[단독]CEO of One Store “I’m not against the Google Anti-Gapjail Prevention Act… The purpose of differentiation in consideration of equal access rights”

[이데일리 김현아]

Jaehwan Lee, CEO of One Store (E-Daily DB)

“We have already opened third-party payments (external payments). (Prevention of compulsory Google in-app payment) What do you do if you oppose the bill?”

In a phone call with E-Daily on the 13th, Lee Jae-hwan, CEO of One Store, revealed that the report of’Changed One Store’s mind and sudden opposition of Google’s anti-going law’ was different from the facts. Representative Lee said, “It is logically impossible to argue that we are against.”

However, I was curious about what kind of message One Store delivered to the National Assembly, so what was the report like this.

According to the report, it is said that if the bill is passed, it will become a boomerang, and it is feared that the sales of the one store will decrease.

One store double play?… “Intent to consider equal access rights”

Is it possible that One Store is double-playing, as some of the Democrats are concerned about the report?

Representative Lee said that he was in favor of the’prevention of compulsory in-app payments’ by attending the National Assembly last year, and has been reducing fees for small and medium-sized companies since October last year, saying that he will save the domestic app ecosystem.

Suddenly, however, there was a report that it was against Google’s anti-government law. A Democratic Party official said, “The reason that no official clarification data has been released means that Google will continue to force in-app payments and raise fees only to launch more content on the One Store, so I doubt that it is in good shape.”

In response, CEO Jae-Hwan Lee said, △Rather than passing a clause that prevents the app market from forcing certain payment methods such as in-app payment (prevention of forced payment methods), △Content providers of a certain size or larger (content giants) provide content when launching the content. He said it meant to have an obligation and an obligation to prohibit discrimination (equal access to content).

CEO Lee said, “I am against the in-app payment enforcement, not that, but to escape from the monopoly power of Google, it is not enough (prevention of payment means), and equal access must be achieved for 3 or 5 years together,” he said. The purpose was also spoken by the National Assembly last year. If you wrote that you are against it, the purpose is very different.”

One store equity structure

Content equal access legislation is controversial… Needs careful discussion

Equal access to content is a principle that viewers must be able to watch the desired content on any broadcasting platform. The Ministry of Science and ICT introduced the regulations to protect IPTV channels, which were inferior in competition in the pay TV market in 2008, but now it has become famous in the pay TV market.

However, it is pointed out that careful discussion is needed if such content equal access rights enter the app market field.

First of all, the monopoly power of Google Play, which accounts for 71.2% of the domestic app market market (as of IG Works, as of August of last year), may decrease. During the same period, the One Store accounted for 18.3% and the Apple App Store at 10.5%.

However, if equal access is required to small and medium-sized developers or content companies, there is a negative effect of increasing the management and development costs for launching multiple app stores for them.

CEO Lee Jae-hwan also sympathized with the raising of the problem, saying, “It meant that it would be a solution to the problem of the domestic app store market only when the in-app payment is compulsory, but also the content equal access rights are included.” It is necessary to take action.”