W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Taking on Google/Apple? Re: Apple AppStore revenues - 85%+ come from games

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:50:16 +0100
Message-ID: <548B38E8.4040209@gmail.com>
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, public-webpayments@w3.org
A somewhat bigger problem is how to fund developments of this kind.

Deutsche Telecom have to date been into this fray since 2008 so in
addition to deep pockets you must also be very patient...

That it was Google who put the first web-adapted security element
on the market also shows that the traditional IT-industry is stuck
with legacy designs and are often against progress.

Anders

On 2014-12-12 18:03, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 12/12/14 8:11 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> On 12/10/2014 01:47 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>> These systems are proprietary, not publicly documented and
>>> frequently updated as well as being owned and run by giant companies
>>> that have all the resources they need and more.
>>>
>>> What exactly would we be selling?
>>
>> I don't super-providers are the customer here. I think the content
>> producers are (video game creators, filmmakers, etc.).
>>
>> Having been in the entertainment industry (video games and music) almost
>> a decade ago, I know that many of these organizations feel that a 30%
>> cut is too much for effectively providing access to an online store with
>> hundreds of millions of customers. If there was an standard way to do
>> in-app payments over the web, I think they'd adopt that mechanism as well.
>
>
> The original focus of this group, AFAI recall, included a strong
> statement of a goal that *individual* content creators (like the
> person that wrote War and Peace, or the one that figured out that
> E=MC2) will be invigorated and supported in an improved
> equal-playing-field web payment system.
>
> In such an equal playing field, all creators of useful information
> would have access to controlling the sale and (through ODRL for
> instance) the copyright uses and resale of the information they
> produce -- whether they are research scientists, bloggers, musicians,
> journalists covering a dictatorship, software engineers, or whatever.
>
> On reading Manu's response above, I must ask: has that focus been
> lost? Is this impossible? Is the group now only creating a structure
> for massive oligopolies who aggregate content?
>
> If so, I suggest this is a mistake. The oligopolies will love it. I
> don't think the future of humankind will love it. I think it's similar
> to the climate-change/fossil fuels transition. Very similar: it's now
> widely recognized that even a mainstream investment model of the
> energy future points towards localized production in small nodes that
> contribute to the grid. I think the same thing will hold for the
> potential of human creativity -- a boy or girl in India with a
> smartphone and a new idea, a great idea, doesn't need Sony to broker
> them to Apple to broker them to us. Do they?
>
> I'm not saying Sony and Apple need to disappear. Like Shell or Chevron
> -- we'll need them for fifty years or more. But subsidies (by
> government, by creative open-source engineers) shouldn't be channelled
> to them any further. The effort needs to go towards the new types of
> networks.
>
> Sorry if that's out of line; maybe what's being done at the code level
> includes all of this. It's just that the last few months of
> discussions seem to point towards what the existing major software
> companies are doing, and how to help them, or at least not get in
> their way.
>
> Somebody (I can't remember who) once said: "Money is like blood. Large
> pools of it are a bad idea."
>
> My 2 cents. ;-)
>
>
> Steven Rowat
>
>
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 18:50:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:37 UTC