This isn't the issue, this is something that Google is doing intentionally.

They also charge a tax for apps on the Play Store but since they own YouTube they can just waive the fee to make it seem as if big bad Apple is charging a tax while Google is not.

They only charge the tax if you use Play's IAP feature. On Android there is no requirement that you do so (see the Kindle App debacle -- it includes a store on Android but not on iOS). Apple does not allow purchases within apps that don't use the IAP feature.

If you sign up for this outside of the YouTube app on iOS you'll be charged the normal rate (and it will still work just fine on iOS).

You left out the second clause:

Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded from Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, except:

* where payment is solely for physical products; or

* where payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g., buying songs that can be played on other music players).

Hmmm, except I can't play YouTube videos outside of YouTube and Play Music doesn't give me access to the raw MP3 files, therefore the second point wouldn't apply. I think the difference is that Google isn't proactively enforcing this rule so for example, the Kindle app can link to the Kindle store even though that's technically not allowed.

You can use the youtube app on your phone, or the browser on your laptop, or the youtube app on your tv. So it isn't content that can only be consumed in the app on your phone.

Doesn't google also charge a 30% in-app purchase fee for Play stuff? I guess google just gets to waive their own fees. ;)

The difference is that Google allows you to sign up for things in apps without using the Play store IAP integration. Apple does not. This is why you cannot buy Kindle books from the Kindle app on iOS, you must go to Amazon's site on your own. On Android the Kindle app includes a full store (not just on Amazon's Android devices).

Since you've posted this incorrect information in at least 3 places in this thread, I'll say it again. You're wrong:

See more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10429574

Nope: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10429681

The google play in-app-purchasing mechanism charges 30%, just like apple does. However, Google play allows you to use your own payment processor for "digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself", when the app is not a game. Apple requires that all purchases, no matter what, go through their IAP process so apple gets a cut.

Isn't this pricing strategy specifically forbidden by Apple's TOS?

Couldn't find anything in their guidelines

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pur...

And other big companies like Spotify have been doing it for years. I think I recall that this was in their TOS before though.

Not so much, this is just Google making an anti iOS play as Netflix for example trivially avoids the 'tax'.

Don't Apple take a 30% cut if someone signs up via them? So this isn't an anti-Apple play, this is Google charging Apple users the same as everyone else (from Google's perspective, they get $9.99 from Apple/non-Apple users), essentially they're passing on an Apple "convenience fee" to Apple's users.

Whats amusing is they charge the same 30% tax to every developer on Google Play/Android store but for Youtube Red since its their own property, they can give themselves the 30%.

You have the choice, as a developer, to not use the IAP functionality of the Play store. You can do your own credit card processing and order/subscription management.

Apple forbids this. You are required to use their IAP features and pay them their 30%.

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, see the difference between the Kindle app on iOS and the Kindle app on Android. On iOS, no store. On Android, full store.

No, this is incorrect. Google requires that you use their payment system (which takes 30%) [1]:

> In-store purchases: Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play’s payment system.

> In-app purchases: Developers offering products within a game downloaded from 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 from Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment

The only exception they allow is if you're selling physical goods (which is the same as Apple's policy).

[1]: https://play.google.com/intl/en/about/developer-content-poli...

What I particularly love is that you didn't actually read the rest of the bullets in the ToS, and you completely ignored my citation of the Kindle app which I intentionally provided as an existence proof.

It's odd that you cut&pasted so many references to IAP, but totally missed the 2nd clause (immediately following the one about physical goods): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10429681

I think he's referring to how some services just push you to sign up on their mobile web page and then it avoids the 30% hike. It's fairly easy to do, the only concern being potentially confusing new sign-ups, but I don't think it's that confusing.

If you pay cash vs credit card you usually pay the same amount, but the seller makes less money from the credit card sale because of fees.

> If you pay cash vs credit card you usually pay the same amount, but the seller makes less money from the credit card sale because of fees.

And they have more labor costs associated with dealing with cash. Whether that's a net win for cash or net loss depends on the particular market that the retailer is in.

And some places pass that on too. A lot of places choose not to, but that is their choice.

Plus there's a huge gap between a 2-5% fee and a 30% fee. I imagine if Apple took a smaller cut, Google wouldn't be doing this.

Isn't this just how taxes work, essentially?

Retailers sell you an item for $x then charge you $x * (1 + tax%) at the checkout to cover local taxes. If you live in an area with high tax, you'll pay more. So in the app world, if you buy apps on the Apple store you pay more taxes.

1) I think that's what he was talking about.

2) Isn't that illegal? Or getting pretty close to it.

I don't see how this could or should be illegal. Can you elaborate?

I have to admit that I was also wondering about the anti-trust aspects of this. Given that YouTube is a dominant player (73.1% market share in the US according to [1], probably higher in many European countries where there are fewer alternative players on the market), one could argue that Google is abusing their market power in Internet video to push their own mobile OS. Since Google does not offer an app for Windows Phone, their YouTube Red service is basically 9.99$ for Android users and 12.99$ for all other supported mobile platforms. And - as others have pointed out - the 30% cut for Apple is not mandatory (see Netflix et al).

[1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of...

But YouTube is usable on WinPho using IE though, isn't it? Sure it's not a first class experience, but talking as someone with a fair bit of WinPho experience...

What on WinPho is a first class experience?

(Admittedly I've never actually tried YouTube in IE on WinPho, but the 3rd party MetroTube app is supposed to be good.)

In an anti-trust sort of way. A $2-$3 mark up is essentially inconsequential and could be due to the store cost or infrastructure, but if it were $9.99 for Android and $1,000.00 for iOS then there would be a pretty good case that Google isn't engaging in "fair competition."

Just something companies should watch out for. Even if campaign finance considers money to be speech and a founder or company might want to make a bold statement, doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions for acting unfairly toward competition.

What's the difference between charging a super high amount versus simply not shipping for that platform? Should Google be forced to develop apps using Apple's tools for Apple devices? For Microsoft? Blackberry?

I don't know, what do you think? What would happen if Google only ever released software for Android? Or if Google didn't allow anyone else to develop software for their devices? These are opposite examples, but there are more cases on that side.

I'm a lawyer (No I'm not), so I know that under competition law it's illegal for a company to engage in abusive behavior. Fixing prices in that way seems unfair.

And anyway I'm not concerned about the particular pricing because I won't pay for this product for either platform.

The current anti trust laws as written mean Google could be broken up if they only release a YouTube player for Android or even limit a single feature to only Android. Not that we actually enforce the law in the U.S. when dealing with powerful companies.

Excellent. Thanks for replying.