Support NeoGAF

[kitchenmotors]

I hope Apple Music fails.

Messy reply.

Too bad it's better than Spotify by miles.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Or maybe the people attacking it are just lazy if they really consider leaving the app for a payment a "barrier" (especially if it's a subscription, something you only touch one time!)

I'm not saying it wouldn't be an improvement for consumers if IAPs were opened up to multiple forms of payment, but the bitching and moaning over it is completely overblown. If it were as outrageous as some of you are suggesting, the market wouldn't support it. Consumers and developers both would be leaving in droves. But it's not happening.

Do you think iOS is perfect without any flaws? It's not an all or nothing situation. It's a barrier; it's a weakness/flaw/janky implmentation in iOS. It's also anti-consumer. It makes the experience less friendly with the potential for the consumer to be charged more to compensate for it. It's not the end all, throw everything away, but it's worse than how it's handled on Android so there's a perfect model out there that shows how it could be done and it doesn't hurt consumers. I don't get why people are defending it.

No, it's just janky as shit for devs to have to kick people to the web browser just to make a purchase, and incredibly anti-consumer as well. Can't believe people are actually defending this.

Not even kick since they won't allow you to link to it or mention it anywhere. A person has to go hunt for it and may not even know it's an option.

 

[Operations]

Spotify is the thief here, no question. Many other services eat up the 30% on behalf of their customers.

And why can't Apple charge more? Paying the rent in a 5th Avenue store sure as hell is more expensive than in a regular non-fashion mall. Hint: popularity and traffic have a price.

 

[Red]

Do you think iOS is perfect without any flaws? It's not an all or nothing situation. It's a barrier; it's a weakness/flaw/janky implmentation in iOS. It's also anti-consumer. It makes the experience less friendly with the potential for the consumer to be charged more to compensate for it. It's not the end all, throw everything away, but it's worse than how it's handled on Android so there's a perfect model out there that shows how it could be done and it doesn't hurt consumers. I don't get why people are defending it.

I don't think they are defending it as much as saying it doesn't bother them. I don't like it either and I prefer the open model, but it doesn't affect me enough to switch to a different OS. I do agree with you, it's anti-consumer.

 

[The Faceless Master]

What ? Spotify could just let subscribers go through their website through the app and remove the in app purchase whenever they want... They are themselves NOT removing the in app purchase option . As I said before they are only being opportunists to be in the news cycle

not if they want their app to be on the Apple App store.

 

[mcfrank]

not if they want their app to be on the Apple App store.

Yes they can. Do some reasearch. Lots of media services are in the App Store but do not use apples in app purchasing system. They just require you to log into an account obtained via the Internet and not the app itself.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Yes they can. Do some reasearch. Lots of media services are in the App Store but do not use apples in app purchasing system. They just require you to log into an account obtained via the Internet and not the app itself.

.

go through their website through the app

ESL?

 

[Maninthemirror]

.

ESL?

Through the app is also linking to safari on an external link

 

[The Faceless Master]

Spotify is the thief here, no question. Many other services eat up the 30% on behalf of their customers.

And why can't Apple charge more? Paying the rent in a 5th Avenue store sure as hell is more expensive than in a regular non-fashion mall. Hint: popularity and traffic have a price.

Bingo!

and here, that price is $3 extra for the convenience of paying for Spotify via iTunes.

 

[TouchMyBox]

So why hasn't Apple gotten under fire by the EU or someone for anti-competitive behaviour? Amazon can't sell books on iOS at prices that can be competitive with Apple's offerings because of the 30% cut, Comixology can't sell on iOS and compete, Spotify has to raise prices etc.

I own an iPad and I can't buy anything on it. I have to whip out my android phone in order to buy anything in any of the apps I use. It's really pathetic. There is the loophole of selling stuff through an internet browser but that's a pretty sub-par experience.

Of course it makes sense that apple gets a 30% cut of sales of apps and games and whatnot because they are sort of acting as publishers and they built the frameworks and apis and tools which all of those apps are built on, but when you start talking about selling an epub file of a book through a competitor's storefront, they are significantly less deserving of that 30% cut.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Through the app is also linking to safari on an external link

which they can't do per the Apple developer agreement rule change in 2011.

Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app.

 

[werks]

Spotify is the thief here, no question. Many other services eat up the 30% on behalf of their customers.

And why can't Apple charge more? Paying the rent in a 5th Avenue store sure as hell is more expensive than in a regular non-fashion mall. Hint: popularity and traffic have a price.

Name one music sub that does.

Through the app is also linking to safari on an external link

You can't link from the app.

 

[Maninthemirror]

No they cant. That's against the app stores TOS. The DOJ even said that the change to the app store TOS was to drive the competition away from ios.

They are not removing IAP because Apple will not allow ANY transaction in an app without getting a cut.

It's the same reason I can see all my books in the kindle app but I can't click buy on any new ones, even though I'm logged into my amazon account, I'm talking to amazon servers, amazon is providing the eBook thru their server, amazon has a robust payment system and has my credit card on file. If amazon have me a buy button, the app would be rejected.


https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-eb...e-is-lying-about-how-in-app-purchasing-works/

They can link through the app to a safari link to purchase then that safari link takes them back to the app. Many apps I have seen do this already

 

[werks]

They can link through the app to a safari link to purchase then that safari link takes them back to the app. Many apps I have seen do this already

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

Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video and cloud storage) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the App, as long as there is no button or external link in the App to purchase the approved content.

 

[NickFire]

I'm not a fan of Apple corporate and their pricing models, but I love IPhone, IPad and ITunes. Growing up when you had to buy whole albums for single songs unless a single was released and available in a local store, I respect the hell out of buying individual songs from my couch.

But damn Apple, 30% to process payments? That's a lot.

 

[Maninthemirror]

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

Link to sign up (not purchase link) externally, as a part of sign up you subscribe or use it free. Go back to app and sign in. Use it like Netflix or Amazon

 

[The Faceless Master]

They can link through the app to a safari link to purchase then that safari link takes them back to the app. Many apps I have seen do this already

.

Link to sign up (not purchase link) externally, as a part of sign up you subscribe or use it free. Go back to app and sign in. Use it like Netflix or Amazon

 

[Maninthemirror]

.

It circumvents it through sign up doesn't it ? How do you think Netflix does it ? All Spotify has to do is mimic Netflix and say you need a Spotify premium account to listen music on mobile instead of forcing users to pay for it in app. Why keep the inapp option

 

[Deleted member 12837]

No, it's just janky as shit for devs to have to kick people to the web browser just to make a purchas

It's a good thing that's not allowed, then.

 

[Rootbeer]

Spotify is doing the right thing here. I like both Apple Music and Spotify, but Apple's surcharge puts Spotify at a big disadvantage.

An iOS user who doesn't do the proper research might look at Apple Music and Spotify and say, "Hmm... Apple Music is cheaper! I guess that makes up my mind."

Spotify needs to do everything they can to educate people about this.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Do you think iOS is perfect without any flaws?

No. In fact I even directly stated that the approach Android uses would be better for consumers. I can recognize this and still feel no need to criticize Apple for their decision.

I don't get why people are defending it.

Because a company isn't obligated to provide the absolute perfect consumer experience at their own expense. Like you said yourself, it's not an all or nothing situation. There's a balance. If enough consumers and developers complained, and spoke with their wallets/apps, I'm sure Apple would consider changing their policy. But as it stands, it looks like consumers don't mind the "inconvenience" of only having one incredibly easy built-in payment method to use in-app.

Not even kick since they won't allow you to link to it or mention it anywhere. A person has to go hunt for it and may not even know it's an option.

Yes you're right, I'm sure someone might not be aware that Spotify offers a subscription service...

 

[The Faceless Master]

It circumvents it through sign up doesn't it ? How do you think Netflix does it ? All Spotify has to do is mimic Netflix and say you need a Spotify premium account to listen music on mobile instead of forcing users to pay for it in app. Why keep the inapp option

i'm not quite sure what you mean, you keep changing things up!

 

[pottymouth]

Only for a year. Once that ends, I will just drop them.

I think you can re-subscribe for 4 years total.

 

[borghe]

Because I'm too lazy to register then cancel it? So many steps.
And I'm satisfied with spotify premium.

Edit: Ok I'm not very satisfied now. Why there is no student discount in Australia?

You can cancel it the minute you sign up. Just go into your subscriptions immediately and turn off auto-renew.

 

[werks]

It circumvents it through sign up doesn't it ? How do you think Netflix does it ? All Spotify has to do is mimic Netflix and say you need a Spotify premium account to listen music on mobile instead of forcing users to pay for it in app. Why keep the inapp option

Netflix doesn't have a link to sign up. IT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE TOS.

 

[werks]

No. In fact I even directly stated that the approach Android uses would be better for consumers. I can recognize this and still feel no need to criticize Apple for their decision.



Because a company isn't obligated to provide the absolute perfect consumer experience at their own expense. [/]Like you said yourself, it's not an all or nothing situation. There's a balance. If enough consumers and developers complained, and spoke with their wallets/apps, I'm sure Apple would consider changing their policy. But as it stands, it looks like consumers don't mind the "inconvenience" of only having one incredibly easy built-in payment method to use in-app.



Yes you're right, I'm sure someone might not be aware that Spotify offers a subscription service...

What expense? Having to compete on the merit of your service rather than jacking up the competitions price artificially? What about with the kindle app? That's not a one time sign up and the whole reason they introduced it is to get rid of competing services. I post the DOJs take on it again.




https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-eb...e-is-lying-about-how-in-app-purchasing-works/

The federal government outlined a revised punishment for Apple in the ebook pricing case Friday. It argued that Apple changed its in-app purchase rules to retaliate against Amazon. And it wants to make big changes in the way Apple does business in the iTunes Store...

In its revised remedy, the DOJ delves deeply into its criticism of Apple’s in-app purchasing policy, which it now claims Apple changed in 2011 “to retaliate against Amazon for competitive conduct that Apple disapproved of.” As background, in 2011, Apple changed in-app purchase rules to require that any content sold through apps must also be sold through the iTunes Store, and forbid publishers and retailers from sending users to websites outside their apps to make purchases. As a result, Amazon removed the Kindle Store from its app and retailers like Barnes & Noble and Kobo followed suit.

These rules applied to all types of digital content — including magazines and newspapers — not just ebooks. But, the DOJ argues, they were primarily put into place “to make it more difficult for consumers using Apple devices to compare ebook prices among different retailers, and for consumers to purchase ebooks from other retailers on Apple’s devices.”

 

[badb0y]

Their scale isn't irrelevant - look at the anti-competitive stuff MS got involved in. Their scale might not be large enough to trigger that though. There is a point where their scale could be considered anti-competitive.







These two points seem a little contradictory. While their physical marketshare might only be 20%, as you mention they have a very high marketshare in paid apps/subscriptions.

The reason Microsoft got cracked down on was because they controlled something like 95% of the PC market.

The funny part is that as sad as this thought-process is, this is probably one of the more reasonable Apple consumers out there.

Nice jumping to conclusions there chap. The only Apple device I own is the iPhone 6 Plus. My PC is Windows and my tablet is a Surface Pro 3, try again.

 

[vwnut13]

Google allow alternative methods of payment in app. Spotify will take your CC in app or use paypal. The end result is a $10 sub for Android users.

Add in the fact that Google doesn't force you to use the Play Store.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Netflix doesn't have a link to sign up. IT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE TOS.

There are ways website do it
https://www.designernews.co/stories...irbnb-skirt-apples-30-cut-on-each-transaction

The hypocrisy by Spotify is that they don't remove the inapp purchase if they don't like it . They can simply do what comixology does which is tell users to signup for comixology website

 

[Deleted member 12837]

What about with the kindle app? That's not a one time sign up and the whole reason they introduced it is to get rid of competing services.

I already buy all of my digital goods (including eBooks) via the web. Doesn't matter to me whether or not I can buy them via IAP.

Let me ask you this: how much should Apple charge for IAPs? If the answer is nothing, should they also not charge a cut for paid apps? If they kill the IAP cut, what's to prevent previously paid apps from just switching to free apps that require an IAP in order to work, which would then circumvent Apple's cut?

Netflix doesn't have a link to sign up. IT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE TOS.

The TOS prohibits mentioning it in-app or in the App Center listing. You can still email users and advertise it all over your website. And again, it's not like people are unaware of the fact that you can sign up for Netflix and Spotify or buy Kindle books or Amazon music via the web. No one thinks the only option is in-app.

 

[The Faceless Master]

There are ways website do it
https://www.designernews.co/stories...irbnb-skirt-apples-30-cut-on-each-transaction

The hypocrisy by Spotify is that they don't remove the inapp purchase if they don't like it . They can simply do what comixology does which is tell users to signup for comixology website

they follow the TOS and it's hypocrisy? they are simply doing what Apple allows. if people choose to give Apple a $3 convenience fee, that's on them.

I already buy all of my digital goods (including eBooks) via the web. Doesn't matter to me whether or not I can buy them via IAP.

Let me ask you this: how much should Apple charge for IAPs? If the answer is nothing, should they also not charge a cut for paid apps? If they kill the IAP cut, what's to prevent previously paid apps from just switching to free apps that require an IAP in order to work, which would then circumvent Apple's cut?

their cut is the same as Google, yet Spotify is $3 less on Android... hrmmm...

 

[Moon_frogger]

LOL @ sketchy service trying to outdo another sketchy service. Spotify sucks ass. I'll stick to apple music.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

That's a seedy business practice and Apple can lick my nutsack.

Do you buy digital games? Its the same, you have to pay 30% there, to! Doesnt matter if its Steam, PSN, Nintendo eStore or Xbox Live, its everywhere!
Google also wants 30%.
And its ok, why the fuck should the companys give their servers and exposure away for free?

Inform youself before you write bullshit in the internet.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

OP says Apple is reportedly being questioned by the Justice Department for trying to convince record companies to dismantle Spotify's free tier.

Apple-haters do their usual panty-shitting because if it's bad news about Apple, it absolutely must be true. Because that's just so like Apple.

Fuck's sake.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

All others companys are heavens saints.

Even when they do the same.

 

[Dalek]

Do you buy digital games? Its the same, you have to pay 30% there, to! Doesnt matter if its Steam, PSN, Nintendo eStore or Xbox Live, its everywhere!
Google also wants 30%.
And its ok, why the fuck should the companys give their servers and exposure away for free?

Inform youself before you write bullshit in the internet.

You don't understand-this is APPLE we are talking about! It's not fair!

 

[JrBaconCheeseburger]

Messy reply.

Too bad it's better than Spotify by miles.

How? By miles?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I can't think of a damn thing Apple does that isn't seedy. Huge price premiums for outdated specs, proprietary everything that's terrible for the environment at exploitative prices, murderous factory conditions, and absolutely everything locked behind restrictive environments and ridiculous paywalls.

They're the Gucci of the technology world and another pillar in America's failed consumer culture.

this is a pretty scathing and rather accurate review of apple. not bad. I'm still a bit mystified by the apple fascination of the world. I'm an iphone 6 user as we get them free from work, I always get the latest/greatest phone... but I don't get it. My wifes nexus 5 is parity with this thing and mine costs around 300 euro more. I have NO IDEA how they have strengthened their brand this well.

hats off to them for doing it, but i'm still puzzled as to how.
I'm surprised that apple music is such a massive contender right away as well. I tried to signup for the free trial on windows, but then itunes opened and I got aids and died immediately, because that's how terrible itunes is.

How? By miles?

ironically the beats radio free thing is probably their attention grabbing master stroke. Repackaging radio like it's an innovation. not bad apple. I think they understand that the masses don't actually WANT choice, they want somebody skilled to tell them what they like. Spotify radio by comparison is kind of shitty. I use it at work all the time because it actually works through a fucking proxy server not like the dreck that is that shithouse itunes app, but from listening to beats radio at home... I'm impressed. I will wait until Sonos supports itunes music before triggering my free trial.

 

[Marty Chinn]

No. In fact I even directly stated that the approach Android uses would be better for consumers. I can recognize this and still feel no need to criticize Apple for their decision.

If the product I'm using does something worse than a competing product, I think it's worth criticizing the decision, especially if that decision is anti-consumer.

Because a company isn't obligated to provide the absolute perfect consumer experience at their own expense. Like you said yourself, it's not an all or nothing situation. There's a balance. If enough consumers and developers complained, and spoke with their wallets/apps, I'm sure Apple would consider changing their policy. But as it stands, it looks like consumers don't mind the "inconvenience" of only having one incredibly easy built-in payment method to use in-app.

This assumes the consumer is an informed consumer. Consumers tend not to be informed.

Yes you're right, I'm sure someone might not be aware that Spotify offers a subscription service...

The consumer might not be aware that the rate is normally $9.99 if bought outside of the app and the fact that it's possible to buy outside the app. So no, they might not be aware that there are alternatives. In addition, that $12.99 looks higher next to Apple's $9.99 because they aren't forced to pay 30%.

Do you buy digital games? Its the same, you have to pay 30% there, to! Doesnt matter if its Steam, PSN, Nintendo eStore or Xbox Live, its everywhere!
Google also wants 30%.
And its ok, why the fuck should the companys give their servers and exposure away for free?

Inform youself before you write bullshit in the internet.

It's not the same. Google makes you pay 30% if you use their service. Google doesn't require you to use their service and you're free to avoid the 30% by using your own or someone elses service. On top of that Google doesn't prevent you from putting a link to purchases or subscriptions in your app where as Apple does. The bottom line is if you want to subscribe to Spotify in the app on an iOS platform, you pay $12.99 because of Apple's policies. With Google, you pay $9.99 because Google doesn't force you or restrict you. So no, they're not the same. Inform yourself.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

It's not the same. Google makes you pay 30% if you use their service. Google doesn't require you to use their service and you're free to avoid the 30% by using your own or someone elses service. On top of that Google doesn't prevent you from putting a link to purchases or subscriptions in your app where as Apple does. The bottom line is if you want to subscribe to Spotify in the app on an iOS platform, you pay $12.99 because of Apple's policies. With Google, you pay $9.99 because Google doesn't force you or restrict you. So no, they're not the same. Inform yourself.

Yes, I can avoid the 30% on Googles PlayStore and pay the 30% on Amazons Android Appstore, you are right, thats true

And nobody stops me from making the 9.99 Spotify subscription on a PC and use it then on my iPhone, so I can avoid Spotifys childish practices.

Inform yourself.



Also, are you raging about Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft and Steam about this too? There are plenty games that arent avaiable on disc... I mean, what are they thinking? Fuck those companys, they should get nothing from their big ass distribution channels.
And man, I hope stores dont want to earn money on food and stuff, too.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yes, I can avoid the 30% on Googles PlayStore and pay the 30% on Amazons Android Appstore, you are right, thats true

Or you can avoid it all together and not pay anyone 30% but still offer an in app purchase. Android doesn't force you to pay someone 30% if you want to pay for something in an app.

And nobody stops me from making the 9.99 Spotify subscription on a PC and use it then on my iPhone, so I can avoid Spotifys childish practices.

Inform yourself.

Android doesn't make you go to another device to pay $9.99 for the service. Why do you like jumping through hoops when the same thing is done elsewhere without jumping through hoops and paying more?

Also, are you raging about Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft and Steam about this too? There are plenty games that arent avaiable on disc... I mean, what are they thinking? Fuck those companys, they should get nothing from their big ass distribution channels.
And man, I hope stores dont want to earn money on food and stuff, too.

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo don't take a cut from the video subscription services that have apps on their systems. So, no I'm not. Only Apple does this. A subscription service is not an app. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

Or you can avoid it all together and not pay anyone 30% but still offer an in app purchase. Android doesn't force you to pay someone 30% if you want to pay for something in an app.

Yes. It is. The 30% are on all apps in Googles Playstore. The 9.99 price on Android has 3.33 going to Google, too. Spotify just rised the price by 30% by themself on Apple devices. They could go on 9,99 and have the same money as they were selling the subscribtion on Android. But they dont. Because they said to Apple, hey guys, make the price 12.99.

The price is made by Spotify. Apple doesnt goes to them and says, we want 3 bucks more.

You should call Spotify greedy because they want 3.33 more from you on Apple devices, but I know, that doesnt fit in your narative, where Apple is satan.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yes. It is. The 30% are on all apps in Googles Playstore. The 9.99 price on Android has 3.33 going to Google, too. Spotify just rised the price by 30% by themself on Apple devices. They could go on 9,99 and have the same money as they were selling the subscribtion on Android. But they dont. Because they said to Apple, hey guys, make the price 12.99.

The price is made by Spotify. Apple doesnt goes to them and says, we want 3 bucks more.

You should call Spotify greedy because they want 3.33 more from you on Apple devices, but I know, that doesnt fit in your narative, where Apple is satan.

Awfully bold of someone telling someone to get informed when they themselves aren't. No, Spotify is not paying Google 30%. They are using their own payment service and not Google's in the app. That is why they are charging $9.99 on Android and $12.99 on iOS. They aren't doing it simply because one is Apple and one is Google. It's also the same reason you can buy comic books in Comixology app on Android but you cannot on iOS. The same with Kindle books where you can buy them in the app on Android but you cannot on iOS. Unless for some reason you think Comixology and Amazon are paying Google 30% of their sales on Android but refuse to sell on iOS.

The price is certainly defined by the app maker, but the app maker has to either upcharge on Apple to compensate for the 30% cut or take a hit in their financials. They aren't asking for more for no reason.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

It's also the same reason you can buy comic books in Comixology app on Android but you cannot on iOS. The same with Kindle books where you can buy them in the app on Android but you cannot on iOS. Unless for some reason you think Comixology and Amazon are paying google 30% of their sales on Android but refuse to sell on iOS.

Strange thing is, you could before and suddenly this option disappeared. Maybe Amazon is really to greedy? Also, you can still buy Books on iOS through the seperated Comic company apps, whose are all powered by Comixology.


Anyway, nothing will change your view that Apple is satan. Have fun buying digital games on Steam, PSN and doing exactly the same thing there.

 

[Makikou]

The fact that people actually defend Apple about this is quite sickening, but then i am reading same people also skipping some facts they ask about and then just go "whatever" and drop that subject completely.

God thanks i have an Android phone.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Strange thing is, you could before and suddenly this option disappeared. Maybe Amazon is really to greedy? Also, you can still buy Books on iOS through the seperated Comic company apps, whose are all powered by Comixology.


Anyway, nothing will change your view that Apple is satan. Have fun buying digital games on Steam, PSN and doing exactly the same thing there.

You're completely twisting his words.

What he's saying is that Google doesn't take a cut of IAP if the company is using an alternative IAP checkout to Google's checkout service.

Hence why Spotify is 9.99 on Android and 12.99 on iOS. It's fairly simple.

So to reiterate:

Google charges publishers/developers 30% just like Apple if the apps are using Google's own checkout service. But Google also gives you alternatives so you don't have to give Google a cut.

P.S. Also I'd recommend reading on the DOJ report someone quoted earlier on why Amazon doesn't sell ebooks on iOS because you're clearly misinformed on that.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Strange thing is, you could before and suddenly this option disappeared. Maybe Amazon is really to greedy? Also, you can still buy Books on iOS through the seperated Comic company apps, whose are all powered by Comixology.


Anyway, nothing will change your view that Apple is satan. Have fun buying digital games on Steam, PSN and doing exactly the same thing there.

The option disappeared because of Apple's policies.

Where did I call Apple Satan? I said Android handles it better than iOS, and Google does it better by not forcing you to use their service to do in app purchases. Everything about the Android implementation is better than Apple's when it comes to this. Apple's is anti-consumer where as Google is consumer and dev friendly on this issue. Just because I'm pointing out where Apple does something worse is not the same thing as thinking they're evil.

Again, for someone who asks people to be informed, you're not very informed yourself since you clearly don't know how things worked on the other side. I'm not complaining about the 30% cut. I'm being critical on how Android does it better by giving the consumer and developers better choices.

 

[Dalek]

Google, the company that sells your data is consumer friendly.


Someone mark this date down that this was said.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Google, the company that sells your data is consumer friendly.

On this specific issue, yes they are.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Google, the company that sells your data is consumer friendly.

It's not all or nothing. Yes, in some ways Google is consumer friendly and in others not. Just like Apple and every other business.