Apple Music on Android asks user's card details to avoid Google's 30% cut

Yes.. You're right.

Maybe.

Fascinating analogy.

Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments (and the span of control they have over people’s lives) I do not believe this analogy can be used for any useful inference.

It’s almost as if this example with app stores is an incredibly specific, narrow example, and government control in this way is incredibly broad in impact (I.e. life or death, end of the actual world etc).

Did any of that make any sense?

While one can draw parallels to all sorts of things the question is whether that makes the original situation clearer or offers any insights. In this case it doesn't, it's just a cutesy yet pointless way of expressing something.

The idea that a person’s country of origin, where all laws and political dynamics are compulsory at birth, is somehow equivalent to the luxury item that is an iPhone is... bananas. Me thinks you stretch too far.

Edit: ‘equivalent‘ should be ‘comparable’... obviously the OP is not saying they are equivalent.

lol, Googles platform is "wild and open"? Oh boy, you have never experienced the Windows phone/mobile app store...

Here's something many HNers might be unaware of. China has several App Stores for Android, but only Chinese companies are allowed to list apps. Yup, completely closed to outside competition.

The only appropriate response really is to close markets to Chinese companies until they open up theirs (without unreasonable restrictions on free speech).

> Did any of what I just said make any sense?

No.

We don't need bizzaro metaphors when the situation is easy to discuss on its own terms.

I would distinguish user vs developer. Android had always been partial to developers (more APIs at the cost of inconsistent and poor experience, sweeping location privacy on install that they refused to change until 10 version later, etc.) to entice developers to build on Android at some cost to the end user. Arguably, this 30% thing is not a freedom fight, just a payment negotiation for the publisher, and the end user could not care less (except for trusting their credit card number is not spread around and when they cancel subscription they won't have to mail a letter with certified mail).

I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy (ability to control secure boot keys/root access in some sort of developer mode), akin to values that Free Software Foundation has, not some petty marketplace rules. Neither those platforms, nor Epic, seem to give rat's ass about that freedom though.

> I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers.

There are enough shady apps, especially games, on both stores already without them asking you to enter your credit card details. At least with the current system you can set up parental controls.

I think allowing apps to process their own payments is a recipe for disaster and will open up the floodgates for apps, especially games, trying to trick kids into purchasing expensive in-app crap.

> Google is User-centric

This is correct but the definition of the "user" here is different from the definition of "user" for Apple.

In the case of Google, the advertisers and the developers are the "users", and the people who are using the software are the products.

On the Apple side of things, the people who buy the phone or the laptop are the "users" and this is the folks that Apple cares about deeply(And ironically, they also suffer in the last saga by not being able to access their favourite game). That is why its always the developers complaining about Apple.

Yes, as a developer I think %30 is high and I wish it was lower but it is on par with Google. As a user, I despise the idea of giving credit card info on every app and service I would like to use. Looking at the behaviour of the companies who think they can force users what they want, I am sure that they are not going to be as nice as Apple on the payments. They will implement dark patterns.

As a user, I don't want to see another payment method, I want this to go away. As a developer I want this to go away by Apple lowering it's fees.

I would argue the reverse.

I have a HomePod and not an alexa or Google device because Apple has shown it cares about privacy. That's user-centric. Sure, we could be incredibly cynical in saying that "well because you buy it then it is actually Apple-centric", but they clearly care about privacy.

Google to me is entirely Google-centric, which means harvesting as much data about me as possible to sell to advertisers.

I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. It works really, really well. People love iPhones for more than just marketing and status. They're excellent phones. And a not-insignificant piece of that experience is an ecosystem fits together nicely, with central control. Infinite choice isn't better for most people.

> but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers

Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users.

You could go over each of their App Store policies and see how few of them are "at the expense of their customers."

Not the least are their privacy and anti-tracking protections. iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location.

Claiming Google is "user-centric" and Apple isn't, usually means taking the side of the corporations that are hurt by limited access to user data.

> Google is User-centric

You give far too much credit to the world's largest advertising company and probably the world's biggest corporate/private holder of personal and tracking data on the human population.

Any suggestion of an altruistic motive behind any Google policy/practice/implementation is disingenuous at best.

At the very least Google lets you do whatever you want and install apps from elsewhere - a third party store or even a random apk from a shady website if you're brave.

Isn't it actually about market power? Apple controls a dominant share of the market for paid apps on phones, so it can use that power to extract more money from sellers of such apps. Google's market share is very small, so it can't impose this fee on sellers.

When you say, Apple treats their users as pawns, well, Google's ad business which generates most of their money, also treats their users as pawns. Both companies are amazingly effective at extracting extremely high profit margins from the business that they control.

In other words, primary goal of both companies is to extract as much money as possible from consumers and they're both extremely good at that, in their own way. Neither treats users as pawns, because, that would undermine their market position. Both are user-centric in the sense that they offer products that consumers (whether end-users or ad buyers) believe to be useful enough that they pay very high prices for them. And both companies are zealous in maintaining that relationship.

Apple seems to be slightly better at this, sitting on about $200 billion, but that's only after using hundreds of billions of dollars to buy back their own stock over the years. This treasury stock is hard to value, because it's unlikely Apple would actually sell it, except to buy some other big company. But it looks to me like Apple has enough treasury stock that it could be converted into something like a trillion dollars if they wanted to do that and were legally permitted to. (As an accounting matter, however, treasury stock isn't even counted as an asset, even though the company paid very real cash for at least part of it.) Google's also sitting on well over $100 billion and a bunch of treasury stock.

It raises some interesting social issues, but there's nothing very different about the way these two companies relate to their users, or indeed to society generally.

While Google publishes every app they make on iOS, because that's the best way they can gain access to user data there.

Google explicitly says in their policy that you don't have to use their in-app billing to pay for music.

Can confirm, 380 points, 2 hours ago. Position 36. Why?

Oh wow. Didn't really notice it.

Becuase Apple took their 3000% cut

Threads about Apple have been getting torpedoed to the second page all day. I suspect it's because the moderators don't want the entire front page to be posts on the same general topic, but it is frustrating when there are multiple developments in a short time.

Stop using the original HN site already. Moderation is highly opinionated. It is better to use alternative clients, then you won't miss out.

Yeah. I trust Microsoft more these days. I know they'll screw everyone over when Edge becomes popular again (it's good now), but they seem relatively better for now.

I'm in my thirties and it's amazing to watch Microsoft evolve since the 90s. As a teenager I would never have imagined the words 'Open Source' would ever be in a <h1> tag on a Microsoft-branded website.

That's my first reaction when thinking about this, but given their current approach to stuff like tracking and telemetry, and that they try to compete in the same space as Google and Apple I feel like Microsoft behaves like it wants to be in the Google & Apple position but they don't know how.

Baffling for sure!

It’s their problem so they should figure it out, don’t they? With more power comes more responsibility.

Totally agree. There are company policies which are enforced across teams like trust, safety privacy either via process or reviews. I haven't seen any large tech companies having policies/safeguards on how the revenue is made. In the end it's all about making money.

I think that is the first time I've ever seen a hashtag on HN. I only joined a few months ago

Google actually allows this deal. Netflix, Amazon, I think even Tinder do it.

I didn't post to show Apple is breaking rules. I wanted to show they were 'freeloading', the same thing they are accusing Spotify and Epic of . They aren't worried about 'user experience, security and convenience' here.

Google has a problem with games like Fortnite and PUBG, because then they would lose too much. Kids spend millions on Fortnite.

It is explicitly stated in google policy that you can use direct credit card payment for music.

You're missing the 4d chess involved.

> If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses.

Actually, by doing this, they could be gaining some revenue, while at the same time destroying their case for solidifying their own 30% cut. By losing that 30% cut, lose 100x the revenue and causing shareholders losses. So while "capitalism" may be eventually maximizing shareholder value, it doesn't happen by chasing local optima.

That a company is obligated to do absolutely anything that will increase revenue is a position often advanced on the internet and never supported.

You cannot have a bonfire and literally burn the companies wealth in your backyard. One may in fact weigh the tangible and non tangible benefits of different courses of actions and make an intelligent decision.

This is covered ably in this article by Cornell

https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...

If I may reproduce the most relevant segment.

>Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ) In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors.

Additional reading is linked for the interested.