Apple has complied with the Taipei City Government’s request to provide a seven-day trial period for software bought through its online App Store during which the software can be returned for a full refund.
The city government says that this will protect consumers and has asked all major foreign app suppliers to follow suit. Google flatly refused to provide the trial period for its Android Market, taking down all paid apps from its online store until the matter has been resolved. It looks like Google will be exploring other options.
Clearly, foreign firms are not willing to take these things sitting down, and in the meantime, the city government is endangering the digital content industry in Taiwan.
One thing that is annoying about the online stores of these non-Taiwanese companies is the way they do not seem to cater to customers who use traditional Chinese characters and that many overseas Web sites visited by large numbers of Taiwanese have either poor Chinese interfaces or are otherwise very user-unfriendly. This is what is really at the crux of the issue. It is not so much about whether they allow people to return goods, and one does have to remember that these companies have mechanisms in place that apply to tens of millions of users all around the world.
The main problem is that, because these firms and products do not cater well to Chinese-speaking users and as the company offices are often located overseas, the response to end users in Taiwan is often quite slow. If the services were offered free of charge, there would be little cause to complain, but when Taiwanese users are paying for services they expect to get something in return.
The main thing that differentiates a product consisting entirely of digital content and, say, an exercise bike sold on a TV shopping channel, is the residual value. In the case of an app game, once the user has completed it, he or she is unlikely to want to play it again. Its value is essentially spent. The same is true for an e-book or digital magazine: Once you have finished it, why go back and read it a second time?
With the exercise bike, once you return it you forgo the benefits that can be derived from continued ownership, in terms of getting yourself in shape. There is really no point, then, in selling game apps or e-books when people are just going to be trying to complete app games within seven days, for example. If you can read a Giddens Ko (九把刀) book in a week, why part with your money? You may just as well get yourself a refund.
The Enforcement Rules of the Consumer Protection Act (消費者保護法施行細則), which governs the seven-day trial period, does not make sense for virtual products. The problem is that you cannot sell digital content in a physical store because the product is intangible. What digital products offer you is an experience and they are not something you “own,” short of having them implanted as brain waves. Returning a physical object bought online or in an actual store takes time and effort, unlike applying for a refund for digital content, which is only a mouse click away. This is something which is clearly cause for concern for many companies.
The government has spent quite a lot of money on the so-called digital content industry, perhaps hoping that major local manufacturers such as HTC or Acer are not toppled by the likes of Apple, and core to this is digital products, such as mobile applications. The Industrial Development Bureau says that it alone will spend more than NT$3 billion (US$104 million) before 2013 on promoting digital content.
The uncertain climate in Taiwan makes it difficult for companies to develop here and foreign companies have realized it is better not to set up their offices or Asia-Pacific headquarters in the Taiwanese market. This is as bad for industries in Taiwan as it is for the government. E-book sellers such as Amazon are avoiding the Taiwanese market. Nobody seems to have a clue as to who the relevant official documentation is supposed to be sent to and all the evidence points to the fact that they are avoiding the potential headache of trying to figure it out by just steering clear of the whole mess.
The way this plays out is that these foreign firms are discouraged from setting up in Taiwan and are not interested in dealing with Taiwanese customers or would prefer to deal with Taiwanese firms as companies operating outside of the country.
The city government thinks it has pulled off a real coup politically speaking, but it really does not get it. Next it will be announcing it has come to similar “agreements” with every other company, although everyone has their own idea of what should be done. These foreign companies will, in addition to adding extra clauses on the seven-day trial period to make provision for Taiwanese users, but that will be it.
The main market for Taiwanese developers is certainly the domestic market. The government’s policies will, frankly, barely touch the foreign companies, and only have a limited effect on consumers. However, they will cause considerable damage to local developers.
The government’s inconsistent policies are hitting the industry’s confidence hard. To make it as a developer in Taiwan, you have to do more than just comply with international practices, you also have to worry about political clowns meddling in these matters, who leave a terrible mess for the industry to sort out.
If the government is of no help there is little one can do, but if it actually gets in the way, what hope is there?
Shyu Ting-yao chairs the Association of Digital Culture Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past