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

91–100 of 408 posts

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

#91

Post by jonny_eh »

crazygringo wrote: post #53

Honestly this seems like an irrelevant counterargument. Google sets its own policies for its own app store. If Google approved this, all it means is Google approved it. Apple similarly sets its own policies for its own app store. It's totally free to set totally different policies, and disapprove of things that Google approves. I still think Apple's policies have huge problems, but this particular example is apples a…

> Honestly this seems like an irrelevant counterargument.

Hypocrisy is a very powerful argument, especially in court.

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

#92

Post by KoftaBob »

archildress wrote: post #35

Given 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…

For the retail analogy to work, it would be like if Best Buy suddenly told Microsoft that because their Xbox allows people to subscribe to Xbox Live, Best Buy must get a cut of that subscription for every Xbox that's purchased in their stores.

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

#93

Post by mywittyname »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #45
rvz wrote: post #25

The roles of arrogance and loophole finding has changed recently. Apple (2020) has become Microsoft (1998) and Microsoft (2020) has become Apple (1998).

There are similarities but Apple never had a ~90% lock on computing infrastructure.

They were smart enough to target the 90% of profits rather than market-share.

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

#94

Post by jerf »

gamblor956 wrote: post #84
jessriedel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes; I was answering the "give me a google term" question (which is a good question I fully support; it sure as heck isn't obvious the answer is "estoppel" to an English speaker), not "here's a full explanation of the concept" not-asked question. I'm not competent to give the latter.

Further edit: I was also showing this is a principle in common law. It seems to be pretty rare for a case to be resolved with an explicit resolution that cites the basic principle, and for every principle you can find any number of places where it seems to be violated. Instead, these general principles are just ambiently in the air at all times, so to speak. I wouldn't expect the court to explicitly rule "case dismissed because of judicial estoppel"; I would expect it is something that factors in to the general environment of the trial, rarely in the foreground but constantly in the background. You are going in with a weaker position arguing that entity X shouldn't be doing Y if you are yourself doing Y in a manner that a reasonable person would find comparable.

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

#95

Post by Despegar »

gamblor956 wrote: post #70
snowwrestler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Analogous != same. It means its very similar factually. 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 correct. But the law does require them to run the stores in a way that does not violate antitrust laws. Apple is violating antitrust laws by forcing companies to use Apple Pay as a…

>That's correct. But the law does require them to run the stores in a way that does not violate antitrust laws. Apple is violating antitrust laws by forcing companies to use Apple Pay as a condition of using the App Store (i.e., leveraging dominant/monopolistic market position in one market in a non-competitive manner over another market).

The reason why everyone has to narrowly define the market to "Apple has monopoly power in the iOS market" is because they don't actually have monopoly power in smartphones and are mad about that fact. Defining markets are a major part of antitrust cases and just because a prosecutor or regulator is willing to do it doesn't mean it will actually work in court.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

jonny_eh wrote: post #83
fortran77 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by jonny_eh »

echelon wrote: post #52
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. This isn't an option! There are no alternatives. Most people do computing on their smartphones today. Apple has prevented web from being a first-class native construct on their devices. There's no technical reason web couldn't have a native-like experience with native windowing, sensor access, persistence, multithreading, and WASM speed. Google…

> Google and Apple just don't like that software distribution idea because the gravy train they have set up is so sweet

https://web.dev/using-a-pwa-in-your-android-app/

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

#98

Post by jonny_eh »

kevincox wrote: post #87
hortense wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think we should pass on costs to the consumer more often.

That's not the insane part.

> This is because the store pays a fee

Note: It's not 30%

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

#100

Post by jsnell »

selykg wrote: post #72

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 not…

So you talk about how great paying through Apple is for both parties.

But you want the developers to be forced into it, rather than have a choice. If it's so beneficial to the developer, why would they choose not to make that choice. (Answer: because it actually isn't.)

And then when it comes to the benefit to the customer, it turns out that you actually don't value paying through Apple either: you're only interested in paying through them if it's also the cheapest option. All of these conveniences are not worth even one cent to you when the rubber hits the road.

Post reply on HN