Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are similarities but Apple never had a ~90% lock on computing infrastructure.
They were smart enough to target the 90% of profits rather than market-share.
Yes, though both strategies produced ungodly profits.
Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
401–408 of 408 posts
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#402Earlier 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…
> 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…
> > Obviously if Apple owns one platform, and Google owns the other platform, it is not actually the same situation.
There's your different circumstances.
> It is not possible for a law or court decision to find differently for different plaintiffs or defendants under the same circumstances
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#403Earlier 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…
As a point of reference, HumbleBundle charges 5% for the Humble payment widget. They handle hosting your data, all the payment systems for taking payments from most of the world, handling chargebacks on your behalf etc etc.
If you want to sell your game on the Humble Store on the other hand, well then they take a 25% cut. That’s the value in being able to deliver a customer.
Apple’s fixed 30% cut is effectively saying: our brand is more important than yours in delivering customers to your App. The imprinteur of being in our App Store and bringing you a customer is worth 30% of your income. Your ability to deliver your own customers is irrelevant; we’re taking 30% either way. Unsurprisingly this sticks in the craw of some companies.
The fact that Apple’s systems make it almost impossible to effectively communicate with your own customer is an even bigger problem for a customer-focused company who’s income & branding depend on a close relationship with their customers: those companies are completely stuffed by the Apple App model & are the reason the App Store has not lead to the explosion of innovation some of us expected - it’s just not possible for a company to sustain themselves outside a very narrow set of income generation patterns.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in whether allowing Google Play In-app Billing is sufficient to meet the requirements (while also allowing external payment), or if the requirements are supposed to mandate Google Play In-app Billing as the sole possible method of payment. It's not clear from the policy page.
From the policy, emphasis mine: "MUST use Google Play In-app Billing as THE method of payment." They could be clearer that those words are significant, but in practice this is what the policy is. Which is what you'd expect because the whole point of mandating that form of payments is to take the 30% cut (for digital goods meant to be used primarily on Android devices within apps downloaded from the Android app store)…
> Which is what you'd expect because the whole point of mandating that form of payments is to take the 30% cut (for digital goods meant to be used primarily on Android devices within apps downloaded from the Android app store).
That may be a very large portion of the point, but it's not the whole point. For example, if you pay for additional functionality in an app using Google Play In-app Billing, then you can unlock that functionality again on any phone as long as you're signed in to the same Android account. If you paid externally, you can't do that.
Note that this directly lowers revenue from the 30% cut of in-app purchases, by removing some people's need to repurchase content they bought in the past but lost access to.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Not remotely comparable. Ford may not facilitate creating such a radio, but prevent it either. A company could figure out everything and sell a radio to a client without paying Ford or being sold to the customer by Ford or going via Ford at all or even losing warranty.
Ultimately, being a marketmaker comes with responsibilities. If Apple wants to close iPhones and support only Apple software they could do that. But as long as Apple operates an App Store and does not allow other methods of install, this comes with the legal obligation to play fair.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-…
Name one popular app that is not cross platform? How many apps have people paid for on iOS that are not subscription based and work on both platforms? Most money from apps Ecome from in app purchases from whales of pay to win games or subscriptions. How much data would really need to be “manually re-entered”?
That's fair, but doesn't invalidate all the other reasons why switching from iOS to Android is prohibitively difficult. It's laughable to suggest there's no lock-in at all. And some people just like iOS itself.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the parent's use of "contradictory" wasn't so great; I would say "hypocritical" would be better. This isn't about doing anything legal or illegal, or violating or not violating anyone's terms of service. It's simply pointing out that Apple, when given a choice, would rather use an external payment processor (in order to pay lower fees) when building an app for a platform they don't control... while at the sam…
> It's simply pointing out that Apple, when given a choice, would rather use an external payment processor (in order to pay lower fees) when building an app for a platform they don't control... while at the same time denying people the ability to do that on their own platform. Apple explicitly allows apps like Spotify and Netflix to use external payment processors on iOS via their developer guidelines.
Yes, apps like Spotify and Netflix (sorta; some of the rules around the "reader exception" seem arbitrary and selectively enforced), but not all apps. Not sure what the point is you're trying to make here.
Re: Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut
#408I don't understand why people are putting moral dimensions on this business conflict. If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it. All the users and developers are there by choice. Their alternatives were worse. And Apple didn't make them worse. I was active in the mobile development world starting in 1999. It was awful. Would I like it if Apple took a lower cut? Sure. I would prefer a 5% c…
> If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices, don't use it Why should not using a company's products be the maximum you ever do if you don't like their practices? You are essentially arguing that if you are not happy with a company's business practices, you should at most personally not use them. "You don't like that De Beers trades in blood diamonds? Don't buy diamonds from De Beers, but don't go aroun…
Fair enough, point well made. I don't think regulation is in the long-term public interest here. But that's a debate worth having.