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).
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.
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.
Retailers sell you an item for $x then charge you $x * (1 + tax%) at the checkout to cover local taxes. If you live in an area with high tax, you'll pay more. So in the app world, if you buy apps on the Apple store you pay more taxes.
I have to admit that I was also wondering about the anti-trust aspects of this. Given that YouTube is a dominant player (73.1% market share in the US according to [1], probably higher in many European countries where there are fewer alternative players on the market), one could argue that Google is abusing their market power in Internet video to push their own mobile OS. Since Google does not offer an app for Windows Phone, their YouTube Red service is basically 9.99$ 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).
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.
