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

291–300 of 408 posts

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

#291

Post by cwhiz »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #206
cwhiz wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is a minority player in every single market in the world, including the US. You can't have monopolistic behavior without a monopoly. You can't be a monopoly if you are not the market leader. People want this to be a legal issue but it's just a market issue. If people don't like these policies they shouldn't buy Apple products or release apps on Apple devices.

Hey everybody, this guy says that's apple's actually the underdog and not a monopoly after all, case closed.

It is irrefutable that Android is the dominant player in mobile[0]. It isn't even close. Android is near to a legitimate worldwide monopoly while Apple is a bit minority player in comparison. These are just facts.

[0]: https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iphone/iphone-vs-android-...

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

#292

Post by jlbnjmn »

oillio wrote: post #181
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…

> plus a 30% cut for doing nothing It's not nothing. Maybe not worth 30% but it is worth something. They run the store, buy the servers and pay for the bandwidth. Pay the engineers to develop and manage the infrastructure. Run the app certification process. Maintain the security of the platform. etc. If they can't charge their 30% cut, they will need a different business plan. Possibly charging app developers directl…

> Maybe not worth 30% but it is worth something.

If Apple allowed the market to set the price, we would know what this activity is worth. They don't, that's the issue.

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

#293

Post by seccess »

cortesoft wrote: post #201
nahtnam wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its more "It is legal for me to ban coupons at my store" and then suing another company for not letting you use coupons at their store. I'm not 100% sure though

Has Apple sued Google for this, though? I haven’t heard of any lawsuits over this between the companies.

I think in this case, the hypothetical lawsuits would be between companies that make iOS apps and Apple. The companies that make iOS apps want to have their own payment system where Apple doesn't take a cut.

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

#294

Post by kelnos »

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…

I too feel a little weird about "iOS app ecosystem" as the definition of a market that matters for anti-trust regulation, but at the same time consider that smartphones are not fungible goods. People generally choose iPhone vs. Android for particular reasons, and then often stay on those platforms because of features that aren't available on the competing platform, or just because they've succumbed to ecosystem lock-in. Switching to the other platform isn't just a matter of swapping out a piece of hardware: it involves installing or finding workalike applications, often manually re-entering data, and sometimes losing access to DRMed purchases.

Given that, "iOS App Store" does start feeling like a market that should be regulated as its own entity.

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

#296

Post by yyyk »

iav wrote: post #141
Despegar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Defining Apple as a monopolist on iOS is like calling Ford a monopolist in selling radios in Ford vehicles. No one thinks it’s a violation for Ford to include their own radio (built by a 3rd party like Bose - same as an app) in a Ford truck, and offer you an expensive upgrade to that radio (say also by Olufsen - also like a better App) if you want it. No one demands that Ford allow a different vendor to sell you a co…

That's not exactly the same scenario. If Ford allowed installing radios only via Ford and allowed other companies to sell radios via Ford, but then artificially restricted said radios so that its radios would have an advantage then it would apply, and I suspect that people would be upset.

Here's IMHO a better analogy: Apple is running a mall, while also operating a chain store operating in said mall. Apple Mall allows competitors to Apple Chain Store to rent stores in the mall.

However, it turns out that for some reason, there are "Beware of Leopard" signs near the competitor stores. Also, the public area near them is never cleaned or maintained, except for signs promising cheaper products at the Apple Chain Store (and the leopard signs of course).

Would that be legal? Apple Mall is hardly a monopoly. Despite losing the location, the other stores could move. None of the agreements specifically bans this.

For some reason though, I don't think that would fly - the other stores have a reasonable expectation that after paying rent Apple won't sabotage them. Just like companies paying for the Developer License and Apple Store tax have a reasonable expectation Apple won't unduly hinder them for its own products.

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

#297

Post by munk-a »

tanjtanjtanj wrote: post #273
munk-a wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not certain how this is considered to be analogous - is the assumption that other retailers would need to forward customers to 7/11 when 7/11 carries a good a client is interested in? As a possibly better analogy... Let's say I run a Flea market and also direct sell some items to customers. I charge independent retailers a fee for setting up a booth in my market space and don't excise that same fee from my own bo…

> and raise an exception all the way to city hall that the mall attempting to charge me for running a booth in their property is impeding the free flow of commerce and hurting the local economy Except Apple has never made that argument to anyone. They simply added a way to pay for their subscription directly in their app rather than in the Play Store; Something Google allows.

If I lease space to you on a profit sharing based model (i.e. you don't have to pay any standard rent but you need to forward 20% of what you make in lieu of rent to use the space) and you start giving product away to customers for "free" but then force them to pay the actual price under the table then you're committing fraud. Whether you think 30% of transaction value is a fair price or not for the costs of running an AppStore (I don't think so - it's ridiculously high proportion-wise) that's the agreement. Apple comes down hard on people who run microtransactions via alternate payment methods in application on their platform and yet that's exactly what they're doing in the Play Store - it is something that Google allows, but it would violate Apple's ToS.

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

#298

Post by kelnos »

snowwrestler wrote: post #234
oillio wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has control of the iOS App market. It is a pretty large barrier for a customer need to switch platforms to get an app that Apple has denied access. I am not a lawyer, but that sure smells like the potential for monopolistic control.

This is like saying 7-11 has a monopoly on what is sold in 7-11 stores. If I want a copy of the King James Bible and 7-11 chooses not to sell that, I have to leave 7-11 and go find another store that does. Yes, that's a barrier I have to go through to get my Bible. Should the government make it 7-11's responsibility to solve that for me?

I don't think this is a particularly good analogy.

If 7-11 doesn't sell a bible and I want to buy a bible, I go to another store that sells bibles and buy one there. It's not like my house will refuse to allow me to bring a non-7-11 product inside.

If the iOS App Store doesn't sell a particular app, then I have no alternative (aside from "buying a different house", which IMO is unreasonable), because Apple doesn't let non-App-Store apps onto iOS devices.

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

#299

Post by riclad »

kevincox wrote: post #90
wnoise wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple does not have a monopoly in the tablet market, There's lots of android tablets and also Microsoft sells tablets. 90 per cent of phones sold are android phones as they are cheaper, than any apple phone Apple allows Netflix and Spotify apps on their store Without taking a 30 per cent cut. The problem is if an app has in app subscriptions or the app is not free apple gets a 30 per cent cut Google has similar rules to the apple store, It seems the rules are not Always consistent, on the apple store. Big company's like Spotify or netflix are not treated as strictly as a small developer with a few apps on the apple store. Apple is being investigated by the EU, to see If the app store policy's are reducing competition and innovation eg it makes its own music And TV apps which compete with Spotify and or video apps In the store. Only apple can use the iPhone nfc chip to pay for goods in stores Maybe we would have more completion in apps if there Were more mobile platforms, Other than android and apple Ios So it's up to the regulators to make sure that consumers and devs are not overcharged or innovation is blocked by 2 company's who control the Mobile app marketplace
Post reply on HN