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

221–230 of 408 posts

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

#221

Post by e12e »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #129
e12e wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple makes eg: Google music use Apple pay in Apple ios store, taking 30% cut. Apple will kick out Google music from app store for not using Apple pay, giving Apple 30% cut. Apple circumvents Google pay, and Google 30% cut in Android app store. Apple thus admits by own action that Apple's enforcement of apple pay and 30% cut is fine for anyone to circumvent, because they do the equivalent thing themselves. And they s…

This is so much nonsense. Apple circumvents Google pay pursuant to Google's policies. Apple has different policies in its own app store. So what? Those are not related facts.

If there is a case testing the enforcability/validity of the limits enforced by the app store, it might be?

I'm not certain if the app store model has been tested in court? As in - can you actually, legally build a walled garden?

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

#222

Post by mattmar96 »

SkyBelow wrote: post #177
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…

This doesn't sound right, so let me try to form an example to get at what is the issue I'm seeing. Let X be "It is okay for me to ban my customers from using discounts." Let not X be "It is okay for me to use discounts offered by another restaurant." This doesn't feel like a particularly contradictory situation. Maybe the issue is that we skipped a few too many steps, because there isn't anything particularly illegal…

I think the initial analogy of discounts is flawed. Its more like

Let X be "It is okay for me (Costco owner) to require customers use CostCo credit cards only"

Let not X be "It is okay for me to use my non-Safeway credit card at Safeway"

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

#223

Post by yyyk »

Despegar wrote: post #210
yyyk wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at Spotify's allegations[0], than things did change in 2015 when Apple launched Apple Music, creating a conflict of interest for Apple. Anyhow, anti-trust moves slow. The trust cases against IBM took more than a decade, and the case against Microsoft also took a few years. [0] https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/

"Conflict of interest" isn't illegal. Apple has been competing with app developers on their platform from the first days of the App Store. If Spotify is somehow trying to suggest that Apple should be barred from doing so, that's not going to be possible under antitrust laws.

Conflict of interest itself is not illegal, but it does legally restrict Apple from doing some things.

For example, providing private APIs to Apple Music would straight fall under the Microsoft precedent, same for not allowing other apps as default programs. Apple Music would have to use the same store review policies, and Apple may have to separate divisions so AM pays the same store tax (but internally).

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

#224

Post by ridiculous_fish »

cblades wrote: post #212
ridiculous_fish wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's stance here looks good on paper, but the reality is very different. Fortnite was the most ambitious attempt to distribute outside of Google Play. Here's what Epic had to say: > After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization: Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures…

That all seems very reasonable. Apps downloaded from other sources are much more dangerous than apps downloaded from Google Play.

Ok, sure. But the claim was that Google is absolved from "behaving monopolistically" because they permit ex-Play Store distribution. In practice, it's so onerous that not even a brand as strong as Fortnite can make it work.

Whether you prevent ex-app-store distribution through fiat or through engineering, the result is the same. So I don't think the distinction is important.

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

#225

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by mixmastamyk »

vonmoltke wrote: post #145
mixmastamyk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Microsoft never had a 90% lock on computing infrastructure . They had it on desktop and laptop computers, which is a subset.

And close to that on servers. It was a time after the demise of Netware but before the ubiquity of the Internet.

A distinction without significant meaning.

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

#227

Post by Mindwipe »

JimDabell wrote: post #186
Mindwipe wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're going to have a tough time getting a court to agree that Apple is dominant in smartphones in the EU. No you're not. The definition of dominance in the EU is primarily that you're in a position to materially affect market pricing, which I think is actually pretty easy to demonstrate in Apple's case. Overwhelming market share isn't required, and there are several cases that have found companies to be "dominant…

> The definition of dominance in the EU is primarily that you're in a position to materially affect market pricing, which I think is actually pretty easy to demonstrate in Apple's case. Is it? App Store prices have been a race to the bottom for years, yet it's clearly in Apple’s interests to keep the prices high, both to keep their revenue from the service as high as possible and to stimulate the app economy. If they…

I don't really agree that's relevant to be honest. The affect on pricing can be quite wide. For example, the EU will not have an issue finding developers who will say they priced their product 30% higher on all platforms than they otherwise might have because they knew the had to pay the Apple surcharge and Apple do not permit you to charge extra to cover their cut (except then they sometimes arbitrarily do! But that's not what the terms say).

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

#228

Post by dwaite »

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…

I fail to understand this position.

Apple Music is in the same position as say Spotify on Google's platform as a third party media service. Is the implication that they should operate differently or be held to a different standard than Spotify?

I don't believe Apple has argued that collecting alternate payments in-app would be an undesirable for third party developers on the App Store - just that they don't wish to support it (for multiple reasons).

This also comes from Apple and Google having different starting points in their mobile platform - Apple already had a huge account and micropayment billing base for the iPhone by basing the App Store on the iTunes Store.

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

#229

Post by intopieces »

xnyan wrote: post #34
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…

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.

Is it incumbent on Apple to act in the best interest of Google? Because that’s what giving Google a 30% cut would do. Google could demand it, but they haven’t.

I don’t go to a car dealership and ask what the maximum price they’re willing to charge me for it.

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

#230

Post by intopieces »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #137
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…

Indeed they are compelled to maximise profit (the business leadership), else the shareholders will replace them. In fact I believe there’s even a US law to this effect.

I used to think this too, primarily because I read Cryptonomicon and it states as much. But it’s simply a myth, and one that I wish would die.
Post reply on HN