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

81–90 of 408 posts

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

#81

Post by bravoetch »

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…

| If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it.

Some of us care about other people's experience too, and the greater good. We don't all stomp off with our toys if we're unhappy with the game. We can engage and make it better.

| Businesses respond to the expressed preferences of consumers and other businesses,

Not today's businesses. They manipulate government policy for their own benefit, and use invasive tracking and manipulative marketing and anti-patterns and unfair business practices.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by jonny_eh »

fortran77 wrote: post #46
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…

Wouldn't it all depend on the contracts/agreements in place? If Google has a different agreement than Apple, why would the same terms apply?

It undercuts Apple's argument that they "need" to have this limitation in place, since clearly their largest competitor doesn't "need" to do it.

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

#84

Post by gamblor956 »

jessriedel wrote: post #73
jerf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

Judicial estoppel is a lot broader than the 3 paragraph Wikipedia page. It applies to the same court case, to separate court cases, and to actions occurring outside of a courtroom that would affect a court case if such actions have the effect of contradicting a legal position a party is taking in court.

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

#85

Post by wnoise »

jfk13 wrote: post #27
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes absolutely. As with the exceptions on iOS (Netflix is outside the iOS payment system) i suspect it's a case that certain apps are large enough that kicking them off the store for not paying the 30% tax isn't feasible. >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. https://play.google.com/about/…

Actually, there seems to be an exception that sounds relevant here: > Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, except for the following cases: > . Payment is solely for physical products > . Payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other musi…

Can you play apple music songs via other android apps?

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

#86

Post by Spivak »

mmastrac wrote: post #67
votepaunchy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Walmart is the only retailer in a Walmart store. Only Walmart is permitted to retail in a Walmart store.

But Walmart isn't the only store to go to in meatspace. If you have an iOS device, you get the Walmart of apps and only the Walmart of apps. This is the problem.

But you're choosing a definition of the world that's too narrow -- "if you've already decided to go to Walmart then Walmart is the only store that can sell at Walmart."

Why isn't "the world" the smartphone market where there are plenty of options?

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

#87

Post by kevincox »

hortense wrote: post #64
pjc50 wrote: post #4

What's the corresponding deal for Google Music on iOS?

Google Music is 30% more expensive when purchased via iOS. If that seems insane, it's because it is.

To be honest this seems perfectly reasonable. I think we should pass on costs to the consumer more often.

In North America you can make up to 5% back on purchases by using credit card. This is because the store pays a fee. I don't see why this shouldn't be paid by the consumer. This is effectively overcharging cash customers for the availability of a service that they don't use.

I think the long term effects would be better in both cases if the fee was visible like Google Music is doing.

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

#88

Post by jonny_eh »

votepaunchy wrote: post #60
g_p wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference here is that Apple is the only retailer for someone to install an app onto an iOS device. It prohibits anyone else from setting up a retailer, through policy-based (not technical) restrictions. You cannot install an app on an iOS device, except from their store. Apple won't let you install an alternative store. Therefore their app store is a monopoly store, and should be regulated as such. (Is…

Well, Walmart is the only retailer in a Walmart store. Only Walmart is permitted to retail in a Walmart store.

> Walmart is the only retailer in a Walmart store

It's not like people have to choose whether to exclusively shop at Walmart or Target, like they do with phones. Reasonable people don't own both an iPhone and an Android.

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

#89

Post by gamblor956 »

fortran77 wrote: post #46
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…

Wouldn't it all depend on the contracts/agreements in place? If Google has a different agreement than Apple, why would the same terms apply?

It's not about the TOS, it's about Apple taking the position that Google's requirement is anticompetitive in the Play Store but that Apple doing the same thing (actually worse, since Google allows third-party stores to be installed) in its own App Store is not.

That can be used against them in an antitrust proceeding...in US courts. I don't know how the EU handles judicial estoppel since AFAIK it's only a feature of the UK-originated common law system.

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

#90

Post by kevincox »

wnoise wrote: post #85
jfk13 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there seems to be an exception that sounds relevant here: > Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, except for the following cases: > . Payment is solely for physical products > . Payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other musi…

Can you play apple music songs via other android apps?

Probably not. But I suspect that they would argue that users can also listen on their iPhone or Mac which is enough to pass those terms.
Post reply on HN