Wait, doesn't this demonstrate collusion? The two predominant mobile platforms have conspired to exclusively reduced pricing.
Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
31–40 of 408 posts
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#32The rich irony of this being that Apple has been cracking down on this behavior in the App Store. There was just a segment on it this morning on CNBC from the BaseCamp founder.
And the EU has opened an antitrust investigation on this precise topic (and on their reserving the NFC hardware for their own payments service, which also extracts a fee, as I understand).
This strikes me as textbook antitrust matters, that traditional laws are actually equipped to deal with. It doesn't seem legal to be the marketplace, and a provider on that marketplace, while granting yourself a 30% subsidy and building your own business based on the taxes collected by the other providers.
Apple's crackdown, combined with the timing of this, is rather convenient (well, inconvenient for them).
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#33Unless google has a similar rule, which states DIY in app purchase solutions aren't allowed, I dont see what's the fault of Apple here? What kind of a business wants to give away free money? I don't see hypocrisy unless they're breaking TOS.
Google does have a similar rule. https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/
And it has an exception for "digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other music players)".
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#34People keep writing about businesses like they are surprised they aren't moral entities with consistent moral logic. Businesses take whatever action or position they can to maximize their results. The more power the business has, the more they can leverage that power to get what they want. This should just be the default assumption at this point and we should talk about if that is ok for society, not keep feigning su…
Apple does not present the 30% cut as a machiavellian reality of business. They describe it as a fair, reasonable, and mutually beneficial practice. Apple’s practices on the Google play store suggests that they are arguing in bad faith.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#35Given the strong emotions around the topic, I've been a bit afraid to ask this question - is what Apple does really that different than traditional retail? In FMCG there are difficult hurdles to jump over to get on the store shelves. The stores don't have an obligation to put anyone's product on the shelf. They can also module what the cut of the revenue is. I'm not sure I have an opinion on what Apple is doing, but isn't it worth asking if it's really that unique in the economy? I welcome feedback on if I have a major blind spot here.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#36Unless google has a similar rule, which states DIY in app purchase solutions aren't allowed, I dont see what's the fault of Apple here? What kind of a business wants to give away free money? I don't see hypocrisy unless they're breaking TOS.
I don't follow why breaking the TOS is required to qualify for behaving in a hypocritical manner.
> I don't follow why breaking the TOS is required to qualify for behaving in a hypocritical manner
It very much matters if this is to be used as precedent by Spotify in its legal proceedings against Apple.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#37People keep writing about businesses like they are surprised they aren't moral entities with consistent moral logic. Businesses take whatever action or position they can to maximize their results. The more power the business has, the more they can leverage that power to get what they want. This should just be the default assumption at this point and we should talk about if that is ok for society, not keep feigning su…
This faulty logic is deeply ironic, since it's an expression of irrational negative emotion, which is what it's accusing others of. It's so common and so unchanging, I can paste an old comment I wrote about it (just substitute "corporations" for "wealthy and powerful people"): The "why are people surprised" line is a huge red flag for me that a person is not arguing in good faith. Accusing people of being "surprised"…
Well said. This is something I've been noticing a lot lately but you put it into words better than I could have.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#38Biggest oof
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#39Boycott WWDC everyone. Trillion Dollar companies don't play by the fair rules. Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google Play's 30% cut. Apple has accused Match, Epic, and Spotify of wanting a 'free ride' while taking one themselves.
Apple's claims of a "free ride" frankly seem ludicrous. There seem to me to be 3 issues at hand here.
1. The magnitude of the 30% charge, and the level of justification this has.
2. The ability for Apple to itself be a provider/competitor to those on the marketplace, such that they are not paying this 30% fee (and can immediately be 30% cheaper).
3. Whether Apple should be allowed to run a marketplace that operates on a whim, unwritten and ever-changing rules, informal policies, and no significant judicial remedies - if Government tried to retrospectively change the rules on you, you can sue them, and win. Apple can decide to eject you from its platform at its whim, and you are forced to accept this to use the platform.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#40Note to the people asking why this matters: Legally, if you take a position in federal court on X (i.e., that it's okay to ban external transactions by apps using your app store), and you are found to be doing not-X in an analogous situation (i.e., setting up external transactions to avoid fees in your competitors' app store), the court can rule against you in the original case...and then sanction you and your lawyer…
Can you link to something that goes into more details about this principle, or give us some search terms? Stated as broadly as you have done, it doesn't sound right to me.