[HN Gopher] Apple Music on Android requires its own payment deta...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid
Google 30% cut
Author : rydre
Score : 621 points
Date : 2020-06-18 15:51 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.apple.com)
| NietTim wrote:
| And the funny thing is that this very thing would not be allowed
| in Apple's App Store.
| archildress wrote:
| 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 isn't it worth
| asking if it's really that unique in the economy? I welcome
| feedback on if I have a major blind spot here.
| g_p wrote:
| 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 the argument being levelled against
| them.)
| votepaunchy wrote:
| Well, Walmart is the only retailer in a Walmart store. Only
| Walmart is permitted to retail in a Walmart store.
| mmastrac wrote:
| But Walmart isn't the only store to go to in meatspace. If
| you have an iOS device, you get the Walmart of apps and
| only the Walmart of apps.
|
| This is the problem.
| jlokier wrote:
| It can be very difficult for someone to switch between
| iOS and Android. They're called ecosystems for that
| reason.
|
| There's the obvious problem around apps and protocols. If
| you've been using them for a long time, your apps, their
| connectivity to each other, personal data etc is likely
| to be locked into Apple services & devices, or Google
| services & devices, in a way that is difficult or even
| impossible to move over (I know people with data they can
| only access now if they buy a license to apps they can no
| longer run).
|
| More subtly, for example there was a recent article about
| how people in some places experience a social penalty if
| they aren't using iOS, because the difference is visible
| to others in terms of protocols used for instant
| messaging.
|
| In my view, the great difficulty of switching and the
| penalties of switching mean that both Apple and Android
| ecosystems are, more or less, separate marketplaces, and
| each one has a strongly dominant player that should be
| subject to anti-trust measures.
|
| Basically if you build a platform ecosystem, expressly
| design to lock-in users especially in ways that hugely
| affect their lives, that comes with responsibilities you
| don't have in a free and competitive marketplace where
| your users can switch with low friction.
| Spivak wrote:
| But you're choosing a definition of the world that's too
| narrow -- "if you've already decided to go to Walmart
| then Walmart is the only store that can sell at Walmart."
|
| Why isn't "the world" the smartphone market where there
| are plenty of options?
| shaftway wrote:
| I think the underlying sentiment is that you've bought
| the device, so you should be able to do whatever you want
| with it. And there's no technical reason that your choice
| of device should preclude other stores.
|
| For a more meatspace example let's say you own a car with
| full self-driving capabilities. Now, the manufacturer of
| that car also runs a chain of grocery stores. It would be
| problematic if the car refused to drive too a different
| store. "If you've already to decided to buy a Walmart car
| then Walmart is the only store that you can go to."
| SJetKaran wrote:
| well put
| untog wrote:
| > Why isn't "the world" the smartphone market where there
| are plenty of options?
|
| At a certain point in debates like this everyone ends up
| over-examining analogies to a point where it isn't
| useful. To be a useful parallel you'd need a world where
| you can only buy two types of car and each one only lets
| you go to one type of shopping mall, or something like
| that. My point is, that isn't how either the real world
| works or how smartphone app stores work, so it's a debate
| over nothing.
| MattRix wrote:
| Because an iPhone is not the App Store. This seems fairly
| obvious?
|
| "the definition of world is too narrow" is a pretty weak
| argument.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| _> plenty of options_
|
| There are two options, and one of them is provided free
| of charge by the world's largest advertising company.
|
| The state of the smartphone OS market is so wildly
| different from the general-merchandise retail market as
| to render any comparisons meaningless.
| szhu wrote:
| Not only are there only two options, there is a high
| entry fee to each option, and you can only choose one at
| a time even if you wanted to pay this entry fee twice.
| What percent of consumers are willing to carry two phones
| in their pockets?
|
| So you can compare this to if you could only buy things
| at two different stores, each store has a hefty
| membership fee, and you were effectively locked into your
| decision for at least a year at a time.
| thebean11 wrote:
| There are essentially two options for smartphones, for
| tablets it's closer to one. Remember when Microsoft got
| in trouble for bundling Internet Explorer in Windows?
| Seems quaint compared to what Apple is doing now.
| dentemple wrote:
| Walmart actually does allow multiple retailers in Walmart
| stores.
|
| Such as Coca-cola (who even has to stock their own
| inventory), and those shops and restaurants that are at the
| front of every superstore location.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Walmart is the only retailer in a Walmart store
|
| It's not like people have to choose whether to exclusively
| shop at Walmart or Target, like they do with phones.
| Reasonable people don't own both an iPhone and an Android.
| paulgb wrote:
| It's not unique in the economy; it's not even unique in the
| _software_ economy: video game consoles have the business model
| that they sell the hardware and make money by having a monopoly
| on the software that runs on them.
|
| The questions are, do we want phones to be like video game
| consoles with a walled-garden marketplace, or like general
| purpose computers where the manufacturer does not exert control
| over the entire software economy. There are arguments for both,
| but I think the former stifles innovation.
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Even with video game consoles and their walled gardens,
| consumers don't totally lose out because consoles are sold
| nearly at cost (at least when first launched), sometimes even
| below cost.
|
| Meanwhile Apple wants you to buy their $1000 phones AND wants
| you to pay an extra 30% for all software and digital
| services.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| 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.
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| 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.
| kyriee wrote:
| There are multiple things retail does. Discovery and sales is
| one of it, but no one does what Apple wants to do with IAP.
|
| Imagine that you buy a DVD player at Best Buy. That's cool.
| Best Buy decides the markup, where it puts it, how much it puts
| in promoting it, etc. That's also cool. You are OK with giving
| the with 30 % of your DVD player sales. After all, shelf space,
| promotion, etc. isn't free.
|
| Now, imagine Best Buy hears that you sell DVDs by mail. People
| are already buying your DVDs and you are shipping it to their
| door, so you don't feel that it's worth your time and effort to
| "sell" them through Best Buy.
|
| Best Buy is not happy with this. They say that for ANY DVD for
| the DVD player in their store, NEED to offered in their store
| AND you need to pay the same fee for which you get placement,
| promotion, etc.
|
| You don't want to sell your "Mail in DVDs" in Best Buys, you
| don't want or need them promoting your DVD, they will never
| touch, manage, offer support, etc. for these "Mail in DVDs",
| but you HAVE to sell them in Best Buy because if you don't,
| then they will just stop selling your DVD player.
|
| In short, they are in the business of selling DVD players, but
| want a cut of all "Mail in DVDs" because your customers bought
| the DVD player through them.
|
| This is what Apple wants to do for any app that offers digital
| content / experiences that might not want to use their
| services. How is that OK?
| filleduchaos wrote:
| Leave even traditional retail aside, is it that much different
| than what pretty much every gaming console does? I am aware
| that there _are_ people who are ideologically consistent in
| disliking the walled gardens of both iOS devices and popular
| consoles, but I have never actually seen the level of
| heat/vitriol that Apple gets targeted at, say, Sony or even
| Microsoft for the PlayStation/Xbox ecosystems respectively. I
| suppose it's due to people seeing games as "frivolities" even
| though the PlayStation Network for example pulls in the same
| ballpark of revenue as the App and Play Stores.
| artembugara wrote:
| I want to see Basecamp's team faces right now
| [deleted]
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Good. The fact that all of these marketplaces take a 30% draw is
| egregious. The hypocrisy is almost inconceivable when Apple
| demands 30% of my revenue, but they're intolerant when Google
| wants exactly the same thing from them. Apple would kick my app
| out of their store if I did that.
|
| I say "good" because hopefully this is the first major crack in
| this racket. As Apple has now admitted, a marketplace is not
| worth a 30% cut. I hope this helps build an Antitrust case
| against Apple, Google, Amazon, etc for the outrageous rake
| they're taking in their marketplaces.
| pjc50 wrote:
| What's the corresponding deal for Google Music on iOS?
| hortense wrote:
| Google Music is 30% more expensive when purchased via iOS. If
| that seems insane, it's because it is.
| natch wrote:
| Sounds like a common math mistake. Wouldn't it have to be
| 42.857143% more expensive to make up for giving Apple a 30%
| cut of the total? Or is Google just throwing up its hands
| here? Or is their math that bad? Or maybe my math is bad, I
| don't know.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| The Apple fee is 30% on the first payment (so 42% more
| expensive), but afterwards it's 15% for a continuous
| subscription (18% more).
|
| Averaging it to 30% and rounding doesn't seem too crazy.
| kevincox wrote:
| To be honest this seems perfectly reasonable. I think we
| should pass on costs to the consumer more often.
|
| In North America you can make up to 5% back on purchases by
| using credit card. This is because the store pays a fee. I
| don't see why this shouldn't be paid by the consumer. This is
| effectively overcharging cash customers for the availability
| of a service that they don't use.
|
| I think the long term effects would be better in both cases
| if the fee was visible like Google Music is doing.
| notatoad wrote:
| >I don't see why this shouldn't be paid by the consumer.
|
| unless something has changed recently, the retailer's
| agreements with Visa and Mastercard prohibits them from
| charging extra for credit card payments.
| chongli wrote:
| _This is effectively overcharging cash customers for the
| availability of a service that they don 't use._
|
| Cash isn't free for stores to handle either. They need to
| pay employees to count up the cash at closing time, put it
| in the safe, and periodically distribute cash to registers
| so they don't run out of change. Additionally, stores
| typically contract with security companies to pickup and
| deliver cash to/from the store and the bank.
|
| Maybe the costs from above are not identical to the fees
| for credit card transactions, but they may be close enough
| that it's not worth it for a store to charge different
| prices and incur the overhead from that. Some stores do
| however offer discounts for using cash. The examples I can
| think of off the top of my head are family-run Chinese
| take-out restaurants. These tend to have family members
| counting and handling cash, so they may have less overhead,
| or they may be too small to warrant hiring a security
| company to make cash pickups.
| kevincox wrote:
| Those are good points, and maybe I picked a bad example.
|
| But my point is if that Apple claims that the security
| and convince is worth 30% we should let the market
| decide. This is to an extent what Google Music is doing
| and I think it would be healthy if more companies did
| this.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| A common argument is that Apple is effectively a
| monopoly, in which case "the market" _can 't_ decide. I'm
| not sure I necessarily agree with this viewpoint, but
| Android and iOS are two separate markets because the cost
| of switching between them is so high, users are subjected
| to so much lock-in that switching is almost not an
| option, and users can only use one market at a time. The
| difference is that while Apple has a monopoly on iOS with
| its app store, Google _does not_ have a monopoly on
| Android with the Play Store because of the existence of
| competing stores (Galaxy Store, F-Droid, sideloading APKs
| etc.).
|
| There are analogies to be drawn with game consoles, but
| there are some key differences: game consoles are not
| general purpose computing devices necessary for everyday
| life; users can own multiple consoles at once; there are
| more than two competitors; and the cost of switching is
| relatively low.
| kevincox wrote:
| I'm pretty sure if many popular services charged 30% more
| if you subscribed on an iPhone the word would get around
| pretty quick. The other option in this case is purchasing
| the subscription from your browser which is awkward, but
| viable, even with Apple's authoritarian ToS.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > I think we should pass on costs to the consumer more
| often.
|
| That's not the insane part.
|
| > This is because the store pays a fee
|
| Note: It's not 30%
| google234123 wrote:
| How much do you think stores mark up goods?
| villgax wrote:
| Biggest oof
| bzb3 wrote:
| I don't understand what the screenshot is trying to convey.
| em500 wrote:
| This is a screenshot of the Apple Music app on Android. The
| point is that any music app on iOS with a screen like this
| would kicked out of Apple's app store.
| g_p wrote:
| This seems to be a support screenshot of the Apple Music app,
| running on Android. In it, it's asking for the user to enter
| payment information directly, rather than using Google's
| payment platform.
|
| The significance of this is that Apple is coming under fire
| lately for their policies around "everyone must use our built-
| in payments platform" so we can extract 30% of the value of
| anything you do on our platform that makes money. And indeed,
| the EU Commission have opened an investigation into Apple on
| antitrust around this and Apple Pay.
| jjice wrote:
| Link about the antitrust if anyone was curious:
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-
| antitru...
| seccess wrote:
| For context: This seems directly related to the discussion that
| went on with the Hey iOS app yesterday:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552760
| dsjoerg wrote:
| I 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% cut.
|
| Do I want world's governments coming in and imposing more terms
| on these markets? No. Businesses respond to the expressed
| preferences of consumers and other businesses, whereas world
| governments have, in practice, far weaker accountability
| mechanisms.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| > _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 around being angry at them
| or badmouthing them either. You don't like Shell's
| environmental record? Buy an electric car, but don't you dare
| write to your member of parliament asking for tighter
| enforcement of environmental standards on Shell. You don't like
| Chick-fil-A's stance on marriage equality? Go eat at Popeye's,
| or go vegetarian, but don't even think about protesting opening
| a new location".
|
| I don't understand your point of view. You are basically saying
| your actions towards a company should be either supportive
| (buying their products) or neutral (not buying their products).
| Why shouldn't it be negative (advocating against them, raising
| awareness, asking for regulation, etc.) if you perceive their
| actions to be wrong?
| damnyou wrote:
| How much choice is it really if you're excluded from your
| friend groups because they don't like green bubbles? (True
| story, happened to a couple people I know.)
|
| Apple excels at various kinds of lock-in. The more it does that
| the less tenable the "it's a choice" theory becomes.
|
| If things like iMessage were available on non-Apple platforms,
| I'd be more sympathetic to Apple, to be honest.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| So you don't agree with any antitrust regulation?
| echelon wrote:
| > If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices,
| don't use it.
|
| This isn't an option! There are no alternatives. Most people do
| computing on their smartphones today. Apple has prevented web
| from being a first-class native construct on their devices.
| There's no technical reason web couldn't have a native-like
| experience with native windowing, sensor access, persistence,
| multithreading, and WASM speed. Google and Apple just don't
| like that software distribution idea because the gravy train
| they have set up is so sweet.
|
| > All the users and developers are there by choice.
|
| I strongly beg to differ.
|
| > Their alternatives were worse.
|
| Thanks largely to Apple.
|
| > Do I want world's governments coming in and imposing more
| terms on these markets? No.
|
| Thousands of us do.
|
| The answer is a robust web distribution model where web gains
| native capabilities (and sandboxing). First class web apps
| would be portable between Apple and Google and there would be
| zero gatekeeping tax or threat of removal for doing something
| either company doesn't like.
|
| Mozilla needs to get on this. And we need to harp on our
| legislators to make it happen. It's how all of this should have
| evolved in the first place.
|
| Think about all the wasted human and innovation capital it
| takes to implement the same app twice for two different
| platforms! It is so incredibly expensive to maintain two wholly
| different apps. And then they have the gall to take 30% on top.
| The real cost is far steeper.
|
| I'm not mad. I'm enraged. It's such a waste and we should be
| building more innovation instead of jumping through hoops.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Their alternatives were worse. Thanks largely to Apple.
|
| I don't recall anyone willing to take on the mobile networks
| in the US other than Apple. HP/Dell/Microsoft/Palm/Blackberry
| were all willing to let mobile networks interfere with the
| device and lock them to various networks.
| millstone wrote:
| Web technologies and software distribution are separate.
| Heavily-curated app stores may arise on the web and gain
| market power. Likewise native apps could be loaded directly
| from URLs.
|
| I strongly disagree that "implementing the same app twice" is
| wasted effort. Write-once-run-everywhere is a recipe for
| shitty software. But a native app designed for the platform
| it runs on can be very high quality.
|
| This is why the iPhone succeeded: its software was just so
| much higher quality than the alternatives at the time. And
| this is also why the iPhone's original web-app plan (the
| "sweet solution") failed.
| spideymans wrote:
| > All the users and developers are there by choice. > I
| strongly beg to differ.
|
| How? Which users are being forced to use an iPhone? This is a
| bizarre statement when fully eighty five percent of
| smartphone users are not on the iPhone.
| mrep wrote:
| Apples market share in the US is 58% [0] which only leaves
| you with 42% of the market if you are a developer and don't
| want to follow apples rules. That's not a good choice.
|
| [0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-
| share/mobile/united...
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Anyone who cares about privacy, anyone who bought in to the
| Apple ecosystem long ago so now the switching cost would be
| huge, anyone who is non-technical and had their children
| choose an iPhone for them (i.e. my parents).
|
| Also, in the US iPhone has >50% market share.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Google and Apple just don't like that software distribution
| idea because the gravy train they have set up is so sweet
|
| https://web.dev/using-a-pwa-in-your-android-app/
| bravoetch wrote:
| | If you don't like Apple's platform or business practices,
| don't use it.
|
| Some of us care about other people's experience too, and the
| greater good. We don't all stomp off with our toys if we're
| unhappy with the game. We can engage and make it better.
|
| | Businesses respond to the expressed preferences of consumers
| and other businesses,
|
| Not today's businesses. They manipulate government policy for
| their own benefit, and use invasive tracking and manipulative
| marketing and anti-patterns and unfair business practices.
| [deleted]
| anaganisk wrote:
| Unless google has a similar rule, which states DIY in app
| purchase solutions aren't allowed, I dont see what's the fault of
| Apple here? What kind of a business wants to give away free
| money? I don't see hypocrisy unless they're breaking TOS.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| I don't follow why breaking the TOS is required to qualify for
| behaving in a hypocritical manner.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I don 't follow why breaking the TOS is required to
| qualify for behaving in a hypocritical manner_
|
| It very much matters if this is to be used as precedent by
| Spotify in its legal proceedings against Apple.
| billylo wrote:
| Google does have a similar rule.
| https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/
| jfk13 wrote:
| And it has an exception for "digital content that may be
| consumed outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be
| played on other music players)".
| factorialboy wrote:
| It's hypocritical because of the very fact their Apple's own
| terms and conditions enforces the monopolistic "your 30 percent
| belongs to us" rule.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Yes absolutely. As with the exceptions on iOS (Netflix is
| outside the iOS payment system) i suspect it's a case that
| certain apps are large enough that kicking them off the store
| for not paying the 30% tax isn't feasible.
|
| >Developers offering products within a game downloaded on
| Google Play or providing access to game content must use Google
| Play In-app Billing as the method of payment.
|
| https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/
| jfk13 wrote:
| Actually, there seems to be an exception that sounds relevant
| here:
|
| > Developers offering products within another category of app
| downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing
| as the method of payment, except for the following cases:
|
| > . Payment is solely for physical products
|
| > . Payment is for digital content that may be consumed
| outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on
| other music players).
| wnoise wrote:
| Can you play apple music songs via other android apps?
| kevincox wrote:
| Probably not. But I suspect that they would argue that
| users can also listen on their iPhone or Mac which is
| enough to pass those terms.
| riclad wrote:
| Apple does not have a monopoly in the tablet market,
| There's lots of android tablets and also Microsoft sells
| tablets. 90 per cent of phones sold are android phones as
| they are cheaper, than any apple phone Apple allows
| Netflix and Spotify apps on their store Without taking a
| 30 per cent cut. The problem is if an app has in app
| subscriptions or the app is not free apple gets a 30 per
| cent cut Google has similar rules to the apple store, It
| seems the rules are not Always consistent, on the apple
| store. Big company's like Spotify or netflix are not
| treated as strictly as a small developer with a few apps
| on the apple store. Apple is being investigated by the
| EU, to see If the app store policy's are reducing
| competition and innovation eg it makes its own music And
| TV apps which compete with Spotify and or video apps In
| the store. Only apple can use the iPhone nfc chip to pay
| for goods in stores Maybe we would have more completion
| in apps if there Were more mobile platforms, Other than
| android and apple Ios So it's up to the regulators to
| make sure that consumers and devs are not overcharged or
| innovation is blocked by 2 company's who control the
| Mobile app marketplace
| saalweachter wrote:
| The second part is why, for instance, you can directly buy
| things from the Kindle or Audible apps on Android, but only
| listen / read on iOS.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| Fault <> hypocrisy.
|
| You can be blameless and still be a hypocrite. Is Apple at
| _fault_ for this action? No. Corporate entities are gonna
| corporate entity. Does this reek of hypocrisy? Yes.
| sprayk wrote:
| Isn't taking payment this way against the terms of one or both of
| the app stores?
| jfk13 wrote:
| Not in this case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564770
| zaroth wrote:
| This looks like the free market at work to me.
|
| Google policy explicitly permits apps like Apple Music to charge
| for subscriptions _outside_ the App Store and for them to not
| allow taking subscription payment through the App Store.
|
| Apple has a similar policy for "Reader" apps on their own App
| Store for apps which are used to access content that you
| subscribe to, which Apple reasons that "Hey" does not qualify
| for. That's why Spotify and Netflix don't pay 30% to Apple for
| their subscribers.
|
| So I find this "gotcha" wrong on two levels. First, it isn't
| inconsistent because Apple and Google are perfectly free to set
| policies on their own stores, and secondly, in fact they have
| similar policies for music subscription apps on both stores.
|
| If app makers find the Android policy preferable, more app makers
| will choose to develop for Android and their ecosystem could be
| better of for it. In fact it doesn't work that way because due to
| a combination of demographics and possibly software usability
| factors, users spend about 50% more money on the Apple's store
| than on Google's.
| fastest963 wrote:
| Spotify definitely pays 30%. See
| https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
|
| I assume that Hulu also pays the same 30%.
| zaroth wrote:
| Thanks for the correction. It looks like Netflix also had at
| one time been paying substantial fees to Apple, and then I
| see articles from 2019 saying they turned off IAP, but if I
| look on the App Store right now I can see IAP for Netflix is
| listed... so I'm definitely confused about the policy.
|
| > _Spotify pays Apple a 15% fee for only about 0.5% of its
| paid members, according to Apple 's response to Spotify's
| complaint about App Store fees._
|
| So Apple gets approximately 0.075% of Spotify revenue through
| App Store fees.
|
| Here's what Apple's site actually says about their Reader
| policy;
|
| > _3.1.3(a) "Reader" Apps: Apps may allow a user to access
| previously purchased content or content subscriptions
| (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music,
| video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage,
| and approved services such as classroom management apps),
| provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target
| iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app
| purchase, and your general communications about other
| purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-
| app purchase._
|
| So Reader apps don't get free IAP. It's not clear if they
| _must_ offer IAP, but certainly it seems at some point both
| Spotify and Netflix tried to get away from it, but it seems
| to be back just looking live now at the App Store.
|
| There's also some recent developments where Apple is letting
| Amazon / Prime Video sell/rent movies and shows by billing
| your Amazon account in the app now, where-as earlier this
| year you would have to go through the browser to make the
| purchase. [2]
|
| I know that I personally only subscribe to Spotify because I
| listen to it on my iPhone. I've never even tried to use it on
| a desktop. I also subscribed to Spotify through their
| website, not through the App Store. I securely downloaded the
| Spotify app for free, from Apple servers, using an Apple SDK,
| and get regular automatic updates to the app using Apple's
| platform.
|
| [1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-
| pays-fees...
|
| [2] - https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-
| amazon-prim...
| partiallypro wrote:
| The rich irony of this being that Apple has been cracking down on
| this behavior in the App Store. There was just a segment on it
| this morning on CNBC from the BaseCamp founder.
| g_p wrote:
| And the EU has opened an antitrust investigation on this
| precise topic (and on their reserving the NFC hardware for
| their own payments service, which also extracts a fee, as I
| understand).
|
| This strikes me as textbook antitrust matters, that traditional
| laws are actually equipped to deal with. It doesn't seem legal
| to be the marketplace, and a provider on that marketplace,
| while granting yourself a 30% subsidy and building your own
| business based on the taxes collected by the other providers.
|
| Apple's crackdown, combined with the timing of this, is rather
| convenient (well, inconvenient for them).
| Closi wrote:
| And are actively in a lawsuit with Spotify about this very
| thing
| Closi wrote:
| Something that they don't allow Spotify to do on their own
| platform - how convenient!
| votepaunchy wrote:
| If Spotify is charging 30% fees to artists do we discount their
| argument?
| criley2 wrote:
| 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.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Doesn't Spotify pay the labels/rights holders, who then in
| return pay the artists (discounting self-published stuff)?
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| 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.
| 6510 wrote:
| Cant everyone do the Netflix "trick"? Or will small players get
| banned for it?
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/news/netflix-doesnt-pay-apples-ios-tax...
| rhodysurf wrote:
| Thats what the Hey! email app tried to do and they got denied
| by App Review saying users must be able to use the app without
| paying if there is no payment option in the app.
| city41 wrote:
| This is the trick Basecamp tried, and Apple blocked them. It
| seems you can only get away with the trick if Apple views your
| app as also being beneficial to them.
| selykg wrote:
| 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 notifying you first
|
| 3. Trusting a single entity (Apple) with payment is easier for me
| to stomach than giving my credit card info to a dozen or more
| different sites/services manually
|
| 4. The user experience is vastly better using Apple's solution
| than having to enter all of my billing info by hand each time or
| with Bitwarden even which can get things wrong often enough I
| always have to double check.
|
| As a developer you gain the advantage of users being able to
| easily purchase, and users have a credit card assigned to their
| Apple ID making purchases incredibly easy. I'd argue, without
| proof anyway, that this probably results in purchases you'd never
| get otherwise due to how easy and seamless it is.
|
| The 30% cut is a lot, but I think in general there are big
| benefits for users, maybe the developers don't see it that way,
| but as a user I would NEVER use something other than Apple's
| payment solution in the App Store. So if you're asking for that
| option and I seen you were charging more for it through Apple's
| solution and less through some other service I'd immediately not
| pay for your app. Simple as that. You'd basically lose me as a
| potential customer.
|
| Edit: because apparently line breaks are fun
| jsnell wrote:
| So you talk about how great paying through Apple is for both
| parties.
|
| But you want the developers to be forced into it, rather than
| have a choice. If it's so beneficial to the developer, why
| would they choose not to make that choice. (Answer: because it
| actually isn't.)
|
| And then when it comes to the benefit to the customer, it turns
| out that you actually don't value paying through Apple either:
| you're only interested in paying through them if it's also the
| cheapest option. All of these conveniences are not worth even
| one cent to you when the rubber hits the road.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| > as a user I would NEVER use something other than Apple's
| payment solution in the App Store
|
| Would you choose to pay Hey's subscription $142/year to be able
| to pay on the App Store, instead of $100/year paying on the
| web? Or if it was available, would you pay Adobe's Creative
| Cloud for $906/year in the App Store or $636 on the web?
|
| I'd choose to pay slightly more for the convenience for very
| small subscriptions too. But for large ones that's too much
| difference.
| selykg wrote:
| I would choose not to use the app unless there was very
| clearly value for the cost.
|
| If a service was literally doing as you say, charging more
| through Apple's App Store vs their site, I would choose not
| to use that app. At all.
|
| Part of the real appeal is the pro-consumer parts of the App
| Store. Like I said, being informed before renewal is
| something that very few services do but Apple does for any
| subscription.
|
| Edit: to be clear, I think even $99 is too expensive for
| Hey.com. This is my opinion. Some people may find value
| there, but I don't think Hey does enough to justify being
| more expensive than Fastmail (which also has important
| features, to me, that Hey doesn't).
| spankalee wrote:
| 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.
| evan_ wrote:
| In the case of Hey they don't want to have ONLY App Store
| subscriptions, they want to support people who don't use
| iPhones. That means they'll have to set up a whole extra
| infrastructure for dealing with app store subscriptions on top
| of the infrastructure for dealing with their own subscriptions.
| That's a non-trivial amount of work and ongoing support they
| didn't want to do.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| People keep writing about businesses like they are surprised they
| aren't moral entities with consistent moral logic. Businesses
| take whatever action or position they can to maximize their
| results. The more power the business has, the more they can
| leverage that power to get what they want. This should just be
| the default assumption at this point and we should talk about if
| that is ok for society, not keep feigning surprise at the offense
| of the day.
| xnyan wrote:
| Apple does not present the 30% cut as a machiavellian reality
| of business. They describe it as a fair, reasonable, and
| mutually beneficial practice. Apple's practices on the Google
| play store suggests that they are arguing in bad faith.
| intopieces wrote:
| Is it incumbent on Apple to act in the best interest of
| Google? Because that's what giving Google a 30% cut would do.
| Google could demand it, but they haven't.
|
| I don't go to a car dealership and ask what the maximum price
| they're willing to charge me for it.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > This should just be the default assumption at this point and
| we should talk about if that is ok for society, not keep
| feigning surprise at the offense of the day.
|
| This is almost good, but doesn't take into account the fact
| that everything is equally like this. The sociology professor
| who constantly tweets about racial hatred makes their job more
| prominent. The president who tweets about the Chinese virus
| engages their base.
|
| It's not just some businesses, because that behaviour of
| businesses is driven by the fact they're run by people. It's
| just how some people behave.
| jessriedel wrote:
| "People can be moral but businesses are amoral" is not the
| right summary. Businesses (and governments) are composed of
| many people, and there's no reason to expect in general that
| the actions of such a collective are consistent in _any_ sense,
| not just a moral sense. Businesses and governments frequently
| undertake sets of actions that cannot even be reconciled as
| pursuing a consistent set of selfish preferences.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| Amoral doesn't mean immoral, it just means without regard for
| morality. Corporations in their purest form can lean towards
| amorality, because profit motive / share price is the only
| real job of the board and executives. Of course, most
| businesses in the real world are not 100% cut-throat: they
| are staffed with real humans making decisions, and if nothing
| else, are at least cognizant of bad PR.
| jessriedel wrote:
| I am not confused about the distinction between amoral and
| immoral. I chose my words purposefully.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| The faulty logic is people proclaiming businesses as a single
| entity and not made up of a multitude of people with varying
| moral standards and opinions. We shouldn't be surprised that
| businesses aren't morally consistent when the people in them
| sure won't be.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| This faulty logic is deeply ironic, since it's an expression of
| irrational negative emotion, which is what it's accusing others
| of. It's so common and so unchanging, I can paste an old
| comment I wrote about it (just substitute "corporations" for
| "wealthy and powerful people"):
|
| The "why are people surprised" line is a huge red flag for me
| that a person is not arguing in good faith. Accusing people of
| being "surprised" as an implication of naivete seems to be a
| very common tool of redirection when people are defending
| something perceived by others to be immoral or otherwise
| harmful. I'm not sure why such a particular angle became so
| common, since it seems so obvious to me that what they are
| calling "surprise" is indignation/anger. It seems to be
| exaggerated from the general notion that the stronger a
| reaction is, the newer it is, but obviously that's faulty. I
| may hear the same story of wealthy and powerful people behaving
| badly every day, but it doesn't make the behavior any more
| acceptable with each occurrence, and so my anger does not
| subside, no matter how un-surprised I am.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _when people are defending something perceived by others to
| be immoral or otherwise harmful_
|
| well, i'd usually be just as surprised as the parent that
| people on _this_ site are _still_ getting surprised by it,
| and i sure as hell am not defending the company doing this.
|
| all publicly traded companies should be considered amoral by
| default. if they take moral action, then they dont do it
| because of morality. they do it either because they wish to
| portrait themselves as moral for publicity or they have
| another way to profit off of it. the thing which would
| surprise me is that people still dont expect that.
|
| in this particular case i'm not surprised though. hn readers
| are extremely positive of apple, no matter what apple does.
| paulgb wrote:
| Well said. This is something I've been noticing a lot lately
| but you put it into words better than I could have.
| racl101 wrote:
| Well put.
|
| Just cause it's happened a 1000 times doesn't mean people are
| numb.
|
| The protests out there are evidence of this.
|
| Yes, some people know some cops in some places are gonna be
| huge dickheads, but it doesn't assuage our feelings, when a
| bad experience happens.
|
| Nobody should get used to having to experience a shitty
| situation through no fault of their own.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Indeed they are compelled to maximise profit (the business
| leadership), else the shareholders will replace them. In fact I
| believe there's even a US law to this effect.
| [deleted]
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _In fact I believe there's even a US law to this effect._
|
| No law in the United States of America compels businesses and
| their leaderships to maximise profit for shareholders.
| intopieces wrote:
| I used to think this too, primarily because I read
| Cryptonomicon and it states as much. But it's simply a myth,
| and one that I wish would die.
| dang wrote:
| Is there a better source for this?
|
| A screenshot and an indignation comment
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564731) are poor initial
| conditions for a thread, but this thread seems to be doing well
| despite that, so I don't think we need to demote this submission,
| but it would be better to find an article to change the URL to.
| actuator wrote:
| It is not super clear from this but is mentions choosing your
| payment method and using your Apple id:
| https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/use-apple-music-on-android/...
| dang wrote:
| That article probably doesn't match the topic of this thread
| closely enough, so changing to it would probably just add
| confusion.
| davidg109 wrote:
| Agree with comments. Apple is about shareholder value, like it or
| not. They are not a non-profit agency.
| factorialboy wrote:
| So what if underage slave labor is employed? Share holder value
| #1.
| jrockway wrote:
| There is clear law on that issue: https://oag.ca.gov/SB657
|
| Right now, there is no law that app stores have to be open,
| or that they have any certain policies. Certainly, there is
| appetite for that law. Another comment says that Google Music
| costs 30% more on iOS, but Apple Music costs the same on both
| platforms. That is never a good look, but it is not clear
| that it is illegal. A law could be passed to make it illegal,
| however.
| dgellow wrote:
| Could someone give more context? The screenshot isn't telling
| that much...
| cfn wrote:
| The point is that lately Apple has been applying their own rule
| that disallows payment workarounds resulting in a few of high
| profile (for HN) cases. On the other had it seems Apple itself
| is using the same type of workarounds for their apps in other
| platforms (Google's in this case).
| crazygringo wrote:
| Honestly this seems like an irrelevant counterargument.
|
| Google sets its own policies for its own app store. If Google
| approved this, all it means is Google approved it.
|
| Apple similarly sets its own policies for _its_ own app store. It
| 's totally free to set _totally different_ policies, and
| disapprove of things that Google approves.
|
| I still think Apple's policies have _huge_ problems, but this
| particular example is apples and oranges, unfortunately.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Honestly this seems like an irrelevant counterargument.
|
| Hypocrisy is a very powerful argument, especially in court.
| NineStarPoint wrote:
| It only become Hypocrisy if Apple starts to argue google
| isn't allowed to require them to use google payment/isn't
| allowed to boot them from the play store for trying to
| circumvent rules. Without any action from google, it's
| impossible to say whether Apple is being hypocritical or not
| here.
| mmcclure wrote:
| It's very relevant to note that Google Play's terms around in-app
| billing[1] are _far_ more liberal than Apple 's.
|
| > Developers offering products within a game downloaded on Google
| Play or providing access to game content must use Google Play In-
| app Billing as the method of payment. Developers offering
| products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play
| must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment,
| except for the following cases:
|
| > Payment is solely for physical products
|
| > Payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of
| the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other music
| players).
|
| That second note is critical here and the example quite literally
| describes the exact situation here as an exemption.
|
| [1]: https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/
| reagank wrote:
| But the second doesn't apply - you can't listen to Apple Music
| with a different app, you have to use their app.
| kick wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/musickitjs
|
| MusicKit JS lets users play songs from Apple Music and their
| Cloud Library inside your JavaScript app. When a user
| provides permission to access their Apple Music account, your
| JavaScript app can create playlists, add songs to their
| library, and play any of the millions of songs in the Apple
| Music catalog directly in a browser, with no ...
| hellcow wrote:
| You can listen to it in a browser. You can use an iPad. There
| are many ways to use Apple Music that do not involve an
| Android app.
| mmcclure wrote:
| This, but to take this even further, MusicKit and the Apple
| Music APIs even allow for 3rd party Android apps to play
| back purchased content.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jaimehrubiks wrote:
| But it says "on other music players". It doesn't really
| specify, but I would say that "Spotify" is the music player,
| and you still need to use it whether it is on the browser or
| other platform, but it is still "the same music player". I
| guess that the second case is more related to buying digital
| content, say an image, music, video, where you get the actual
| right to use that image, music, video on any platform. But I
| could be wrong.
|
| In any case, as other users mentioned, if Apple music really
| lets ANY developer create an application that may reproduce the
| purchased content, then it may look fine.
| chongli wrote:
| I take "on other music players" to mean other devices. If you
| have an Apple Music account, you can listen to the music on
| your MacBook, your iPhone, your iPad, and apparently also
| your Android phone. All of these devices are functioning as
| music players when you're playing the music you pay for on
| Apple Music.
|
| The same goes for Netflix. Google does not try to take a cut
| of Netflix revenue even though you can only watch Netflix
| shows and movies through the Netflix first party application.
| You can, however, watch Netflix on many different devices.
| beckler wrote:
| I will say it does seem a bit ambiguous, but I believe their
| intention is similar with how they view physical products.
|
| I believe their intention is that once you download an asset
| (e.g. song/video/movie), it's a tangible, portable copy
| that's yours to do freely as you will regardless of device.
|
| You wouldn't be able to play music downloaded via Apple Music
| directly on just any generic music player (like a car stereo
| or a CD player) due to DRM and other various restrictions, so
| I don't believe that this would be exempt from that
| condition.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| 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.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| 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).
| m-p-3 wrote:
| Some apps were temporarily delisted from the Google Play
| store because they dared adding a donation button that
| doesn't go through IAPs.
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/news/google-pulls-open-source-
| android-...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Other apps offer in-app purchases where you have the choice
| of in-app or external payment.
| owenwil wrote:
| Also note that Google allows third-party payment gateways via
| the Google Play API - Netflix, as an example, dodges the cut
| with a custom implementation of Stripe! It's _a lot_ more work
| to implement, but developers actually have the option.
| zachruss92 wrote:
| 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. Where I have an issue is that if you
| don't want to sell on the Play Store, you don't have to. You
| can install APKs from anywhere and there are even alternative
| app stores that are completely within Google's ToS. With Apple,
| you have to sell on the app store or not at all (I know
| Enterprise apps exist, but it's not the same).
|
| I think Apple gets away with this because they're not selling
| digital content, they're selling a service/subscription.
|
| One thing that drives me up a wall about Apple is that you
| cannot purchase a Kindle book in-app on an iOS device. So if
| you're in the kindle app and want to buy a book you need to
| actually go and check out on a web browser (true for both the
| Amazon app and the Kindle app). On Android, you can do whatever
| you want.
|
| I'm pretty sure that Apple is going to lose this one. We need
| an open, fair ecosystem for publishing apps.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| If it makes some people in this thread feel better, Google
| also acts in many ways that are breaches of competition law,
| just in different ways!
| cwhiz wrote:
| 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.
| filoleg wrote:
| >Apple is a minority player in every single market in the
| world, including the US.
|
| While I heavily agree with the rest of your reply whole-
| heartedly, this specific part isn't entirely correct.
|
| You are correct that Apple (when it comes to smartphones)
| is a minority player worldwide, but it isn't the case in
| the US, where it sits at a comfortable 58% smartphone
| market share [0], thus making it a majority player.
|
| 0. https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-
| share/mobile/united...
| cwhiz wrote:
| That link does not load for me and it contradicts
| Statista[0] so I am not sure exactly what to believe.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-
| held...
| FireBeyond wrote:
| What tablets are out there that make Apple a minority in
| the tablet world?
| bduerst wrote:
| >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.
| dwaite wrote:
| Which market would Apple be moving towards having a
| monopoly in, in the App Store policy case?
| bduerst wrote:
| Who loses when Apple doesn't allow other payment systems
| on it's phones?
| notatoad wrote:
| >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.
| bduerst wrote:
| In the U.S.
|
| E.U. does not require a dominant market share to fine
| companies for monopolistic behavior.
| millstone wrote:
| That's literally every company trying to increase their
| marketshare.
| bduerst wrote:
| Anti-competitive behavior is different than typical
| growth operations.
| millstone wrote:
| I agree, that's my point. Growth moves you towards having
| a monopoly, but growth by itself is not anti-competitive.
| cwhiz wrote:
| 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.
| bduerst wrote:
| 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.
| Zenbit_UX wrote:
| Hey everybody, this guy says that's apple's actually the
| underdog and not a monopoly after all, case closed.
| cwhiz wrote:
| It is irrefutable that Android is the dominant player in
| mobile[0]. It isn't even close. Android is near to a
| legitimate worldwide monopoly while Apple is a bit
| minority player in comparison. These are just facts.
|
| [0]: https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iphone/iphone-vs-
| android-...
| ridiculous_fish wrote:
| 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 such as
| scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated
| software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and
| dealings, Google public relations characterizing third-party
| software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google
| Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the
| Google Play store.
|
| And Epic gave up and put it on the Play Store.
| cblades wrote:
| That all seems very reasonable. Apps downloaded from other
| sources _are_ much more dangerous than apps downloaded from
| Google Play.
| ridiculous_fish wrote:
| Ok, sure. But the claim was that Google is absolved from
| "behaving monopolistically" because they permit ex-Play
| Store distribution. In practice, it's so onerous that not
| even a brand as strong as Fortnite can make it work.
|
| Whether you prevent ex-app-store distribution through
| fiat or through engineering, the result is the same. So I
| don't think the distinction is important.
| zachruss92 wrote:
| 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 :)
| cheesecracker wrote:
| 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".
| rydre wrote:
| 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.
| g_p wrote:
| Apple's claims of a "free ride" frankly seem ludicrous. There
| seem to me to be 3 issues at hand here.
|
| 1. The magnitude of the 30% charge, and the level of
| justification this has.
|
| 2. The ability for Apple to itself be a provider/competitor to
| those on the marketplace, such that they are not paying this
| 30% fee (and can immediately be 30% cheaper).
|
| 3. Whether Apple should be allowed to run a marketplace that
| operates on a whim, unwritten and ever-changing rules, informal
| policies, and no significant judicial remedies - if Government
| tried to retrospectively change the rules on you, you can sue
| them, and win. Apple can decide to eject you from its platform
| at its whim, and you are forced to accept this to use the
| platform.
| evan_ wrote:
| or go to WWDC and just make this the topic of every Q&A
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| "Apple" is not a single monolithic entity. The engineers who
| will be working their asses off to create and present WWDC
| have absolutely nothing to do with the business decisions of
| the App Store. Do not bully them, and do not waste the time
| of other participants who will have genuine engineering
| questions.
| evan_ wrote:
| The published guidelines are incomplete at best. The real
| rules seem to be arbitrary and aren't applied consistently.
| All of this talk about how "business services" get treated
| differently, enforcement changing in March, none of this is
| written down or available anywhere. It's a guessing game.
|
| Building an app that follows the published rules and then
| finding out that the rules that matter are actually wildly
| different, digging through twitter threads and blog posts
| to try to figure out what's allowed- frankly those are the
| wastes of developer time that bother me more.
| wildfire wrote:
| Those engineers enabled this outcome.
|
| It is perfectly reasonable to ask why they facilitated
| immoral actions.
|
| There is a code of ethics all computing professionals
| should use to consider their actions.
|
| https://www.acm.org/code-of-
| ethics#:~:text=The%20Code%20incl....
| mikestew wrote:
| _It is perfectly reasonable to ask why they facilitated
| immoral actions._
|
| Are you seriously proposing to give the presenter for the
| Core Audio session grief over this? IMO, that's just
| being a jackass "because purity". Or something; I'm at a
| loss to truly categorize such behavior.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| Off topic, but do you know if there's actually going to
| be a CoreAudio session? I've been doing a ton of reading
| on it over the past year and I'd love to tune in.
| mikestew wrote:
| Without looking at the schedule, I cannot say. I simply
| typed the first "Core" framework that came to mind at the
| moment.
| evan_ wrote:
| I think it's very relevant to ask the folks actually
| building the stuff what they think.
|
| If Apple won't answer questions about the platform
| through the proper channels, might as well go through the
| wrong channels. We're not going to get _less_ of an
| answer.
| schoolornot wrote:
| Or Google should just remove the app. No reason, no comment,
| nothing. Just remove the app and say too bad.
| illumanaughty wrote:
| Ah yes, the Apple approach. I like it.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| 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.
| intopieces wrote:
| So Google takes a 30% cut? Meaning, Apple's cut is the market
| rate?
| hu3 wrote:
| Google gives you choice. You're not locked into their app
| store.
| intopieces wrote:
| Isn't this what PWAs are for?
| rvz wrote:
| The roles of arrogance and loophole finding has changed recently.
| Apple (2020) has become Microsoft (1998) and Microsoft (2020) has
| become Apple (1998).
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| There are similarities but Apple never had a ~90% lock on
| computing infrastructure.
| vonmoltke wrote:
| Microsoft never had a 90% lock on _computing infrastructure_.
| They had it on desktop and laptop computers, which is a
| subset.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| And close to that on servers. It was a time after the
| demise of Netware but before the ubiquity of the Internet.
|
| A distinction without significant meaning.
| mywittyname wrote:
| They were smart enough to target the 90% of profits rather
| than market-share.
| jamil7 wrote:
| Slight thread hijack. I believe Apple deserves all the developer
| backlash it's currently receiving, I hope it helps them turn
| themselves around. I say that as someone who actually enjoys
| using and developing for the platform(s). What would it take to
| get them to take notice of these issues? Mass app store strike?
| Can a sizable group of developers push app store updates with a
| blank screen and some demands laid out? It doesn't (and won't)
| even need to get past app store review for someone to take
| notice, get some high profile players on board who have a beef
| with Apple already (Basecamp, Spotify)... Or pull their apps
| altogether?
| jayp1418 wrote:
| We need to stop using android and iOS and move to pinephone and
| librem
| mattl wrote:
| I tried the last time with OpenMoko. Sadly, those things amount
| to little more than feature phones because they're just not
| powerful enough.
| morganvachon wrote:
| 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 Replicant or
| LineageOS, or a phone that can run Sailfish.
| mattl wrote:
| 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.
| jayp1418 wrote:
| Makes sense or have nokia feature phone with kaios and
| pinephone
| mattl wrote:
| I still want a smartphone.
| imladyboy wrote:
| Feel free to
| actuator wrote:
| 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 developer to choose the
| app store/payment method.
|
| Are you guys really fine with living in a world where one/two
| companies own everything you consume? This sounds like an
| antithesis to the hacker culture I would associate at least HN
| crowd with.
| baxtr wrote:
| 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.
| oblio wrote:
| Agreed!
|
| Google worked hard to set all of this up. Apple should pay
| Google for using the Google global platform.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Apple apparently believes that whether that's a fair price
| should be up to the publisher to decide when publishing apps
| for Android, but it doesn't believe that the publisher should
| get to decide that when publishing on the App Store.
| actuator wrote:
| 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.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| Yes, that worked out very well in 00's with windows mobile.
| /s
|
| People don't understand the power of consumer friendly
| digital experience
| kyriee wrote:
| There is a difference between distributing an app and forcing
| people the developer to pay for the underlying service it
| offers.
|
| Especially if you opt to not use any of said platform
| services.
|
| App distribution != online services. They are two distinct
| markets.
| CivBase wrote:
| We have and continue to distribute apps around the globe
| without Apple acting as a necessary middle man. It should not
| be a required service.
| manquer wrote:
| I agree on the ethos you are taking about. I personally prefer
| that choice, not everyone does.
|
| You also have to understand when you buy into apple's
| philosophy the experience you sign up for is seamless where you
| don't need to worry about who controls what, that _requires_
| you to sacrifice choice ,
|
| - I cannot choose to change my RAM or hard disk or other h/w to
| vendor of my choice on a MacBook,
|
| - I cannot choose my own Desktop Environment or Kernel I boot
| in MacOS.
|
| - I cannot choose how sign-in or payment is handled in Apple.
|
| Payment handling allows them to provide the same experience to
| all apps for refunds or other problems etc. Is it worth the
| sacrifice ? depends on what you value the most.
|
| Many people do not want or need these choices, Apple is
| designing products for those people, If you value your choices
| as I do, you should not be using Apple in the first place. I
| don't blame Apple for setting stringent rules to give that
| experience to people who are willing to pay for it.
| newbie578 wrote:
| Why are people still defending Apple even after all these obvious
| examples surfaced?
|
| Spotify definitely explained it the best. timetoplayfair.com
|
| The current status quo needs to change, Apple and Google are
| duopols, and they need to be reeled in.
|
| Imagine if you were a mobile developer and overnight Google
| accidentally banned you without reason. Your entire life is
| thrown upside down, and you don't have a way to fix it except
| accepting it like you aren't worth anything.
| bivvo wrote:
| hypocrite much?
| sjnu wrote:
| Have they been making a moral argument that they deserve a cut?
| riclad wrote:
| Google allows sideloading apps, I can go to a website, download
| an app without going near the play store. Apple does not allow
| apps to be installed without going to The official app store
| gamblor956 wrote:
| 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 lawyers_
| for wasting the court 's time proclaiming X...and then legally
| bar you from asserting X in those proceedings, or related
| proceedings.
|
| Courts are generally okay with some form of alternative
| arguments, (i.e., I didn't do Y, but if I did Y it was legal for
| me to do so), but they absolutely will not accept _contradictory_
| arguments by the same party (It 's okay for me to do Z but I
| won't allow others to do Z in the same situation).
| jessriedel wrote:
| Can you link to something that goes into more details about
| this principle, or give us some search terms? Stated as broadly
| as you have done, it doesn't sound right to me.
| jerf wrote:
| Judicial estoppel:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel or the
| alternate name the article give, "estoppel by inconsistent
| positions".
|
| More generally, the thing known as "common law":
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Note that "common
| law" does not mean "law that is common", at least not on an
| international scale; it is a specific legal system. As the
| Wikipedia article says, there are several others.
|
| A super super high-level summary is that common law systems
| take more account of intent and precedent, whereas civil law
| systems tend to interpret the law exactly as written. A
| common law judge is more able to look at a litigant and take
| into account any sort of hypocrisy of their positions whereas
| I think a civil law judge in this situation would be more
| likely to simply take the case as is without such external
| considerations. But, let me again emphasize, that's a super-
| high level summary.
| jessriedel wrote:
| 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 position in
| federal court on X... and you are found to be doing not-X
| in an analogous situation...").
| gamblor956 wrote:
| 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.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| But so far, you haven't advanced any theory of how
| Apple's behavior here ("we use external payment in
| Google's app store") contradicts any legal position that
| Apple is taking in any court case.
|
| You can't be claiming that Apple takes the legal position
| that external payment handling is illegal in all app
| stores?
| e12e wrote:
| Apple makes eg: Google music use Apple pay in Apple ios
| store, taking 30% cut. Apple will kick out Google music
| from app store for not using Apple pay, giving Apple 30%
| cut.
|
| Apple circumvents Google pay, and Google 30% cut in
| Android app store.
|
| Apple thus admits by own action that Apple's enforcement
| of apple pay and 30% cut is fine for anyone to
| circumvent, because they do the equivalent thing
| themselves.
|
| And they should not be allowed to kick anyone out of the
| ios app store for circumventing Apple pay?
|
| Apologies if I misunderstood your question, but that was
| my takeaway from this thread?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| This is so much nonsense. Apple circumvents Google pay
| pursuant to Google's policies. Apple has different
| policies in its own app store. So what? Those are not
| related facts.
| e12e wrote:
| If there is a case testing the enforcability/validity of
| the limits enforced by the app store, it might be?
|
| I'm not certain if the app store model has been tested in
| court? As in - can you actually, _legally_ build a walled
| garden?
| Gorbzel wrote:
| 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.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Sure, but it's not as broad as hypocrisy in general.
| Hypocrisy is not against the law.
|
| Apple is clearly being hypocritical by trying to do to
| Google what they try to stop other companies from doing
| to them. But that is a basic sort of hypocrisy common to
| markets--e.g. I want to get paid a lot for my work but I
| don't want to pay someone else a lot to do work for me.
|
| If you look at any contractual relationship--which is
| what app stores are--you can be sure that each party is
| trying to get the most and give the least. That's not
| judicial estoppel.
| jessriedel wrote:
| But even when I look at other sources that emphasize how
| broad it is, they do not seem to think it applies to
| general hypocritical behavior. First, it seems restricted
| to _statements_ (arguments, testimony, etc.). Second,
| those statements seem to need to relate to communication
| where there is a notion of "taking a public stand",
| e.g., your account of an event to your insurance company,
| or your explanation to a government auditor.
|
| > Courts have held, for example, that the timing of the
| inconsistent statements is not necessarily determinative.
| Therefore, both statements need not have been made during
| the course of the same pending lawsuit. Nor is it
| absolutely necessary for both statements to have been
| made in court proceedings. For example, prior statements
| made to local, state, and federal agencies, or to
| insurance companies, if sufficiently inconsistent with a
| later position being taken before a court, can give rise
| to a judicial estoppel.
|
| https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a2c93368-2
| 8d7...
|
| From everything I've read, just behaving hypocritically
| is not enough.
| jerf wrote:
| Yes; I was answering the "give me a google term" question
| (which is a good question I fully support; it sure as
| heck isn't obvious the answer is "estoppel" to an English
| speaker), not "here's a full explanation of the concept"
| not-asked question. I'm not competent to give the latter.
|
| Further edit: I was also showing this is a principle in
| common law. It seems to be pretty rare for a case to be
| resolved with an explicit resolution that cites the basic
| principle, and for every principle you can find any
| number of places where it seems to be violated. Instead,
| these general principles are just ambiently in the air at
| all times, so to speak. I wouldn't expect the court to
| explicitly rule "case dismissed because of judicial
| estoppel"; I would expect it is something that factors in
| to the general environment of the trial, rarely in the
| foreground but constantly in the background. You are
| going in with a weaker position arguing that entity X
| shouldn't be doing Y if you are yourself doing Y in a
| manner that a reasonable person would find comparable.
| jessriedel wrote:
| I do appreciate it. Your comment definitely advanced the
| discussion.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| cma wrote:
| The law doesn't have a hypocrisy clause like that.
| criddell wrote:
| The court of public opinion does though.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Wouldn't it all depend on the contracts/agreements in place? If
| Google has a different agreement than Apple, why would the same
| terms apply?
| jklehm wrote:
| Dueling monopolies share only fleeting similarity with the
| appealing properties of markets.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| It undercuts Apple's argument that they "need" to have this
| limitation in place, since clearly their largest competitor
| doesn't "need" to do it.
| [deleted]
| gamblor956 wrote:
| It's not about the TOS, it's about Apple taking the position
| that Google's requirement is anticompetitive in the Play
| Store but that Apple doing the same thing (actually worse,
| since Google allows third-party stores to be installed) in
| its own App Store is not.
|
| That can be used against them in an antitrust proceeding...in
| US courts. I don't know how the EU handles judicial estoppel
| since AFAIK it's only a feature of the UK-originated common
| law system.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| When has Apple argued that Google's Play Store is
| anticompetitive?
|
| Apple's more likely to argue "Google's TOS lets us do X,
| our TOS doesn't" or something along those lines.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| They would not and do not apply.
| dwaite wrote:
| 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
| support it (for multiple reasons).
|
| This also comes from Apple and Google having different starting
| points in their mobile platform - Apple already had a huge
| account and micropayment billing base for the iPhone by basing
| the App Store on the iTunes Store.
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| Apple is both the developer of Apple Music and the operator
| of the iOS App Store.
|
| Apple's Apple Music app is using a tactic on the Google App
| Store, while Apple's iOS App Store is blocking certain third
| parties from doing the same.
|
| The implication isn't "Apple Music should be barred" but
| rather "If Apple is working around the 30% cut in other
| companies' walled gardens, maybe they shouldn't be blocking
| apps that try to do the same to Apple's 30% cut in Apple's
| iOS store"
|
| This is showing up today because of Hey's rejection
| (https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017 more
| context)
| munk-a wrote:
| Is Apple actually technically the owner of both or are they
| using some "partially controlled former subsidiary" related
| BS to try and duck out of responsibility?
| TAForObvReasons wrote:
| It's worth checking before blindly downvoting:
|
| The seller of Apple Music on the google play store is
| Apple Inc https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=c
| om.apple.andr...
|
| The developer of the iOS app store is also Apple Inc:
| https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/ (check the copyright
| at the bottom)
| jfrisby wrote:
| I suspect the surrounding context is Apple threatening to
| yank the Hey app for bypassing Apple's cut by not using IAPs
| for managing subscriptions.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| 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 customer demands.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| >Obviously if Apple owns one platform, and Google owns the
| other platform, it is not actually the same situation.
|
| Let's look at a situation where Google is seeking to protect
| it's own cut of the action.
|
| >"After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of
| the Google Play Store, we've come to a basic realization,"
| reads Epic's statement. "Google puts software downloadable
| outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical
| and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-
| ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive
| manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google
| public relations characterizing third party software sources
| as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to
| outright block software obtained outside the Google Play
| store."
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/21/21229943/epic-games-
| fortn...
|
| This behavior is much more troubling from an antitrust
| perspective than "Apple is being a hypocrite".
| mkozlows wrote:
| Apple literally puts technical measures in place to ensure
| that it's 100% impossible to download outside software.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| 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.
| Phrodo_00 wrote:
| 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).
| nailuj wrote:
| 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.
| datguacdoh wrote:
| But you could still do it, you just get a lot of warnings
| that you probably shouldn't unless you know what you're
| doing. AFAIK I can't do that on my iPad at all.
|
| Also, with Fortnite specifically, they proved the worries
| right immediately:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanwhitwam/2018/08/25/epic-
| gam...
| spullara wrote:
| Anyone could get a developer account and compile the code
| and deploy it to their phone if the app owner released
| the source code.
| KillerDiller wrote:
| This could be a crucial argument in that it distinguishes
| between the essential freedom of device owners to decide
| what software to run, and the freedom of device
| manufacturers to decide which apps to sell in their
| stores and at what terms (still subject to anti-trust
| laws).
|
| Unfortunately, the $99 annual fee per developer account
| nullifies any possible mass-market sideloading
| possibilities. (Imagine what could happen if sideloading
| apps from source was free just highly impractical, and
| HEY turned their rage into a free Apple developer account
| management & sideloading SaaS offering.)
| spullara wrote:
| Makes sense for Apple to make developer accounts free
| while publishing to the store cost money.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Jailbreaking the device is free, easily reversible, and
| allows you to run any software you like.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| 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 condition of using the App Store (i.e., leveraging
| dominant/monopolistic market position in one market in a non-
| competitive manner over another market). Apple cannot then do
| the same thing it prohibits in its own app store in the
| Google Play Store, which has similar rules, because both of
| these actions have the effect of taking legal positions.
|
| _In fact it 's arguable that a free marketplace encourages
| and depends on different companies taking different
| approaches to meet customer demands. _
|
| Which Apple does not permit. It's literally Apple's way, plus
| a 30% cut for doing nothing, or you're not even allowed to
| play. And that's exactly what antitrust laws were intended to
| prevent.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| If Apple is violating antitrust laws with their own store,
| it doesn't matter whether their use of the Google store is
| consistent with their own behavior. And if they're not
| violating antitrust law, that inconsistency also does not
| matter. I think you're mixing up legal concepts that are
| not dependent on one another.
| pccole wrote:
| Which Apple does not permit. It's literally Apple's way,
| plus a 30% cut for doing nothing, or you're not even
| allowed to play. And that's exactly what antitrust laws
| were intended to prevent.
|
| I wouldn't say Apple or Google do nothing. Their Argument
| is we provide the infrastructure and developer tools so
| we're going to take a slice off all your sells to keep this
| stuff up and running. Even the Amazon App Store takes a 30%
| cut.
| thebean11 wrote:
| If you aren't using their payment systems you aren't
| using that specific infrastructure or dev tools though.
| This isn't about someone wanting Apple's (super nice)
| payment system for free, it's about Apple forcing them to
| use it instead of their own solution.
| Despegar wrote:
| If the antitrust laws were designed to prevent that (they
| weren't) then there's been a massive failure in
| enforcement because nothing has changed since Apple
| launched the App Store in 2008. In reality laws don't
| require platforms to be "open" or "closed" or dictate how
| you're supposed to make money. And that kind of
| regulation would be bad for dynamic markets and
| competition.
| naravara wrote:
| > then there's been a massive failure in enforcement
|
| I think basically everyone who works on anti-trust issues
| would agree that this has indeed been the case. Not just
| with Apple, but with anti-trust law in general.
| yyyk wrote:
| If you look at Spotify's allegations[0], than things did
| change in 2015 when Apple launched Apple Music, creating
| a conflict of interest for Apple. Anyhow, anti-trust
| moves slow. The trust cases against IBM took more than a
| decade, and the case against Microsoft also took a few
| years.
|
| [0] https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
| Despegar wrote:
| "Conflict of interest" isn't illegal. Apple has been
| competing with app developers on their platform from the
| first days of the App Store. If Spotify is somehow trying
| to suggest that Apple should be barred from doing so,
| that's not going to be possible under antitrust laws.
| yyyk wrote:
| Conflict of interest itself is not illegal, but it does
| legally restrict Apple from doing some things.
|
| For example, providing private APIs to Apple Music would
| straight fall under the Microsoft precedent, same for not
| allowing other apps as default programs. Apple Music
| would have to use the same store review policies, and
| Apple may have to separate divisions so AM pays the same
| store tax (but internally).
| JimDabell wrote:
| > Apple is violating antitrust laws by forcing companies to
| use Apple Pay as a condition of using the App Store
|
| I think you're mixing up Apple Pay with in-app purchases.
| Apple Pay is for real-world purchases. In-app purchases are
| for digital goods or services. If we're talking about music
| streaming, we're talking about in-app purchases, not Apple
| Pay. Apple don't force you to use Apple Pay for anything,
| in fact they _won 't let you_ use Apple Pay in this
| situation.
| gmanley wrote:
| > 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).
|
| Can you point me to the specific law they are violating?
| From my understanding antitrust laws really aren't that
| clear and it depends on the situation and their control of
| a market. For example, you need to prove that they have a
| monopoly that hurts consumers. They may have a monopoly on
| iPhones but not mobile phones in general. My point is you
| are saying they have specifically broken the law, but I
| think that has yet to proven and is certainly not cut and
| dry until it's in court.
| stale2002 wrote:
| ".e., leveraging dominant/monopolistic market position in
| one market in a non-competitive manner over another
| market"
|
| This is a very common thing that is brought up in anti-
| trust law cases. That is what he is referring. It is
| regarding anti-trust law.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Certainly in the EU you are not required to demonstrate a
| monopoly.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| That's absurd. If I run a shop and I require an ID check at
| the entrance then it doesn't mean that I am not allowed to
| shop myself in stores which don't require ID checks.
| deong wrote:
| That's not the right analogy. It means you're not allowed
| to sue someone else for requiring an ID check in order to
| let you shop there.
|
| I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if this defense
| was particularly robust anyway. It seems you'd just have
| to argue that there's some slight difference in the
| situations and that's why I'm doing something that guy
| shouldn't do. But either way, you're not taking away the
| correct message from his example.
| oillio wrote:
| > 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.
| jlbnjmn wrote:
| > Maybe not worth 30% but it is worth something.
|
| If Apple allowed the market to set the price, we would
| know what this activity is worth. They don't, that's the
| issue.
| basch wrote:
| There should be a difference between a 30% cut of an app
| (of which apple can say their toolkits and os development
| are part of the product offering) and a 30% cut of a
| subscription, especially a multiplatform subscription. if
| you could buy netflix with applepay, but then 90% of your
| netflix usage is not on apple devices, apple collects on
| that entire subscription.
|
| Subscriptions should be priced more like a credit card
| transaction fee. They could have marginal brackets that
| increase slightly at scales, to account for bigger apps
| possibly causing more backed development work.
| mackey wrote:
| They already charge developers to access the App Store.
| And I think any iOS/Mac developer will tell you that the
| cut they are taking is not being re-invested into making
| the developer or the App Store experience better for
| developers or users.
| markstos wrote:
| Apple would not need a different business plan.
|
| Apple currently has $192.8 billion cash on hand. If Apple
| took a smaller cut, they would simply have a few less
| billion dollars in the bank. Many, many individual
| developers and small business would have a little more
| money in their bank accounts. The small businesses are
| more likely to be actively put this money back into the
| economy then the idle billions in Apple's bank accounts.
| kelnos wrote:
| You're nitpicking a particularly irrelevant point the
| parent made in support of the overall argument, which
| doesn't work.
|
| I agree that running a payments platform is not nothing.
| The issue is that there is zero competition in the space
| of iOS payments (very convenient for Apple that they get
| to make the rules and also benefit from them). That harms
| consumers because sellers will often charge more to
| account for Apple's 30% cut (and if Apple bans charging
| more on only their platform, the seller has to raise
| prices for _everyone_ , which hurts their non-iOS user
| base). An alternative payments processor might charge 20%
| or 10% or even less. Healthy competition in that space
| would benefit consumers, while forcing Apple to charge a
| fee more in line with the actual cost of what they
| provide.
|
| (There are certainly downsides; Apple has done a lot of
| work to ensure the security and privacy of their payments
| solution, and other processors may not do as good a job.
| And without restrictions, it's the seller who decides
| what processors to support, not the buyer, so the buyer
| doesn't get to -- for example -- choose to pay a little
| more to keep their information in Apple's care.)
|
| Perhaps a good compromise would be for Apple to require
| that apps support Apple's in-app payment system, but
| allow other payment methods in addition, and also allow
| sellers to charge more to users who use Apple's system.
| If customers don't value whatever Apple is providing for
| the extra fee, Apple will be incentivized to charge less.
|
| > _Possibly charging app developers directly for access
| to the app store._
|
| They already do this, via the yearly developer fee.
| Despegar wrote:
| >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 monopoly power in the iOS market" is because
| they don't actually have monopoly power in smartphones and
| are mad about that fact. Defining markets are a major part
| of antitrust cases and just because a prosecutor or
| regulator is willing to do it doesn't mean it will actually
| work in court.
| iav wrote:
| 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 compatible radio through a
| Ford dealer and for Ford to not take a cut of the
| purchase price. And 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 analogy is at the core
| of Apple's defense and it was brought up in previous anti
| trust cases like AA v. Sabre.
| yyyk wrote:
| 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 allows competitors to Apple Chain Store
| to rent stores in the mall.
|
| However, it turns out that for some reason, there are
| "Beware of Leopard" signs near the competitor stores.
| Also, the public area near them is never cleaned or
| maintained, except for signs promising cheaper products
| at the Apple Chain Store (and the leopard signs of
| course).
|
| Would that be legal? Apple Mall is hardly a monopoly.
| Despite losing the location, the other stores could move.
| None of the agreements specifically bans this.
|
| For some reason though, I don't think that would fly -
| the other stores have a reasonable expectation that after
| paying rent Apple won't sabotage them. Just like
| companies paying for the Developer License and Apple
| Store tax have a reasonable expectation Apple won't
| unduly hinder them for its own products.
| Despegar wrote:
| Your analogy was good until the part about warranty,
| which isn't relevant to Apple.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > And 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.
|
| No, not really. In the EU for example, a unauthorized
| change to one part can legally never void the warranty to
| an unrelated part.
| mikestew wrote:
| _And 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._
|
| Don't know where you live, but that is not true in the U.
| S. "It is generally accepted as" against Federal law.
| Someone wrote:
| Technically, I think it, unfortunately, is true that
| companies can say that in the USA and many other
| countries.
|
| Companies can _say_ things they know aren't true,
| misleading customers. They even often can make it hard
| for customers who know their rights to exercise those
| rights.
|
| I think it would be an improvement if such actions were
| punished harsher and more often.
| vonmoltke wrote:
| > 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)
| iav wrote:
| 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 company is a monopolist. Defense
| would push back that Ford competes against GM and Tesla,
| not against Bose and Sonos (in my prior analogy), so as
| long as consumers have choice of cars, then Ford
| shouldn't be subject to antitrust actions and remedies in
| regards to radios.
| viridian wrote:
| The federal trade commission disagrees with you, and if
| this is the crux of Apple's defense they are in a bad
| spot.
| kelnos wrote:
| 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-in. Switching
| to the other platform isn't just a matter of swapping out
| a piece of hardware: it involves installing or finding
| workalike applications, often manually re-entering data,
| and sometimes losing access to DRMed purchases.
|
| Given that, "iOS App Store" does start feeling like a
| market that should be regulated as its own entity.
| oillio wrote:
| Apple has control of the iOS App market. It is a pretty
| large barrier for a customer need to switch platforms to
| get an app that Apple has denied access.
|
| I am not a lawyer, but that sure smells like the
| potential for monopolistic control.
| bjt wrote:
| A big chunk of the arguing in an antitrust case is about
| how the relevant market should be defined. A plaintiff
| bringing a suit against Apple might define it as "the
| market for iOS apps", but Apple's lawyers would argue for
| something much more broad, like the "the market for
| computer software". My hunch is that the court would
| probably land somewhere in the middle like "the market
| for mobile apps." Apple's still a big player there but
| far from a monopolist.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| 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?
| [deleted]
| munk-a wrote:
| I'm not certain how this is considered to be analogous -
| is the assumption that other retailers would need to
| forward customers to 7/11 when 7/11 carries a good a
| client is interested in?
|
| As a possibly better analogy... Let's say I run a Flea
| market and also direct sell some items to customers. I
| charge independent retailers a fee for setting up a booth
| in my market space and don't excise that same fee from my
| own booths. Then I go to open a booth in a local mall to
| help sell some of my directly vendored items and raise an
| exception all the way to city hall that the mall
| attempting to charge me for running a booth in their
| property is impeding the free flow of commerce and
| hurting the local economy - while I continue to charge
| booths in my market space for operating.
| tanjtanjtanj wrote:
| > and raise an exception all the way to city hall that
| the mall attempting to charge me for running a booth in
| their property is impeding the free flow of commerce and
| hurting the local economy
|
| Except Apple has never made that argument to anyone. They
| simply added a way to pay for their subscription directly
| in their app rather than in the Play Store; Something
| Google allows.
| munk-a wrote:
| If I lease space to you on a profit sharing based model
| (i.e. you don't have to pay any standard rent but you
| need to forward 20% of what you make in lieu of rent to
| use the space) and you start giving product away to
| customers for "free" but then force them to pay the
| actual price under the table then you're committing
| fraud. Whether you think 30% of transaction value is a
| fair price or not for the costs of running an AppStore (I
| don't think so - it's ridiculously high proportion-wise)
| that's the agreement. Apple comes down hard on people who
| run microtransactions via alternate payment methods in
| application on their platform and yet that's exactly what
| they're doing in the Play Store - it is something that
| Google allows, but it would violate Apple's ToS.
| kelnos wrote:
| 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
| let non-App-Store apps onto iOS devices.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| Apple does not have a monopoly in the smartphone market,
| but it does have a dominant position there and a monopoly
| in the tablet segment where it does the same thing.
| Despegar wrote:
| "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.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| A monopoly means you're pretty much the only viable
| supplier/provider for a particular segment of the market.
| A dominant player is someone who isn't an outright
| monopoly, but nonetheless has a sizable market share and
| can influence pricing, competition, (i.e. by its patent
| licensing terms and deals with key component OEMs), the
| ability to set or influence standards etc.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > 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"
| where they had less than 50% market share in the EU.
|
| (As a good demonstration of this Google's own competition
| law settlement on Android apps pre-installation in the
| EU. Google do not approach anything like having a
| monopoly market share in the EU either, but they still
| settled because they were going to lose.)
| JimDabell wrote:
| > 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%?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| 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's not what the terms
| say).
| fredfjohnsen wrote:
| Every Apple ID requires a form of payment associated unless
| you specifically set it up without one.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204034
|
| An Apple ID has nothing to do with Apple Pay. Apple Pay is
| a separate service you can turn on if you want to, or, not.
|
| The crazy ideas people have about Apple & anti-trust mostly
| have to do with pretty much everyone not really
| understanding Apple service offerings.
| [deleted]
| codemac wrote:
| > 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 actually what the court cases are for, and I'm not
| sure they've actually completed? It feels like you're
| asserting how you feel it should work out when it hasn't
| completed yet.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I'm not aware of any court case that seeks to define
| whether Apple and Google must run their stores the same
| way.
| montagg wrote:
| This is true: lots of folks are asserting that X or Y
| behavior is an anti-trust violation, and it might be, but
| that hasn't been shown legally yet.
| newacct583 wrote:
| > 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.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| 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 about Apple
| only letting apps doing certain things (like not bypassing
| their store) onto their store. The issue is that this is
| occurring in a larger situation where there are concerns about
| being a monopoly. I wonder if we build out exactly why what
| Apple is doing might be wrong (basically the argument they are
| having to defend against by claiming X is okay) we can see it
| isn't an issue. But at face value it feels to be taking a very
| broad view of what constitutes hypocritical behavior to the
| point it renders the notion useless.
| mattmar96 wrote:
| I think the initial analogy of discounts is flawed. Its more
| like
|
| Let X be "It is okay for me (Costco owner) to require
| customers use CostCo credit cards only"
|
| Let not X be "It is okay for me to use my non-Safeway credit
| card at Safeway"
| goopthink wrote:
| 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 the position of a business on someone else's
| platform.
|
| edit: typo.
| fortytw2 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure google allows you to do this though, so
| Apple isn't bypassing any "rules" on android.
| btreecat wrote:
| The rule being bypassed is the 30% Google tax by using in
| app transactions through the pay store.
|
| They just don't ban the alternative practice.
| kelnos wrote:
| 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 same time denying people
| the ability to do that on their own platform.
|
| To me, that sounds like a compelling argument in a
| hypothetical anti-trust suit against Apple where a
| plaintiff is claiming that Apple's requirement to use
| Apple's in-app payment system for all payments in iOS
| apps is anti-competitive behavior.
| nahtnam wrote:
| 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
| cortesoft wrote:
| Has Apple sued Google for this, though? I haven't heard of
| any lawsuits over this between the companies.
| seccess wrote:
| I think in this case, the hypothetical lawsuits would be
| between companies that make iOS apps and Apple. The
| companies that make iOS apps want to have their own
| payment system where Apple doesn't take a cut.
| objektif wrote:
| 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.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| I _THINK_ the situation is more...
|
| Let not X be "It is okay for me to use discounts at another
| restaurant that bans discounts."
| [deleted]
| ses1984 wrote:
| Does Google ban bypassing their stores on Android?
| jfk13 wrote:
| Their policy _explicitly_ permits it for this category of
| sales.
| Natanael_L wrote:
| Mostly for in-app payments of a bunch of variants,
| primarily for digital content, yes.
| spullara wrote:
| In this case they are following the rules on the other
| platform. Just like they expect their own rules to be followed
| on their platform.
| radley wrote:
| Wait, doesn't this demonstrate collusion? The two predominant
| mobile platforms have conspired to exclusively reduced pricing.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| 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.
| radley wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-06-18 23:00 UTC)