From The Verge's "Arizona Senate skips vote on controversial bill that would regulate Apple and Google app stores" posted late Wednesday:
The Arizona State Senate was scheduled to vote on an unprecedented and controversial bill Wednesday that would have imposed far-reaching changes on how Apple and Google operate their respective mobile app stores, specifically by allowing alternative in-app payment systems. But the vote never happened, having been passed over on the schedule without explanation. The Verge watched every other bill on the schedule be debated and voted on over the senate’s live stream, but Arizona HB2005, listed first on the agenda, never came up.
One notable Apple critic is now accusing the iPhone maker of stepping in to stop the vote, saying the company hired a former chief of staff to Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to broker a deal that prevented the bill from being heard in the Senate and ultimately voted on. This is after the legislation, an amendment to the existing HB2005 law, passed the Arizona House of Representatives earlier this month in a landmark 31-29 vote.
“The big show turned out to be a no show. The bill was killed in mid-air while on the agenda with a backroom deal. Apple has hired the governor’s former chief of staff, and word is that he brokered a deal to prevent this from even being heard,” said Basecamp co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson, a fierce Apple critic who submitted testimony in support of HB2005, on Twitter this afternoon.
My take: Apple and Google came this fight fully armed. Florian Mueller will be furious.
Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. States conducive to doing business are seeing more tax revenue growth and influx of newly arriving workers. States not conducive to doing business are seeing increased outflow of corporate HQs and workers, leaving state and city governments seeking new sources of revenues, usually in the form of increased taxes.
Given that, AZ would have to ensure that they opened up App store payments only for transactions in AZ. How would they enforce that limitation? How would protect consumers from scammers and ID thefts using these payment systems?
I would think this constitutes libel if it’s not true….