8 ms·

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

476 points by ffpip 6y ago

copp 6y ago
The usual discussion on this topic goes like this: Apple defenders - It is their right to do it, since Android store allows them. Others - Apple is being a hypocrite. While they maintain that app store must be compensated for all the services they do to developers, When given a chance they do not agree with their above statement. I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers. They use users as pawns, to bully the best for Apple, rather than their customers (you and I). edit: To explain "user centric" better Because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very bad user experience. That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. Apple is okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that users have to sign up in the browser.
- Razengan 6y ago
  > 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.
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    Anti-clipboard-abuse doesn’t feel like a good example. It’s a generic (albeit new) OS function that scales immediately to all apps, once implemented. The argument for ongoing App Store funding is that it has to scale with the number of apps available, each requiring hours of human work to review and police.
  - cma 6y ago
    Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition. Once they have a few slow quarters and pull the lever on taking a cut of app mediated real-world services, we may see 10-30% of each Taxi ride going to Apple.
    - Razengan 6y ago
      > Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition. I think they have mechanisms for distributing apps within an organization.
      - reallydontask 6y ago
        Would you care to clarify? Do you mean that universities can distribute iOS apps to iOS devices without using the App Store?
        weehoo 6y ago
        Yeah that’s how companies like grocery stores that use iOS based devices for inventory management load their apps.
        reallydontask 6y ago
        There is the Apple Developer Enterprise Program[0] but it suggests it's only for employees. >Use the program only to create proprietary, in-house apps for internal use, and to distribute these apps privately and securely to employees within the organization. Not sure if there is another programme that would work for universities [0]https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
      - youngtaff 6y ago
        That's within an organisation though via enterprise distribution, or managed devices University students normally bring their own devices so don't fit into that model
  - oysmal 6y ago
    I would argue Apple is very protectful of their platform, at the expense of the users. Of course in some cases, such as with privacy, what is good for the user is also good for Apple, because they get an additional selling point compared to the competition. In my opinion, an example of Apple practices which are bad for customers is their line on progressive web apps. Apple limits support as they cannot keep control of their platform and revenue stream. I would argue however, that installable web apps are great for user experience, especially since it helps less resourceful businesses provide a good product for mobile devices. I'll admit there are privacy concerns regarding access to phone features from a web app, so Apple's arguments in blocking some (but not all) of these have some merit. If you look beyond just the App Store policies, this general practice appears to me to limit innovation on the web platform, as Apple is invested in keeping apps the only first class citizen on their platform.
  - politelemon 6y ago
    > iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location. Not really, this has just been a PR exercise that I'm watching with fascination - the real news is that they've shifted focus away from their own shortcomings. The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access. Think about that for a moment. Instead of actually fixing the issue, they choose to highlight it and call out apps for using the platform in a way they have allowed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Razengan 6y ago
      Even if you gatekeep and hand-wave every positive thing they do as "PR" and "shifting focus away from their own shortcomings", it has benefited users. > The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access. Every OS does, no? Which steps has Android or Windows taken? (genuinely curious)
  - JimDabell 6y ago
    > Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users. This is so true, and the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently. I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
- mehrdada 6y ago
  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.
  - copp 6y ago
    > user could not care less Some publishers are giving the dollars back to the users. Like Fortnite. Also, because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very horrible experience. That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. They are okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that they have to sign up in the browser. > I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android
    - mehrdada 6y ago
      > Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android You can install software on your own iOS with a free developer certificate as well. You cannot scale distribution though, which is by design, and ensures security of the other billions of users. I did not mean just the software running in a container though, which is at the mercy of Android system. I want to control the software running on the computer I pay for, which most Android phones don't.
- Aaargh20318 6y ago
  > 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.
  - arsome 6y ago
    Wouldn't that make it harder for kids to buy crap instead of easier? Parental controls or not if they have access to the card then they know exactly what they're doing and can go about it in any number of ways. The main issue here is single button purchases, not full CC entry.
  - francislavoie 6y ago
    It's not just about payment processing, it's about the size of the fees.
  - the_hoser 6y ago
    While we're at it, let's not let websites process payments either. Or retailers. Or restaurants. Or anyone. Apple knows best, right?
- mrtksn 6y ago
  > 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.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    What is the difference between an app asking for your cc number and a web page? Do you wish Mozilla was a payment processor and you couldn't pay for netflix without giving Mozilla a cut? What about google? What if in order to sell you an iphone as a non mac user your browser vendor required Apple to give them 30% of the purchase price? What if they refused to render pages that tried to work around this? What id your ISP required transactions being conducted via their networks to cut them in on the deal? Hell why not your computers OEM?
    - mrtksn 6y ago
      Okay, here it is: I want to have single place to manage my payments. As a user, I wouldn't care about the implementation. I wouldn't care about Apple's, Mozilla's or Google's cut. Not good business for you? Tough luck(unless I really want your product, then maybe adjust the price accordingly). What is the difference between App and Website asking for CC? No difference, I hate them both. As a developer I agree that we shouldn't be forced and restricted to payment methods. My developer opinion is that these payment systems should be considered public utility and should be unified and should work the same for everyone - including Apple. Apple should not be able to have competing products by where they don't pay someone the cut that we pay. I also think that payments methods shouldn't be able to restrict who we pay. Be it Wikilieaks or whoever we please. That's actually why I am not amused by framing this pity fight over the commission rates as "fight for freedom". It's not fight for freedom, it is cocky businessmen looking to increase their margins. You know how 99% of the startups fail? Well, maybe they fail because they forget about the user.
- tyre 6y ago
  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.
  - foepys 6y ago
    Isn't Apple just like Google and Amazon also using people to listen to some recordings they get via Siri to improve it? If so, that's not really privacy.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    It continues to surprise me that tech-literate people fall for Apple's privacy marketing when it doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. You can't even install an app on your device without telling Apple. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796808
  - wvenable 6y ago
    > I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. Are you fine with paying Apple 30% of the cost of any application that you buy? It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app. That $25 app is costing you $7.50 that goes straight to Apple. All that money adds up fast. Even if you are good with that, I think you imagine that a lot of users -- even those who might be happy with other aspects of the Apple ecosystem -- might not be happy with a 30% tax on all purchases made on their thousand dollar device. Apple even mandates that you're not allowed to know inside of an app about cheaper ways to pay.
    - mehrdada 6y ago
- drevil-v2 6y ago
  > 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.
- jojobas 6y ago
  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.
- Booktrope 6y ago
  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.
llarsson 6y ago
What an Epic move by Apple. Quite ironic.
- hacksore 6y ago
  Baffling for sure!
edude03 6y ago
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247
kanobo 6y ago
Apple and Google are similar to China and America. Apple has more restrictive policies within a walled garden. Google gives more freedoms but its platform is wild and open. It's easy for Apple to take advantage of Google's ecosystem and open policies, but very difficult for Google to do the same to Apple. It's similar to how US companies don't get a fair shake in China. And in both, the citizens get taken advantage of and the little people have no power. Did any of what I just said make any sense?
- blub 6y ago
  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.
  - kanobo 6y ago
    It's not the work of a high intellect, but I don't think it's fair to proclaim it as pointless. Most creative output, such as modern art and especially stand-up comedy is all about making parallels - it's up to the viewer to decide if it provides any insights for themselves or provokes discussion. You might as well disregard all creative activity and thought using your argument.
    - kiliancs 6y ago
      It certainly forces one to compare personal stances on A and B, possibly leading to a change of stance in order to resolve conflicts.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- naveen_ 6y ago
  Yes.. You're right.
um304 6y ago
Double standards! Apple has removed so many apps from App Store because of the same reason.
- risyachka 6y ago
  Google explicitly says in their policy that you don't have to use their in-app billing to pay for music.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    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.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Google Play Store and the Apple App Store can’t be compared in this way, because they provide completely different services. The Apple App Store review process is far more thorough, and expensive to operate. Apple also invest more into ensuring the privacy and security objectives they have for the App Store are met by way of OS development. It’s not surprising that Google prices some services differently, and Apple is 100% playing by the rules. Regarding your comments about security and UX, I know which one of those companies I trust more on both of those fronts. What phone number do I call for a billing issue with Google?
      - SifJar 6y ago
        > they provide completely different services there's only so much difference there can be between two app stores; if they were completely different, one wouldn't be an app store
        AmericanChopper 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
septillianator 6y ago
Apple is obligated to maximize shareholders value. Google is a competitor as well. If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses. Its a publicly traded company. This is capitalism, not Apple.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  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.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  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_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm 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.
ehsankia 6y ago
I honestly did not even think Apple Music was on Android. Are their other services there too, such as TV, News, etc? EDIT: Yep, the only 3 apps from Apple are: Music, Beats and "Move to iOS"
- ffpip 6y ago
  While Google publishes every app they make on iOS, because that's the best way they can gain access to user data there.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Feel free to be as cynical as you want, but it also happens to be the far more user friendly thing to do.
hacksore 6y ago
It’s pretty ironic that apple just removed fortnite for for doing this same thing. Shouldn’t this mean that google pulls Apple Music from the play store now? Edit: seems google is ok with this
- ffpip 6y 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.
- risyachka 6y ago
  It is explicitly stated in google policy that you can use direct credit card payment for music.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    A) the same information has been already posted in many comments on this thread. No need to shill like this. B) that's not even the point. It's not about the rules but about Apple's hypocrisy, since in this case they don't care about all the values they used as excuse to prevent other devs from doing on the app store what Apple is doing on the play store.
jameson 6y ago
Ouch
cblconfederate 6y ago
Now let's discuss which jail is the best to spend our holidays in.
jeroenhd 6y ago
Kind of scummy for Apple not to hold themselves to their standards, but then again I expect no less from them. The exemptions in the Play Store rules say they can, so there's not much anyone can do to stop this. However, Apple may very well shoot themselves in the foot here. They just showed that they do not believe their own marketing speak about it being fair to pay an additional fee to keep app stores running and other such arguments.
praveen9920 6y ago
People have lot of opinions about apple but looking at ground reality of the situation, Within Apple, there must be a small team which is taking all the decisions for this product and they realized that they need to do CC integration for improving profits. Should we hold the whole company for this? Yes, of course. Real question should be how can a company which is as big as Apple can make sure their standards are propagated across all teams. I'm not trying to defend apple here but it is a real problem I see in lot of big companies.
- njsubedi 6y ago
  It’s their problem so they should figure it out, don’t they? With more power comes more responsibility.
- gandutraveler 6y ago
  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.
koluna 6y ago
If Apple is so keen on a great user experience, and that’s why they force everyone through the their own IAP funnel, then they should do the same on Android - after all, it’s not about the profit margin, but ease of use. Clearly it is not.
rawoke083600 6y ago
These days, and trust me I hear myself saying and typing this, it seems Microsoft is the "good guys" bar the repeated GitHub failures. Seems HackerNews is full of stories how Apple and Google is doing XYZ to developers or services. What a world we live in !
- ffpip 6y ago
  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.
- kanobo 6y ago
  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.
  - rawoke083600 6y ago
    Shame ! Late thirties - I feel privileged to have grown up in the 90's when everybody(companies) were still not sure what to make of "the internet" and Microsoft were the ones using dirty tactics and OpenSource+Linux was enemy #1 ! Oh well - I need to go update my "ipchains" arg I mean "iptables" :D
- rubber_duck 6y ago
  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.
freakynit 6y ago
And apple blocked fortnite for doing the same on iOS. How much more hypocrite can Apple get? #FreeFortnite
- ffpip 6y ago
  I think that is the first time I've ever seen a hashtag on HN. I only joined a few months ago
njsubedi 6y ago
Why did this post move from #1 to #36 within minutes?
- altmind 6y ago
  Can confirm, 380 points, 2 hours ago. Position 36. Why?
  - reallydontask 6y ago
    Maybe due to there being a previous discussion? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247
    - njsubedi 6y ago
      Seems legit.
    - ffpip 6y ago
      Are there algorithms on HN, that sort through previous discussions and determine freshness, etc? Or is it a moderator/human review
      - njsubedi 6y ago
        Afaik it’s a human review. But they could as well add a label like (dupe) so we didn’t have to be hugely surprised when a post disappears when reloading the homepage.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Oh wow. Didn't really notice it.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Becuase Apple took their 3000% cut
- gundmc 6y ago

476 points by ffpip 6y ago

copp 6y ago

The usual discussion on this topic goes like this: Apple defenders - It is their right to do it, since Android store allows them. Others - Apple is being a hypocrite. While they maintain that app store must be compensated for all the services they do to developers, When given a chance they do not agree with their above statement. I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers. They use users as pawns, to bully the best for Apple, rather than their customers (you and I). edit: To explain "user centric" better Because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very bad user experience. That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. Apple is okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that users have to sign up in the browser.

Razengan 6y ago
> 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.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  Anti-clipboard-abuse doesn’t feel like a good example. It’s a generic (albeit new) OS function that scales immediately to all apps, once implemented. The argument for ongoing App Store funding is that it has to scale with the number of apps available, each requiring hours of human work to review and police.
- cma 6y ago
  Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition. Once they have a few slow quarters and pull the lever on taking a cut of app mediated real-world services, we may see 10-30% of each Taxi ride going to Apple.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    > Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition. I think they have mechanisms for distributing apps within an organization.
    - reallydontask 6y ago
      Would you care to clarify? Do you mean that universities can distribute iOS apps to iOS devices without using the App Store?
      - weehoo 6y ago
        Yeah that’s how companies like grocery stores that use iOS based devices for inventory management load their apps.
        reallydontask 6y ago
        There is the Apple Developer Enterprise Program[0] but it suggests it's only for employees. >Use the program only to create proprietary, in-house apps for internal use, and to distribute these apps privately and securely to employees within the organization. Not sure if there is another programme that would work for universities [0]https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
    - youngtaff 6y ago
      That's within an organisation though via enterprise distribution, or managed devices University students normally bring their own devices so don't fit into that model
- oysmal 6y ago
  I would argue Apple is very protectful of their platform, at the expense of the users. Of course in some cases, such as with privacy, what is good for the user is also good for Apple, because they get an additional selling point compared to the competition. In my opinion, an example of Apple practices which are bad for customers is their line on progressive web apps. Apple limits support as they cannot keep control of their platform and revenue stream. I would argue however, that installable web apps are great for user experience, especially since it helps less resourceful businesses provide a good product for mobile devices. I'll admit there are privacy concerns regarding access to phone features from a web app, so Apple's arguments in blocking some (but not all) of these have some merit. If you look beyond just the App Store policies, this general practice appears to me to limit innovation on the web platform, as Apple is invested in keeping apps the only first class citizen on their platform.
- politelemon 6y ago
  > iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location. Not really, this has just been a PR exercise that I'm watching with fascination - the real news is that they've shifted focus away from their own shortcomings. The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access. Think about that for a moment. Instead of actually fixing the issue, they choose to highlight it and call out apps for using the platform in a way they have allowed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Razengan 6y ago
    Even if you gatekeep and hand-wave every positive thing they do as "PR" and "shifting focus away from their own shortcomings", it has benefited users. > The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access. Every OS does, no? Which steps has Android or Windows taken? (genuinely curious)
- JimDabell 6y ago
  > Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users. This is so true, and the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently. I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
mehrdada 6y ago
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.
- copp 6y ago
  > user could not care less Some publishers are giving the dollars back to the users. Like Fortnite. Also, because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very horrible experience. That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. They are okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that they have to sign up in the browser. > I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android
  - mehrdada 6y ago
    > Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android You can install software on your own iOS with a free developer certificate as well. You cannot scale distribution though, which is by design, and ensures security of the other billions of users. I did not mean just the software running in a container though, which is at the mercy of Android system. I want to control the software running on the computer I pay for, which most Android phones don't.
Aaargh20318 6y ago
> 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.
- arsome 6y ago
  Wouldn't that make it harder for kids to buy crap instead of easier? Parental controls or not if they have access to the card then they know exactly what they're doing and can go about it in any number of ways. The main issue here is single button purchases, not full CC entry.
- francislavoie 6y ago
  It's not just about payment processing, it's about the size of the fees.
- the_hoser 6y ago
  While we're at it, let's not let websites process payments either. Or retailers. Or restaurants. Or anyone. Apple knows best, right?
mrtksn 6y ago
> 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.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  What is the difference between an app asking for your cc number and a web page? Do you wish Mozilla was a payment processor and you couldn't pay for netflix without giving Mozilla a cut? What about google? What if in order to sell you an iphone as a non mac user your browser vendor required Apple to give them 30% of the purchase price? What if they refused to render pages that tried to work around this? What id your ISP required transactions being conducted via their networks to cut them in on the deal? Hell why not your computers OEM?
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    Okay, here it is: I want to have single place to manage my payments. As a user, I wouldn't care about the implementation. I wouldn't care about Apple's, Mozilla's or Google's cut. Not good business for you? Tough luck(unless I really want your product, then maybe adjust the price accordingly). What is the difference between App and Website asking for CC? No difference, I hate them both. As a developer I agree that we shouldn't be forced and restricted to payment methods. My developer opinion is that these payment systems should be considered public utility and should be unified and should work the same for everyone - including Apple. Apple should not be able to have competing products by where they don't pay someone the cut that we pay. I also think that payments methods shouldn't be able to restrict who we pay. Be it Wikilieaks or whoever we please. That's actually why I am not amused by framing this pity fight over the commission rates as "fight for freedom". It's not fight for freedom, it is cocky businessmen looking to increase their margins. You know how 99% of the startups fail? Well, maybe they fail because they forget about the user.
tyre 6y ago
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.
- foepys 6y ago
  Isn't Apple just like Google and Amazon also using people to listen to some recordings they get via Siri to improve it? If so, that's not really privacy.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  It continues to surprise me that tech-literate people fall for Apple's privacy marketing when it doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. You can't even install an app on your device without telling Apple. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796808
- wvenable 6y ago
  > I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. Are you fine with paying Apple 30% of the cost of any application that you buy? It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app. That $25 app is costing you $7.50 that goes straight to Apple. All that money adds up fast. Even if you are good with that, I think you imagine that a lot of users -- even those who might be happy with other aspects of the Apple ecosystem -- might not be happy with a 30% tax on all purchases made on their thousand dollar device. Apple even mandates that you're not allowed to know inside of an app about cheaper ways to pay.
  - mehrdada 6y ago
drevil-v2 6y ago
> 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.
jojobas 6y ago
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.
Booktrope 6y ago
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.

llarsson 6y ago

What an Epic move by Apple. Quite ironic.

hacksore 6y ago
Baffling for sure!

edude03 6y ago

Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247

kanobo 6y ago

Apple and Google are similar to China and America. Apple has more restrictive policies within a walled garden. Google gives more freedoms but its platform is wild and open. It's easy for Apple to take advantage of Google's ecosystem and open policies, but very difficult for Google to do the same to Apple. It's similar to how US companies don't get a fair shake in China. And in both, the citizens get taken advantage of and the little people have no power. Did any of what I just said make any sense?

blub 6y ago
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.
- kanobo 6y ago
  It's not the work of a high intellect, but I don't think it's fair to proclaim it as pointless. Most creative output, such as modern art and especially stand-up comedy is all about making parallels - it's up to the viewer to decide if it provides any insights for themselves or provokes discussion. You might as well disregard all creative activity and thought using your argument.
  - kiliancs 6y ago
    It certainly forces one to compare personal stances on A and B, possibly leading to a change of stance in order to resolve conflicts.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
naveen_ 6y ago
Yes.. You're right.

um304 6y ago

Double standards! Apple has removed so many apps from App Store because of the same reason.

risyachka 6y ago
Google explicitly says in their policy that you don't have to use their in-app billing to pay for music.
- ffpip 6y ago
  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.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Google Play Store and the Apple App Store can’t be compared in this way, because they provide completely different services. The Apple App Store review process is far more thorough, and expensive to operate. Apple also invest more into ensuring the privacy and security objectives they have for the App Store are met by way of OS development. It’s not surprising that Google prices some services differently, and Apple is 100% playing by the rules. Regarding your comments about security and UX, I know which one of those companies I trust more on both of those fronts. What phone number do I call for a billing issue with Google?
    - SifJar 6y ago
      > they provide completely different services there's only so much difference there can be between two app stores; if they were completely different, one wouldn't be an app store
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

septillianator 6y ago

Apple is obligated to maximize shareholders value. Google is a competitor as well. If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses. Its a publicly traded company. This is capitalism, not Apple.

reducesuffering 6y ago
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.
michaelmrose 6y ago
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_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm 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.

ehsankia 6y ago

I honestly did not even think Apple Music was on Android. Are their other services there too, such as TV, News, etc? EDIT: Yep, the only 3 apps from Apple are: Music, Beats and "Move to iOS"

ffpip 6y ago
While Google publishes every app they make on iOS, because that's the best way they can gain access to user data there.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Feel free to be as cynical as you want, but it also happens to be the far more user friendly thing to do.

hacksore 6y ago

It’s pretty ironic that apple just removed fortnite for for doing this same thing. Shouldn’t this mean that google pulls Apple Music from the play store now? Edit: seems google is ok with this

ffpip 6y 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.
risyachka 6y ago
It is explicitly stated in google policy that you can use direct credit card payment for music.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  A) the same information has been already posted in many comments on this thread. No need to shill like this. B) that's not even the point. It's not about the rules but about Apple's hypocrisy, since in this case they don't care about all the values they used as excuse to prevent other devs from doing on the app store what Apple is doing on the play store.

jameson 6y ago

Ouch

cblconfederate 6y ago

Now let's discuss which jail is the best to spend our holidays in.

jeroenhd 6y ago

Kind of scummy for Apple not to hold themselves to their standards, but then again I expect no less from them. The exemptions in the Play Store rules say they can, so there's not much anyone can do to stop this. However, Apple may very well shoot themselves in the foot here. They just showed that they do not believe their own marketing speak about it being fair to pay an additional fee to keep app stores running and other such arguments.

praveen9920 6y ago

People have lot of opinions about apple but looking at ground reality of the situation, Within Apple, there must be a small team which is taking all the decisions for this product and they realized that they need to do CC integration for improving profits. Should we hold the whole company for this? Yes, of course. Real question should be how can a company which is as big as Apple can make sure their standards are propagated across all teams. I'm not trying to defend apple here but it is a real problem I see in lot of big companies.

njsubedi 6y ago
It’s their problem so they should figure it out, don’t they? With more power comes more responsibility.
gandutraveler 6y ago
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.

koluna 6y ago

If Apple is so keen on a great user experience, and that’s why they force everyone through the their own IAP funnel, then they should do the same on Android - after all, it’s not about the profit margin, but ease of use. Clearly it is not.

rawoke083600 6y ago

These days, and trust me I hear myself saying and typing this, it seems Microsoft is the "good guys" bar the repeated GitHub failures. Seems HackerNews is full of stories how Apple and Google is doing XYZ to developers or services. What a world we live in !

ffpip 6y ago
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.
kanobo 6y ago
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.
- rawoke083600 6y ago
  Shame ! Late thirties - I feel privileged to have grown up in the 90's when everybody(companies) were still not sure what to make of "the internet" and Microsoft were the ones using dirty tactics and OpenSource+Linux was enemy #1 ! Oh well - I need to go update my "ipchains" arg I mean "iptables" :D
rubber_duck 6y ago
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.

freakynit 6y ago

And apple blocked fortnite for doing the same on iOS. How much more hypocrite can Apple get? #FreeFortnite

ffpip 6y ago
I think that is the first time I've ever seen a hashtag on HN. I only joined a few months ago

njsubedi 6y ago

Why did this post move from #1 to #36 within minutes?

altmind 6y ago
Can confirm, 380 points, 2 hours ago. Position 36. Why?
- reallydontask 6y ago
  Maybe due to there being a previous discussion? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247
  - njsubedi 6y ago
    Seems legit.
  - ffpip 6y ago
    Are there algorithms on HN, that sort through previous discussions and determine freshness, etc? Or is it a moderator/human review
    - njsubedi 6y ago
      Afaik it’s a human review. But they could as well add a label like (dupe) so we didn’t have to be hugely surprised when a post disappears when reloading the homepage.
ffpip 6y ago
Oh wow. Didn't really notice it.
cblconfederate 6y ago
Becuase Apple took their 3000% cut
gundmc 6y ago