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

301–310 of 408 posts

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

#301

Post by oblio »

baxtr wrote: post #253
actuator wrote: post #232

I really don't understand why people are defending Apple on this. It seems shameful of a $1.5 trillion company to do this to developers. Even more so when they themselves don't abide by their philosophy. They are extracting out a competitive advantage from this on other services like Spotify or Netflix( even without this they have a big one at app discovery and pre installs on iOS). Kudos to Google for allowing the d…

Imagine for a second distributing an app in 175 countries around the globe including all the tax details. I think it's fair to participate on such a global platform and a price for it.

Agreed!

Google worked hard to set all of this up. Apple should pay Google for using the Google global platform.

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

#302

Post by jfk13 »

ses1984 wrote: post #283
ehutch79 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I THINK the situation is more... Let not X be "It is okay for me to use discounts at another restaurant that bans discounts."

Does Google ban bypassing their stores on Android?

Their policy explicitly permits it for this category of sales.

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

#303

Post by Natanael_L »

ses1984 wrote: post #283
ehutch79 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I THINK the situation is more... Let not X be "It is okay for me to use discounts at another restaurant that bans discounts."

Does Google ban bypassing their stores on Android?

Mostly for in-app payments of a bunch of variants, primarily for digital content, yes.

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

#304

Post by jackson1442 »

illumanaughty wrote: post #173
schoolornot wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Google should just remove the app. No reason, no comment, nothing. Just remove the app and say too bad.

Ah yes, the Apple approach. I like it.

Let's be real, it's the Google approach too. Though I don't generally hear about this from developers, people who make their livelihoods from publishing videos on YouTube are frequently hit with automated takedowns of their content/channel with little-to-no recourse.

This is a problem that crosses brands-- we need to push for better treatment of creators and developers alike to make this stop.

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

#305

Post by nailuj »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #195
GeekyBear wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has never been a secret. Google literally spent most of a decade preaching that the "freedom" their platform afforded to sideload software was a major competitive advantage, and then attacked a developer who was making use of that freedom to make a large profit without giving Google a cut.

Epic is obviously exaggerating. Android lets you enable local app installs in like 2 clicks including a safety message. Complaining about this is like complaining about windows UAT (I expect Epic will complain about that next).

There were a lot of complaints about UAT when it was first introduced, claiming it was too confusing for casual users. It was a factor in the huge unpopularity of Vista.

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

#306

Post by HatchedLake721 »

actuator wrote: post #267
baxtr wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine for a second distributing an app in 175 countries around the globe including all the tax details. I think it's fair to participate on such a global platform and a price for it.

The whole issue is about choice. If what Apple is offering you is worth the 30% cut they ask for, you will pay it. If it is not, you should be free to use your own method and take care of the details like tax yourself. Cross platform things anyway have to solve this problem on their own.

Yes, that worked out very well in 00’s with windows mobile. /s

People don’t understand the power of consumer friendly digital experience

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

#307

Post by radley »

heavyset_go wrote: post #256
radley wrote: post #31

Wait, doesn't this demonstrate collusion? The two predominant mobile platforms have conspired to exclusively reduced pricing.

Yes, but it seems that people want to use this to take potshots at one camp, while sitting in another camp that is just as guilty.

We can't fix one without fixing both platforms. Historically, it's been hard to make a monopoly case against Apple. Collusion could be easier to prove with a duopoly.

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

#308

Post by bduerst »

cwhiz wrote: post #290
bduerst wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't have monopolistic behavior without a monopoly This is wrong. Monopolistic behavior is anti-competitive behavior that doesn't require having a market monopoly. Think of it as a pattern of behavior that moves you towards having a monopoly.

It is not wrong. It's not monopolistic behavior without a monopoly. Anticompetitive behavior can lead to a monopoly and that type of behavior can be considered illegal. However, this behavior from Apple is not an illegal attempt to control more of the market. If anything it is net negative for Apple and their marketshare.

This boils down to semantics:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopolist.asp

>In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, there are laws restricting monopolies. Being the sole or dominant player in a market is often not illegal in itself. However, certain categories of monopolistic behavior can be considered abusive in a free market, and such activities will often attract the monopoly label and legal sanctions to go with it.

While it is correlated, monopolistic behavior is not always from a monopoly. Suppliers in free markets can still exhibit monopolistic behavior without being a monopoly.

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

#309

Post by bduerst »

notatoad wrote: post #275
bduerst wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't have monopolistic behavior without a monopoly This is wrong. Monopolistic behavior is anti-competitive behavior that doesn't require having a market monopoly. Think of it as a pattern of behavior that moves you towards having a monopoly.

>This is wrong. Monopolistic behavior is anti-competitive behavior that doesn't require having a market monopoly okay, sure. but it's only illegal when you have a monopoly.

In the U.S.

E.U. does not require a dominant market share to fine companies for monopolistic behavior.

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

#310

Post by zachruss92 »

ridiculous_fish wrote: post #168
zachruss92 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, my stance here is that Google is pretty reasonable with their guidelines compared to Apple. My biggest issue in the iOS vs Android debate is that apple is behaving monopolistically and Google isn't. Using the respective app stores give publishers an inherent audience to distribute/sell content through. I don't think it's unreasonable for Apple/Google to try to profit off of the audience they've built. W…

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…

I didn't realize that epic came back.

I also understand why Google is doing this. (1) the obvious money making reasons and (2) legitimate security concerns. Remember the days of accidentally undertaking a zillion browser tool bars? I feel like making it painful to install from 3rd parties help combat that.

I do think there can be a better solution though. Like some sort of signing process by Google to make you a trusted app that can be revoked in the future if they find you to be malware or whatever. This is kind of sounding like an app store though :)

Post reply on HN