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

181–190 of 408 posts

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

#181

Post by oillio »

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…

> 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 directly for access to the app store. They are not going to just give up their 30% and do nothing.

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

#182

Post by nahtnam »

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 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

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

#183

Post by cheesecracker »

In the kindle app on iPad, it is not possible to buy kindle books. Apple only allows shopping via it's own payment schemes, presumably so that they can take the cut.

In that light, it seems rather funny that they do that on Android. Maybe it is their way of saying "see, you should be more restrictive".

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

#184

Post by Gorbzel »

gamblor956 wrote: post #84
jessriedel wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I'm familiar with the distinction between common and civil law, but that does not seem sufficiently specific to my question to be very helpful. The link to judicial estoppel is helpful, but seems much less broad than the gamblor956's claim. Judicial estoppel involves a party presenting contradictory arguments in separate court cases , not just hypocritical behavior by the party. (gamblor956: "if you take a po…

Judicial estoppel is a lot broader than the 3 paragraph Wikipedia page. It applies to the same court case, to separate court cases, and to actions occurring outside of a courtroom that would affect a court case if such actions have the effect of contradicting a legal position a party is taking in court.

Come oooonnnnnn...

Obligatory disclaimer for everyone else: IANYL. Mostly, because armchair lawyering on the internet is the worst.

That said – sure, estoppel is absolutely an important part of the judicial/common law canon. It's also often a last ditch effort when multiple other theories of the case fall through. In fact, before estoppel was mentioned, I thought OP was going for unclean hands, which might be truly the last hail Mary, and absent much more, estoppel is equally far down that list.

Not sure which is worse: Dunning-Kruger here or if OP is actually in a position where (s)he should know better. All the Wikipedia and common law cites make me thing maybe a foreign attorney best case scenario.

tl;dr: Extremely broad but rarely used as such legal principle is cited as reason Apple is legally DOOMED! From that misleading jumping off point, OP gleefully takes the giant leap to asserting that an otherwise novel and highly disputed antitrust case involving the App Store et al. is open and shut when it very much isn't.

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

#185

Post by ehutch79 »

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 situation is more...

Let not X be "It is okay for me to use discounts at another restaurant that bans discounts."

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

#186

Post by JimDabell »

Mindwipe wrote: post #159
Despegar wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Monopoly power" and "dominance" mean the same thing. One is used in the US, the other in the EU. You're going to have a tough time getting a court to agree that Apple is dominant in smartphones in the EU.

> 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 had control over the market pricing, why did the race to the bottom happen and why haven't Apple stopped it?

If the argument is that they don't care about the revenue and they actually prefer the prices as low as possible to add value to their hardware devices, then why are Apple charging 30% and not 0%?

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

#187

Post by newacct583 »

snowwrestler wrote: post #50
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…

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. > > The law does not require that Google and Apple run their online stores the same way

Yikes, no. It absolutely does! The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment is probably the most cited and least controversial of the Big Important spots in the constitution.

It is not possible for a law or court decision to find differently for different plaintiffs or defendants under the same circumstances. Period. Full stop. This is like con law 101.

For a court to square this they'd have to cite exactly the reasoning that makes it OK in one case but not the other, in a way that is much more involved than "just because", as you seem to think.

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

#188

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

Hamuko wrote: post #144
criley2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't Spotify pay the labels/rights holders, who then in return pay the artists (discounting self-published stuff)?

So pop songs usually have a recording artist / performer (i.e. the actually famous person whose name you know), and a songwriter/composer (the person behind the scenes who crafted the notes and lyrics). Sometimes they're the same person, sometimes there are many people credited for each. The takeaway here is that there are two separate pieces of intellectual property generated - the copyright (the songwriter's creation, the notes and lyrics), and the master (the actual recording of the song).

In the U.S., the money from a Spotify stream goes to whomever is the legal owner of the copyrighted work, just like FM radio. The owner of the recording master does not get paid.

When an artist signs a record deal, they usually give the label both the songwriting copyrights and ownership of the master, in exchange for some percentage of the profits generated by each. Super big name artists occasionally have the ability to throw around their weight and retain some ownership, but this is very much the exception rather than the norm.

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

#189

Post by objektif »

nahtnam wrote: post #182
SkyBelow wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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

Isnt it more like I am banning all my customers to use coupons on my platform. Then circumventing this ban and using coupons on another platform anyways.

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

#190

Post by ladyanita22 »

KoftaBob wrote: post #92
archildress wrote: post #35

Given the strong emotions around the topic, I've been a bit afraid to ask this question - is what Apple does really that different than traditional retail? In FMCG there are difficult hurdles to jump over to get on the store shelves. The stores don't have an obligation to put anyone's product on the shelf. They can also module what the cut of the revenue is. I'm not sure I have an opinion on what Apple is doing, but…

For the retail analogy to work, it would be like if Best Buy suddenly told Microsoft that because their Xbox allows people to subscribe to Xbox Live, Best Buy must get a cut of that subscription for every Xbox that's purchased in their stores.

This would be an absolutely perfect analogy. Maybe Comcast should get a cut too. In the end, Xbox Live is using its network to run the service.
Post reply on HN