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

I think it's important to be honest here in assessing in-app payments.
The reality is you pay the marketplace owner a fat sum to sell via their
marketplace because their's is the only marketplace for whatever platform
you are using (if not then certainly the biggest and most popular).
i.e. If you use an Apple device you buy your apps via Apple, likewise for
Google and the Play Store, Microsoft and the Windows Store etc

If you try to list an app in one of these marketplaces that attempts to
circumvent the built-in payment processing systems your app will generally
be removed from the market for contravening the terms.

So, while I think in-app purchases should certainly be on our agenda (as
should any purchase made using Web technology but not via a traditional
browser) we must accept that there will need to be a parallel movement of
app users toward open and alternative markets for these to be widely
adopted.

I consider the scenario of the large marketplace owners adopting this new
technology in a way that prevents them being cut-out much more likely than
them simply opening the gates and allowing content producers to take
payments how ever they like and still be listed in their marketplace.

On 12 December 2014 at 21:37, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2014 12:03 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Yes, that's still a strong goal for the Web Payments Community Group,
> that has not changed. It's principle #1 in our Design Principles document:
>
>
> https://web-payments.org/specs/source/design-principles/#broad-individual-empowerment
>
> Keep in mind that many of the vast majority of the "organizations" I
> talk about above are individual authors, or singer-songwriters, or 6
> person game companies.
>
> > 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.
>
> +1
>
> > On reading Manu's response above, I must ask: has that focus been
> > lost?
>
> No, it has not been lost, at least, not based on the sorts of work that
> we've been doing in the specs/tech space in this (and the Credentials) CG.
>
> > Is this impossible?
>
> No, it's very possible... we wouldn't be working so hard to try and go
> toward that future if we thought it was impossible.
>
> > Is the group now only creating a structure for massive oligopolies
> > who aggregate content?
>
> No absolutely not. We're creating technologies for anyone that wants to
> use them. Individuals, bands, journalists, engineers, and yes, even
> oligopolies.
>
> > 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?
>
> +1
>
> > 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.
>
> I can understand that all of this is very hard to follow because it's
> spread across so many meetings/groups. At this point in time, there are
> as many as five teleconferences per week around web payments, some of it
> is CG work, some of it is IG work, and it's all very confusing to follow
> unless you show up to each meeting. Even then, it's difficult to follow
> because the IG is just getting spun up and the CG is trying to figure
> out what it's going to focus on next. There are many moving parts, so
> let me try and distill what's happening:
>
> 1. The Web Payments IG consists largely of W3C members. These members
> are by-and-large, commercial corporations representing the corporations
> interests.
>
> 2. The Web Payments CG and Credentials CG consists largely of non-W3C
> members. These members are typically individuals not representing their
> corporations, but tracking and helping the work along from a personal
> desire to see this stuff succeed.
>
> The two groups are going to have different priorities because the
> membership is different, but creating a level playing field isn't one of
> them. As far as I can tell (and I've been to every single meeting across
> both groups), everyone wants a level playing field and broad access to
> this technology.
>
> It's the job of this community, and people like you Steven, to make sure
> that we stay on this course. Official W3C groups are influenced by
> public comments. In fact, it's a requirement that W3C IGs like the Web
> Payments IG respond to public comment.
>
> So, thank you for saying something Steven. I still think we're chasing
> what you want us to chase, and I hope that you will speak up if you
> don't feel like that's whats happening either in this group, or the Web
> Payments IG.
>
> > Somebody (I can't remember who) once said: "Money is like blood.
> > Large pools of it are a bad idea."
>
> Love the quote, had not heard it before now.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: High-Stakes Credentials and Web Login
> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/identity-credentials/
>
>