5 ms·

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

kevincox 6y ago
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.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  > 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 6y ago
    How much do you think stores mark up goods?
- chongli 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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 6y ago
        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.
- notatoad 6y ago
  >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.
natch 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.
  - natch 6y ago
    >The Apple fee is 30% on the first payment (so 42% more expensive) "so" But that doesn't necessarily follow, unless it actually is a 42% higher number than a known reference number for the price of the same subscription service and period on another platform.

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.

jonny_eh 6y ago
> 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 6y ago
  How much do you think stores mark up goods?
chongli 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      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.
notatoad 6y ago
>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.

natch 6y ago

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 6y ago
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.
- natch 6y ago
  >The Apple fee is 30% on the first payment (so 42% more expensive) "so" But that doesn't necessarily follow, unless it actually is a 42% higher number than a known reference number for the price of the same subscription service and period on another platform.