| 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 3-4x 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.
| Ekaros wrote:
| 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.
| lunarboy wrote:
| 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
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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.
| 3np wrote:
| 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.
| pcurve wrote:
| https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/one-thing-north-k...
|
| "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."
| rntksi wrote:
| 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.
|
| We learned that we had to use Naver map :-)
| space_rock wrote:
| 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
| baybal2 wrote:
| In other news: JY Lee has just came out from behind the bars.
| lifty wrote:
| What is the connection to this piece of news?
| amelius wrote:
| Maybe to remark that SK doesn't always act in favor of their
| own companies/CEOs?
| lozenge wrote:
| Samsung is a somewhat bigger issue for S Korea than Apple and
| Google, but it's domestic so it gets a pass.
| lifty wrote:
| I would hope that these new rules apply to Samsung as well.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Maybe he wants to get Apple's, and Google's cut of the pie?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Took way too long
| mc32 wrote:
| 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.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| 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.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| Perhaps if more counties required corps to house their
| citizens' data locally, they would be better served.
|
| The EU is requiring this, though it EU wide, Russia, and
| China when it allows them to operate at all.
|
| Coca-cola needs to follow local laws, so why should Facebook
| or Google etc. be exempt?
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| 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.
| cma wrote:
| Shouldn't each country in the world be forced through
| network effects to export 30% of its purely local taxi
| revenue to the US (Uber's end game)?
| bemmu wrote:
| 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.
| rntksi wrote:
| 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.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| probably prices will drop to match the new reality
| known wrote:
| Every country should have their own Open source version of Mobile
| Operating System;
| summerlight wrote:
| https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8.11.21%20-%...
|
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-25 23:02 UTC)