Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

support.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 408 posts

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#71

Post by codemac »

snowwrestler wrote: post #50
gamblor956 wrote: post #30

Note 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…

Obviously if Apple owns one platform, and Google owns the other platform, it is not actually the same situation. The law does not require that Google and Apple run their online stores the same way, or that Apple interact with Google's store the same way they choose to run their own store. In fact it's arguable that a free marketplace encourages and depends on different companies taking different approaches to meet cu…

> The law does not require that Google and Apple run their online stores the same way, or that Apple interact with Google's store the same way they choose to run their own store.

That's actually what the court cases are for, and I'm not sure they've actually completed? It feels like you're asserting how you feel it should work out when it hasn't completed yet.

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#72

Post by selykg »

I'm really having a hard time wrapping my head around why this is such a huge deal to people. Opinions are fine, everyone can have one but I always see Apple's payment options as a massive win as a consumer.

1. Subscriptions are easily monitored from a single page.

2. Before subscriptions renew I get emailed, not all services do this, shame on those that do not and a magic renewal transaction goes through without notifying you first

3. Trusting a single entity (Apple) with payment is easier for me to stomach than giving my credit card info to a dozen or more different sites/services manually

4. The user experience is vastly better using Apple's solution than having to enter all of my billing info by hand each time or with Bitwarden even which can get things wrong often enough I always have to double check.

As a developer you gain the advantage of users being able to easily purchase, and users have a credit card assigned to their Apple ID making purchases incredibly easy. I'd argue, without proof anyway, that this probably results in purchases you'd never get otherwise due to how easy and seamless it is.

The 30% cut is a lot, but I think in general there are big benefits for users, maybe the developers don't see it that way, but as a user I would NEVER use something other than Apple's payment solution in the App Store. So if you're asking for that option and I seen you were charging more for it through Apple's solution and less through some other service I'd immediately not pay for your app. Simple as that. You'd basically lose me as a potential customer.

Edit: because apparently line breaks are fun

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#73

Post by jessriedel »

jerf wrote: post #55
jessriedel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Judicial estoppel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel or the alternate name the article give, "estoppel by inconsistent positions". More generally, the thing known as "common law": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Note that "common law" does not mean "law that is common", at least not on an international scale; it is a specific legal system. As the Wikipedia article says, there are several others…

Thanks. I'm familiar with the distinction between common and civil law, but that does not seem sufficiently specific to my question to be very helpful.

The link to judicial estoppel is helpful, but seems much less broad than the gamblor956's claim. Judicial estoppel involves a party presenting contradictory arguments in separate court cases, not just hypocritical behavior by the party. (gamblor956: "if you take a position in federal court on X... and you are found to be doing not-X in an analogous situation...").

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#74

Post by jakeinspace »

jessriedel wrote: post #48
tracerbulletx wrote: post #13

People 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…

"People can be moral but businesses are amoral" is not the right summary. Businesses (and governments) are composed of many people, and there's no reason to expect in general that the actions of such a collective are consistent in any sense, not just a moral sense. Businesses and governments frequently undertake sets of actions that cannot even be reconciled as pursuing a consistent set of selfish preferences.

Amoral doesn't mean immoral, it just means without regard for morality. Corporations in their purest form can lean towards amorality, because profit motive / share price is the only real job of the board and executives. Of course, most businesses in the real world are not 100% cut-throat: they are staffed with real humans making decisions, and if nothing else, are at least cognizant of bad PR.

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#75

Post by ubercow13 »

dsjoerg wrote: post #41

I don't understand why people are putting moral dimensions on this business conflict. If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it. All the users and developers are there by choice. Their alternatives were worse. And Apple didn't make them worse. I was active in the mobile development world starting in 1999. It was awful. Would I like it if Apple took a lower cut? Sure. I would prefer a 5% c…

So you don't agree with any antitrust regulation?

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#76

Post by hellcow »

reagank wrote: post #66
mmcclure wrote: post #54

It's very relevant to note that Google Play's terms around in-app billing[1] are far more liberal than Apple's. > Developers offering products within a game downloaded on Google Play or providing access to game content must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment. Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of…

But the second doesn’t apply - you can’t listen to Apple Music with a different app, you have to use their app.

You can listen to it in a browser. You can use an iPad. There are many ways to use Apple Music that do not involve an Android app.

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#77

Post by [deleted] »

reagank wrote: post #66
mmcclure wrote: post #54

It's very relevant to note that Google Play's terms around in-app billing[1] are far more liberal than Apple's. > Developers offering products within a game downloaded on Google Play or providing access to game content must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment. Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of…

But the second doesn’t apply - you can’t listen to Apple Music with a different app, you have to use their app.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#78

Post by mattl »

morganvachon wrote: post #68
mattl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried the last time with OpenMoko. Sadly, those things amount to little more than feature phones because they're just not powerful enough.

I'm not a fan of Purism, the company behind the Librem phone, but it's fairly capable hardware for the price. The PinePhone is arguably even better hardware for the money, but it isn't quite ready for prime time on the software side. Gone are the days where a $300+ device is too weak or slow to use daily. A better tactic would be to purchase one of the few Android devices that are fully compatible with either Replica…

An iPhone SE is $400. I know Apple have a lot more R&D money than Purism, but it doesn't even feel comparable.

I don't want to run Android. If anything I'd have two phones: an iPhone and a Pinephone.

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#79

Post by jrockway »

factorialboy wrote: post #21
davidg109 wrote: post #16

Agree with comments. Apple is about shareholder value, like it or not. They are not a non-profit agency.

So what if underage slave labor is employed? Share holder value #1.

There is clear law on that issue: https://oag.ca.gov/SB657

Right now, there is no law that app stores have to be open, or that they have any certain policies. Certainly, there is appetite for that law. Another comment says that Google Music costs 30% more on iOS, but Apple Music costs the same on both platforms. That is never a good look, but it is not clear that it is illegal. A law could be passed to make it illegal, however.

Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut

#80

Post by jessriedel »

jakeinspace wrote: post #74
jessriedel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People can be moral but businesses are amoral" is not the right summary. Businesses (and governments) are composed of many people, and there's no reason to expect in general that the actions of such a collective are consistent in any sense, not just a moral sense. Businesses and governments frequently undertake sets of actions that cannot even be reconciled as pursuing a consistent set of selfish preferences.

Amoral doesn't mean immoral, it just means without regard for morality. Corporations in their purest form can lean towards amorality, because profit motive / share price is the only real job of the board and executives. Of course, most businesses in the real world are not 100% cut-throat: they are staffed with real humans making decisions, and if nothing else, are at least cognizant of bad PR.

I am not confused about the distinction between amoral and immoral. I chose my words purposefully.
Post reply on HN