Hacker News Reader

Comment by SkyBelow | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

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.

> It's simply pointing out that Apple, when given a choice, would rather use an external payment processor (in order to pay lower fees) when building an app for a platform they don't control... while at the same time denying people the ability to do that on their own platform.

Apple explicitly allows apps like Spotify and Netflix to use external payment processors on iOS via their developer guidelines.

Yes, apps like Spotify and Netflix (sorta; some of the rules around the "reader exception" seem arbitrary and selectively enforced), but not all apps. Not sure what the point is you're trying to make here.

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.

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

This is the contradiction:

Apples’s defense of its in-app payments rule is that having a single payment system owned by the platform used by every app on that platform provides the best experience for users. According to them, Apple isn't being greedy but rather they are ensuring their users have the best experience on their platform.

But if a single payment system for a platform is such a great user experience, why does Apple not offer that superior experience to their Apple Music customers on Android?

Of course, one could argue that Google's refusal to require apps on their platform to use their in-app purchase system means that superior user experience of a uniform payment system is out of reach regardless of what Apple does with their own apps on Android, so maybe it's not a contradiction after all.

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

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

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.

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."

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.

It's not about differences in actual behavior or contract terms, but about differences in assertions what behavior is prohibited by a particular law.

Let X be "That other marketplace banning me from offering discounts is a violation of antitrust law".

Let not X be "Me banning vendors in my marketplace from offering discounts is permitted by antitrust law".

You get to pick one and only one position of those - but in most cases there's no conflict; you can ban some practice in your marketplace (and assert that this ban is permitted by law) while at the time doing the same thing yourself in other marketplaces which haven't banned it - as long as you're not legally challenging their right to ban that practice as well, if they should choose so.

I THINK the situation is more...

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

Does Google ban bypassing their stores on Android?

Their policy explicitly permits it for this category of sales.

A judge can still indicate this behavior as proof of hypocrisy and reject Apple’s argument, even if it’s not prohibited by the other app store

Apple permits external payment processing for this category as well (Spotify, Netflix)

Mostly for in-app payments of a bunch of variants, primarily for digital content, yes.

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"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com