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

371–380 of 408 posts

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

#371

Post by jonathannat »

fortytw2 wrote: post #243
goopthink wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the issue is, "I created a set of rules and ban users who try to bypass them, but I recognize how bogus/harmful to a business those rules are because I do my utmost best to bypass those exact same rules when I'm in the position of a user on someone else's platform." The contradiction is in trying to support the rules with one hand while resorting to the same bypassing tactics they decry when they're in th…

I'm pretty sure google allows you to do this though, so Apple isn't bypassing any "rules" on android.

I'm just amazed that no one on both sides is following the prisoner's dilemma scenarios

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

#372

Post by vsl »

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…

They require you to use their store, servers and bandwidth. It’s not fair to claim that’s value provided to developers when they are forbidden to not use the infrastructure.

My costs for direct distribution on Mac are ~8% and are absolutely dominated by payment processing - and that’s only because I choose to use a merchant of record instead of Stripe to save on VAT accounting costs. The rest of distribution costs are peanuts.

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

#373

Post by heisenbit »

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…

To what extent is this about Apple and not also about Google who is the other party of the deal? In that case the market is unquestionably the whole smartphone market.

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

#374

Post by Leherenn »

cwhiz wrote: post #197
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…

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.

Not in Switzerland as far as I know, they have very slightly over 50% apparently.

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

#375

Post by tandr »

schoolornot wrote: post #156
rydre wrote: post #22

Boycott WWDC everyone. Trillion Dollar companies don't play by the fair rules. Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google Play's 30% cut. Apple has accused Match, Epic, and Spotify of wanting a 'free ride' while taking one themselves.

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

and Apple to remove Google from it's store in escalation?

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

#376

Post by dwaite »

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…

There is nothing that would indicate side loading alone would be sufficient for applications wishing to forgo the App Store. Fortnite on Android is an example of an application which started out being side loaded but eventually conceded that there were too many platform restrictions for that to be viable.

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

#377

Post by dwaite »

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…

Apple does allow side-loading apps today, but with restrictions that make it unsuitable for consumer applications - requirement for an enterprise provisioning profile, applications expire after a set period of time, applications are expected to be deployed via Xcode, etc.

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

#378

Post by dwaite »

yyyk wrote: post #296
iav wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 allow…

> 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.

This happens all the time. Integration of the radio and climate control system/navigation system. Custom wiring for the speaker system and accessory systems. Dashboard cavities which are a non-standard size.

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

#379

Post by dwaite »

Mindwipe wrote: post #227
JimDabell wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Apple had those clauses (I believe they are referred to as ‘Most Favored Nation’ clauses) but I believe removed them after the US E-Book settlement.

They still may be attached to marketing and partnership opportunities I believe, though - you might not be featured in the store if you charge iOS users more than android or web users, just like they will probably not advertise a new movie or album if Amazon is allowed to sell it for a lower price.

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

#380

Post by dwaite »

kelnos wrote: post #298
snowwrestler wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 le…

For a literal bible you would have options, because you can use a standard format like ePub or PDF. Your limitations come if you try to mandate your own DRM, since the platform won’t understand it.

For an annotated bible application, you would have the option of a web-based application, which has certain trade-offs.

Post reply on HN