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

111–120 of 408 posts

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

#111

Post by mkozlows »

GeekyBear wrote: post #108
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…

>Obviously if Apple owns one platform, and Google owns the other platform, it is not actually the same situation. Let's look at a situation where Google is seeking to protect it's own cut of the action. >“After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization,” reads Epic’s statement. “Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvant…

Apple literally puts technical measures in place to ensure that it's 100% impossible to download outside software.

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

#112

Post by jaimehrubiks »

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 it says "on other music players". It doesn't really specify, but I would say that "Spotify" is the music player, and you still need to use it whether it is on the browser or other platform, but it is still "the same music player". I guess that the second case is more related to buying digital content, say an image, music, video, where you get the actual right to use that image, music, video on any platform. But I could be wrong.

In any case, as other users mentioned, if Apple music really lets ANY developer create an application that may reproduce the purchased content, then it may look fine.

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

#113

Post by AsyncAwait »

Despegar wrote: post #95
gamblor956 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 monopo…

Apple does not have a monopoly in the smartphone market, but it does have a dominant position there and a monopoly in the tablet segment where it does the same thing.

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

#114

Post by criley2 »

votepaunchy wrote: post #59
Closi wrote: post #10

Something that they don’t allow Spotify to do on their own platform - how convenient!

If Spotify is charging 30% fees to artists do we discount their argument?

Spotify doesn't 'charge fees to artists', they charge fees to listeners and advertisers, to create a revenue pool, to pay out to artists.

And while that payout pool is roughly 70% of revenue, meaning they keep roughly 30%, the other point to be made there is that in the US the Copyright Royalties Board sets the repayment %'s, not Spotify, and they are increasing.

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

#115

Post by snowwrestler »

codemac wrote: post #71
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…

> 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.

I'm not aware of any court case that seeks to define whether Apple and Google must run their stores the same way.

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

#116

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

I'm interested in whether allowing Google Play In-app Billing is sufficient to meet the requirements (while also allowing external payment), or if the requirements are supposed to mandate Google Play In-app Billing as the sole possible method of payment. It's not clear from the policy page.

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

#117

Post by montagg »

codemac wrote: post #71
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…

> 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.

This is true: lots of folks are asserting that X or Y behavior is an anti-trust violation, and it might be, but that hasn’t been shown legally yet.

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

#118

Post by evan_ »

rydre wrote: post #22

Boycott 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.

or go to WWDC and just make this the topic of every Q&A

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

#119

Post by millstone »

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…

Web technologies and software distribution are separate. Heavily-curated app stores may arise on the web and gain market power. Likewise native apps could be loaded directly from URLs.

I strongly disagree that "implementing the same app twice" is wasted effort. Write-once-run-everywhere is a recipe for shitty software. But a native app designed for the platform it runs on can be very high quality.

This is why the iPhone succeeded: its software was just so much higher quality than the alternatives at the time. And this is also why the iPhone's original web-app plan (the "sweet solution") failed.

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

#120

Post by natch »

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.

Sounds like a common math mistake. Wouldn't it have to be 42.857143% more expensive to make up for giving Apple a 30% cut of the total? Or is Google just throwing up its hands here? Or is their math that bad? Or maybe my math is bad, I don't know.
Post reply on HN