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

321–330 of 408 posts

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

#321

Post by RonanTheGrey »

spankalee wrote: post #149
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…

For services like Netflix and hey.com they're not primarily iOS apps. They're services usable from multiple platforms and devices. I shouldn't have to use iOS to manage my Netflix subscript just because I downloaded the iOS first.

> I shouldn't have to use iOS to manage my Netflix subscript just because I downloaded the iOS first.

Or EVER.

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

#322

Post by RonanTheGrey »

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…

You're effectively taking the position of "fuck the business for trying to survive". Amazon makes billions, why didn't they just pay the 30%? Because their margins are 5% at best. Survival. Not even wealth.

And the argument you're making can ONLY be used to support the position that "well then why isn't Apple just the only company in the world and everyone is forced by law to use them?" Because that's the long-term outcome of the thinking you are describing.

People have options, people want options. One of the things Apple does is refuse to allow developers to use specific banks to receive payments! So now they get to tell people what bank to use? And the bigger they get, the bigger they will bully themselves into literally every market decision on the planet. Oh but it's all OK because it's a closed platform.

Bully for you that your experience with Apple/In-App payments has turned out well, but the companies I work with ABSOLUTELY HATE THEM. Customer service, when it is necessary, is absolutely impossible. Refunding pro-rated amounts is also impossible, which means they're forced to refund all or nothing - and Apple still keeps its cut.

Mobile devices are used now more than websites, so mobile presence is REQUIRED for survival. This has given the two monopolies, Apple and Google, alot more power than frankly they deserve.

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

#323

Post by [deleted] »

iav wrote: post #220
vonmoltke wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK This has been generally illegal in the US since 1975: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302 (section c)

Interesting and I was wrong. While that might make for a good case why Apple should be compelled to allow the side loading of apps (especially since an App can be sandboxed and couldn’t possibly damage the device, a key criteria in the link). It still makes it hard to win an antitrust case against Apple. If you defined the market for Ford radios as to only include Ford-manufactured vehicles, then every single car com…

[deleted]

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

#324

Post by madeofpalk »

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…

> Apple is violating antitrust laws by forcing companies to use Apple Pay

Just to be clear, afaik there has not been a ruling so far that asserts this, so all you can say is that in your opinion they are in breach of anti trust, but they have not actually been found to be guilty of that yet.

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

#325

Post by evolve2k »

mattl wrote: post #78
morganvachon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of Purism, the company behind the Librem phone, but it's fairly capable hardware for the price. The PinePhone is arguably even better hardware for the money, but it isn't quite ready for prime time on the software side. Gone are the days where a $300+ device is too weak or slow to use daily. A better tactic would be to purchase one of the few Android devices that are fully compatible with either Replica…

An iPhone SE is $400. I know Apple have a lot more R&D money than Purism, but it doesn't even feel comparable. I don't want to run Android. If anything I'd have two phones: an iPhone and a Pinephone.

Project Insanity have been going to work at running Linux phone OS on the iPhone. Early days/long shot etc. but worth keeping an eye on.

https://blog.project-insanity.org/2020/04/16/running-postmar...

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

#326

Post by madeofpalk »

dwaite wrote: post #228
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 s…

> Is the implication that they should operate differently or be held to a different standard than Spotify?

Currently this is the case. Apple Music is held to a different set of rules and standards than Spotify.

When Apple Music wants to collect their customer's money from within the Apple Music app, they can do this practically for free - they don't need to forfit 30% of their revenue of that sale to another party.

When Spotify wants to collect their customer's money from within the Spotify app, they cannot without having to forfit 30% of their revenue.

Apple Music gets to play by different rules and is not held to the same standard as everyone alse on the App Store.

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

#327

Post by mattnewton »

votepaunchy wrote: post #60
g_p wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference here is that Apple is the only retailer for someone to install an app onto an iOS device. It prohibits anyone else from setting up a retailer, through policy-based (not technical) restrictions. You cannot install an app on an iOS device, except from their store. Apple won't let you install an alternative store. Therefore their app store is a monopoly store, and should be regulated as such. (Is…

Well, Walmart is the only retailer in a Walmart store. Only Walmart is permitted to retail in a Walmart store.

It is more like "Fordmart" is the only store you can go to in a Ford car, I think.

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

#328

Post by Androider »

HatchedLake721 wrote: post #306
actuator wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Works out just fine on macOS.

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

#329

Post by PeterisP »

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…

It's not about differences in actual behavior or contract terms, but about differences in assertions what behavior is prohibited by a particular law.

Let X be "That other marketplace banning me from offering discounts is a violation of antitrust law".

Let not X be "Me banning vendors in my marketplace from offering discounts is permitted by antitrust law".

You get to pick one and only one position of those - but in most cases there's no conflict; you can ban some practice in your marketplace (and assert that this ban is permitted by law) while at the time doing the same thing yourself in other marketplaces which haven't banned it - as long as you're not legally challenging their right to ban that practice as well, if they should choose so.

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

#330

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN