Apple and Google lobby against Arizona bill that would allow third-party app store payment systems

A bill in Arizona, HB2005, would allow app developers to use third-party payment systems to circumvent the 15% to 30% cut that the Apple and Google app stores take from app sales. It’s similar to bills in other U.S. states that are being pushed by Match Group, Epic Games and the broader oxymoronic misnomer, “Coalition for App Fairness.”

MacDailyNews Take: If reality were the goal, it should really be named the “Coalition of Wannabe Freeloaders.”

Apple App Store on Apple devices
Apple’s App Store

Emily Birnbaum for Protocol:

Arizona State Rep. Regina Cobb hadn’t even formally introduced her app store legislation last month when Apple and Google started storming into the state to lobby against it… “We went through a very difficult weekend where Apple and Google hired probably almost every lobbyist in town,” Cobb said…

Cobb said she was first approached by Ryan O’Daniel, a local lobbyist who represents Match Group and the Coalition for App Fairness, in early February with the idea that would become HB2005, an amendment that would force smartphone app stores to allow third-party payment systems. “I felt like it was a good idea right away,” Cobb told Protocol…

Kyle Andeer, Apple’s chief compliance officer, said at a hearing last week that HB2005 amounts to a “government mandate that Apple give away the App Store… This bill tells Apple it cannot use its own checkout lane and collect a commission in the store we built.”

Similar legislation failed in North Dakota last month… But the North Dakota legislation was broader — it would have forced major platforms to allow alternate app stores altogether, while the Arizona legislation only bars Apple and Google from forcing their payment-processing systems onto developers.

MacDailyNews Take: Again, we want to sell MacDailyNews T-shirts and mousepads in Target, using their physical stores, roof, heat, cooling, electricity, floor space, staff, parking lot, their online store, server capacity, storage, more electricity, staff, etc., but we demand that we keep 100% of our sales.

That’s fair, right?

Obviously, using exceedingly simple logic that even a five-year-old could understand, this Arizona App Store bill is ill-conceived and likely unconstitutional. It sounds like something a video game company lobbyist would scribble out, as they did in North Dakota, before hooking some gullible politician ignoramuses to sponsor it.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away. — Ronald Reagan

22 Comments

    1. I Agree! I bought the phone, it is my phone, and I bought my Mac, it is my Mac. I can buy from any App Store anywhere with my Mac. The same rules should apply with my phone. In fact, having a single point like Apple or Google deciding what apps I am “allowed” to own and which I should not ended all possibility that I will ever side with Apple or Google on this issue again.

      It is not only my right to be able to shop freely from anywhere and buy any App I want, but it is also important to our democratic freedoms as well.

      I confess, I used to drink the KoolAid that Apple knew what was best for me and the App Store protections are what I needed. Those days are gone, when their role changed from protecting me from Virus inflicted Apps to deciding for me what is or is not appropriate for me to use, I realized they overstepped their boundaries and can no longer be trusted.

      The KoolAid is gone and I have no intention of ever refilling that bottle again.

      1. Kool-aid isn’t free, either.

        Why is it your “right” to buy something through the Apple App Store without paying Apple anything? They did not set the Store up as a philanthropy, but as a profit center for a capitalist enterprise. If everybody can offer all their apps for free on the store and then collect money directly from the end-users while cutting Apple out of any revenue, Apple has no incentive to have an App Store or even support third-party apps on their platform.

    1. They do not have a monopoly — their are other App stores. What company first developed Apps for smartphones and what company created the first App store? And you want to reward them by breaking them up, just how would you do that. Glib clichés and stereotypes are insufficient…

        1. OK, I got your point. My counterpoint: Where else does Google get Apps for their devices? Then again, that universe goes rouge at times. Regardless, should they allow mother stores, I don’t know.

          I have no problem with only getting Apps from the App Store, insures quality, compatibility and security. The walled Garden has distinct advantages over Wild West platforms we have witnessed for decades.

          Back to your point. I DISAGREE, sorry, they should not allow other stores. High Tech is not Amazon or ebay because of SECURITY concerns. Also, they would be in direct competition and will Apple have to test, approve their Apps, maintain their stores on Apple servers and then set them free to compete and what about compensation? I don’t have the answers, tis a very complex issue and once that door is open, who knows what’s next. What I do know, to use an analogy, it’s Apple’s pool. They clean, maintain and fill the pool and the lifeguard makes the rules. You want to swim in it, follow the rules.

          Do you really want rouge companies and Apps on your Apple devices?…

          1. There are scores of stores for Android, and you can even sideload. Just like on a PC.

            Why would I? To abolish censorship.
            Let’s use Parler as an example. Not my cup of tea, but that’s not the point. When Apple dropped Parler, others could conceivably carry it, or you could conceivably get it from Parler directly.

            1. We do agree on CENSORSHIP of Parler from Apple, you’re fair on that point, the way to do it might be repeal of Section 230. Then President Trump and others, also not your cup of tea, can SUE at will and make them think twice regarding LIBERAL CENSORSHIP…

            2. As you admit, removing the Section 230 protections would allow Former President Trump and other rich men to SUE anybody with less money into silence. How does that promote free speech? It seems you only oppose censorship directed at views you support. All other opinions are fair game.

              Without the Section 230 umbrella, most platforms would suspend user comments entirely to protect themselves from being sued into bankruptcy. Again, how does that promote free speech?

    2. Time for the rich white 1% male Appllecynic to be canceled, we the 99% are aghast at the white privilege Appllecynik regular displays here. His avatar is of an old rich white male. Black Lives Matter – this 1%’er needs to be canceled NOW

    1. I was sympathetic to Target until they censored my favorite brand of soup by refusing to stock it just because the cans carried advertising for a Target competitor. Why should Target, or Apple, be required to stock something in their store against their will? In Apple’s case, why should they stock a “free” app that generates zero revenue for the company but makes a ton of money for the freeloading app developer?

      1. Nick, your analogy only works if the miners are working 18-hour days making money for some other company, but still expect to shop in your store at bulk wholesale prices without any adjustment for your overhead or profit.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.