
Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut - rydre
https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare/images/en_US/appleid/android-apple-music-account-payment-none.jpg
======
gamblor956
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).

~~~
SkyBelow
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.

~~~
nahtnam
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
Has Apple sued Google for this, though? I haven’t heard of any lawsuits over
this between the companies.

~~~
seccess
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.

~~~
cortesoft
Right, but Apple could just say Google has different policies... they never
argued that google legally had to allow them to accept outside payments. They
would just say "Google could have prevented us by policy legally, but didn't
want to."

------
mmcclure
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/](https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/)

~~~
zachruss92
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.

~~~
cwhiz
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.

~~~
bduerst
>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
Which market would Apple be moving towards having a monopoly in, in the App
Store policy case?

~~~
realusername
The mobile app market, there's only two companies in this market anyways, it's
not that hard to prove monopolistic behaviours.

------
actuator
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
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.

~~~
actuator
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
Yes, that worked out very well in 00’s with windows mobile. /s

People don’t understand the power of consumer friendly digital experience

~~~
Androider
Works out just fine on macOS.

~~~
monadic2
I mean it works but “fine” is a pretty low bar for the point of using
computers. I say this as an owner of about $50k of macs in my apartment.

------
tracerbulletx
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.

~~~
happytoexplain
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
> _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.

------
rydre
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.

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

~~~
illumanaughty
Ah yes, the Apple approach. I like it.

~~~
jackson1442
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.

------
jamil7
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?

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

~~~
mmastrac
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.

~~~
Spivak
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
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
well put

------
dang
Is there a better source for this?

A screenshot and an indignation comment
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564731](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
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/...](https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/use-apple-music-on-android/amp)

~~~
dang
That article probably doesn't match the topic of this thread closely enough,
so changing to it would probably just add confusion.

------
Closi
Something that they don’t allow Spotify to do on their own platform - how
convenient!

~~~
votepaunchy
If Spotify is charging 30% fees to artists do we discount their argument?

~~~
criley2
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
Doesn't Spotify pay the labels/rights holders, who then in return pay the
artists (discounting self-published stuff)?

~~~
rrrrrrrrrrrryan
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.

------
crazygringo
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
> Honestly this seems like an irrelevant counterargument.

Hypocrisy is a very powerful argument, especially in court.

~~~
NineStarPoint
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.

------
partiallypro
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
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).

------
selykg
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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
selykg
Not really the stance I'm taking.

If your product has such a high overhead that the listed price for that
product is so high that if you add the 30% back in no one would buy then
you're probably doing a poor job of pricing your product, or your overhead is
too high.

Basecamp makes money hand over fist. DHH has some of the most expensive sports
cars in the world.

I would hazard a guess that even at $100/yr, Hey costs less than 50% of that
to actually run. Similar email services cost around $50/yr give or take $10,
and they're making profit at that cost.

I don't particularly want to line DHH's pockets even more. Now, admittedly
Basecamp pays their employees pretty well so that's a consideration, too. I'm
all for the normal employees getting paid well, but I don't think someone like
DHH should be making money like he is. Every time I see him bitching about
this topic on Twitter I immediately think "oh, he's going to buy himself
another one off Koenigsegg from the profits of this"

Na. DHH gets no love from me. I'd feel more sorry for the smaller developers,
but DHH, nope, not gonna be on his side ever.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
This feels like crab mentality to me. Basecamp makes peanuts compared to a
behemoth like Apple.

------
zaroth
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
Spotify definitely pays 30%. See
[https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/](https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/)

I assume that Hulu also pays the same 30%.

~~~
zaroth
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...](https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees-on-less-
than-1-percent-of-members/)

[2] - [https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-
prim...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prime-video-
ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal)

------
dgellow
Could someone give more context? The screenshot isn't telling that much...

~~~
cfn
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).

------
shuckles
In these discussions, the focus seems to be on the cost to Apple for providing
App Store as a service (billing, fraud prevention, tax compliance, etc.).
However, presumably there is a reasonable argument to make that developers
should compensate Apple for creating iOS itself as a platform. There are many
platform capabilities developers argue for as a fundamental right. Spotify has
said Apple must make Siri extensible for voice control, others have wanted SPI
to be API. All this work is meaningful investment, both financial and
technical.

Are there proposals for a more incentive aligned business model for Apple as a
platform provider? Would it make sense for Apple to, e.g., charge a percentage
of all of Tile's hardware sales? After all, Apple dedicates resources to
maintain the location and bluetooth APIs Tile depends on. Is it sufficient to
say all these benefits must be capitalized into the cost of an iPhone
purchase? But what about the customer who's overpaying for Tile's theoretical
support who never uses the product itself? Maybe a better business model would
lead to a world where there is less speculation ahead of WWDC: the developer's
needs and Apple's finances are so aligned that we can guarantee the new
support they're ready to announce!

------
jayp1418
We need to stop using android and iOS and move to pinephone and librem

~~~
mattl
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
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
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
Makes sense or have nokia feature phone with kaios and pinephone

~~~
mattl
I still want a smartphone.

------
bzb3
I don't understand what the screenshot is trying to convey.

~~~
g_p
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
Link about the antitrust if anyone was curious:
[https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-
antitru...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21292651/apple-eu-antitrust-
investigation-app-store-apple-pay)

------
pjc50
What's the corresponding deal for Google Music on iOS?

~~~
hortense
Google Music is 30% more expensive when purchased via iOS. If that seems
insane, it's because it is.

~~~
kevincox
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.

~~~
chongli
_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
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
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
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.

------
josdriod
If there’s one thing missing from digital music services like Apple Music,
it’s the ability to quickly learn more about a song or album without leaving
the Music app. With physical media, these sorts of details were relatively
easy to find via liner notes and cover booklets, but the information has never
been integrated well into the <a
href="[https://www.joshdriod.com/waptrick/">Apple](https://www.joshdriod.com/waptrick/">Apple)
Music service</a>.

------
newbie578
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.

------
6510
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...](https://www.pcmag.com/news/netflix-doesnt-pay-apples-ios-tax-anymore)

~~~
rhodysurf
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.

~~~
RonanTheGrey
Which is absolutely, positively, pathologically insane behavior.

Apple is a DISTRIBUTION platform, it is NOT analogous to the building where a
business is housed.

They have NO RIGHT to claim 30% of a company's business. If the app is not
moving money, Apple has no right to claim a piece of it.

------
seccess
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23552760)

------
NietTim
And the funny thing is that this very thing would not be allowed in Apple's
App Store.

------
graiz
I would love to see the help article that references this image. Hot-linking
the image is interesting but without the context of the help page I don't know
what to think. Anyone have a link, screenshot or wayback machine?

------
riclad
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

------
bonestamp2
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.

------
wdb
So developers need to follow Apple's rules in the App Store but they can't be
bothered to follow Google's rules in their store. Crazy

------
bivvo
hypocrite much?

~~~
sjnu
Have they been making a moral argument that they deserve a cut?

------
artembugara
I want to see Basecamp's team faces right now

------
realtalk_sp
@dang Other submissions related to Apple and Hey are not sticking to the front
page (or within the top 50 submissions) even though they are highly trafficked
in terms of upvotes and comments. Could you please explain why this is
happening? I want to believe I'm mistaken here but it seems like they're being
nuked to prevent discussion on the topic (perhaps because it veers towards
being critical of Apple).

~~~
kalleboo
They try to avoid the front page of HN becoming all about a single topic (this
applies to any topic not just about Apple)

------
sprayk
Isn't taking payment this way against the terms of one or both of the app
stores?

~~~
jfk13
Not in this case:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564770](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564770)

------
intopieces
So Google takes a 30% cut? Meaning, Apple’s cut is the market rate?

~~~
hu3
Google gives you choice. You're not locked into their app store.

~~~
intopieces
Isn’t this what PWAs are for?

------
rvz
The roles of arrogance and loophole finding has changed recently. Apple (2020)
has become Microsoft (1998) and Microsoft (2020) has become Apple (1998).

~~~
mixmastamyk
There are similarities but Apple never had a ~90% lock on computing
infrastructure.

~~~
mywittyname
They were smart enough to target the 90% of profits rather than market-share.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Yes, though both strategies produced ungodly profits.

------
imchillyb
Apple's attorneys were the first parties queried before this strategy was
attempted or implemented.

Apple implemented the strategy. QED They're not worried.

------
ferbass
My house, my rules, your house my rules

------
radley
Wait, doesn't this demonstrate collusion? The two predominant mobile platforms
have conspired to exclusively reduced pricing.

~~~
heavyset_go
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
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.

------
bookmarkable
Who cares.

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

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

------
villgax
Biggest oof

------
anaganisk
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
I don't follow why breaking the TOS is required to qualify for behaving in a
hypocritical manner.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _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.

------
davidg109
Agree with comments. Apple is about shareholder value, like it or not. They
are not a non-profit agency.

~~~
factorialboy
So what if underage slave labor is employed? Share holder value #1.

~~~
jrockway
There is clear law on that issue:
[https://oag.ca.gov/SB657](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.

~~~
davidg109
Yes to this. Here’s where I agree Apple aren’t angels.

------
dsjoerg
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.

~~~
echelon
> 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.

~~~
spideymans
> 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
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...](https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-
share/mobile/united-states-of-america)

