Apple 'In App Payment'? If you know the context, you see a big picture

'In-app payment' is one of the most IT industry's largest concern these days. I am focused on the law that specifies the forced prohibition of forced prohibition of the first-in-one app billing in Korea. Worldwide, Apple and Platform's proprietary regulations, which are right, and is emerging as a core issue.

It is also related to this situation that interested in the agreement between Apple and the small-medium-standing footers last weekend. Immediately after this agreement, 'Apple, In-app payment is virtually abandoned, or the facts such as' Allow external payment' and a little different reports poured out.

Why did this wrong interpretation? I think it is because of two reasons.

first. The exact understanding of the case context was somewhat lacking.

second. I did not read the original text carefully.

Developers and Judge Submitted by Developers = Epic and Litigation Judge

First, let's take a look at the incident context.

Apple and developers have submitted the agreement, and the United States is the Northern California Court Auckland, USA. The case is the Judge of Gonzalez Rogers.

It is a familiar name somewhere. Yes. She was a judge that she was over before she was in charge of the antitrust lawsuits between Apple and Epic Games. Apple and Epic are waiting for all the trial procedures and wait for the first judgment of the current judge.

At the time, Apple and Epic have made Apple and Epic forced to forced to force the in-app billing problem. Apple argued that if you allow other payment systems when your app payment, you may have a security issue.

However, if the final judgment does not come out, I will submit a considency that gives up the application payment forced? That's the same court, the same judge? If you give up your app's payment, Apple is just a few months ago, it is nothing to admit that it was a crowded and a few months ago 'security concern,

It is more important to win in Epic and litigation rather than a lawsuit with small and medium developers in Apple. This is because it is a lawsuit related to the basic operational principles of the App Store. If you know this background, Apple is not easy to interpret the analysis. '

More exclusive prohibition method for Apple, Developers and Disponds:

second. Who is the agreement of the agreement, it is important.

In 2019, Apple has conducted US developers and collective lawsuits as an unfair practice issue in App Store. Therefore, the other party of this agreement is developers. It is not a large service provider such as Epic or sporty.

The core concerns of small and medium developers are not an in-app payment issue. Rather, if the revenue is below the certain level, it may be a more practical help to reduce the fee. Small and medium developer support programs are also important.

So the developers should keep the SME Developer Support Program for three years, and if the annual App Store revenue is less than $ 1 million, the fee should be 15%.

The same is true for external payment promotion. Small and medium developers may be much more useful to communicate with customers based on the information obtained within the App Store, and to promote other payment methods.

Apple has the ability to continue their lawsuits. But why did you agree with them?

In order to answer this question, I need to look at the situation of Apple in recent years.

Once Apple, Apple is ahead of the Epic and antitrust lawsuits. Of course, there are many possibility of appealing any judgment.

What is the strategy that Apple can write in this situation? Apple may be an effective strategy to plant an image called a small and medium developers. This is because large service providers, such as Epic, and small and medium developers can be separated. This agreement is likely to be in this strategic consideration.

There is also a problem that it is more important than a lawsuit against Epic. It is a platform regulatory movement such as the US and the European Union (EU). Especially, the US Congress platform exclusive regulation movement is serious in Apple.

During the exclusive prohibition method, the consumer's interests was used as important pages in the proprietary prohibition method. The proprietary company was an important criteria that it was important to raise prices to damage consumers.

Recently, criticism of these criteria is being raised. It is because of the business model of platform operators who collect personal information in the price of free services and take a bigger profit. A typical person who has expanded this claim is the Linaaban Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

** Both the developer, such as Apple, Epic,

Let's take it once. Who should Apple fight in this situation? It is not a big problem that fighting with huge companies like Epic. They are also a faucet in their ecosystems.

But fighting with small and medium developers? It also fights while it's the information acquired by the App Store to promote external payment. No matter how apple, I would have been hard to push and leave this situation.

It is difficult to see that Apple was a considerable part of the US developers, and the their power was scared because they were scared. Rather, it would be more accurate to see a strategic choice for simplifying the wires ahead of a bigger fight.

Let's take a look at the seven items that Apple and American developers agreed on. The agreement is that it is hard to find that Apple withdraws or accorting existing positions.

The presses are part of the Allow external payment method, which is a special, but if you look at the bear, it is a part that is not losing greatly in Apple. Anyway, the Subscribe, including Netflix, has been entering all the external payments.

The core of the in-app payment would be something like a game item or an Internet character, and people who have used these services will be well known. These services are how uncomfortable to pay from outside instead of in-app billing.

Let's clean up cool. Apple has given American developers to the 'Great Agreement'. However, the agreement is hard to see that it was greatly concedted in Apple. Rather than ahead of the bigger fight, it seems to be more accurate to see that it is a procedure to solve a small dispute in the local area.