Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

As a user, why would I choose this?<p>I only see a benefit to developers for this, but from a user prospective going with another system is a downgrade.<p>Assuming google works like Apple (correct me if I am wrong), disabling a subscription should be able to happen from a central location with a click or 2.<p>If I instead go with the billing through a company not only do they now have my credit card information, but I have to go through them to cancel. Meaning they can send me through screen after screen trying to convince me to stay (dark pattern) or even worse forcing me to call to cancel.<p>As a user, if you want to offer this fine. But as long as the ability to subscribe through Google or Apple is not removed I will be fine. But if this starts a trend of more and more apps having their own billing that then uses dark patterns to keep me subscribed... I will just end up spending less money on subscriptions than I currently do, and I have quite a few subscriptions.

&quot;Over the coming months, Spotify will work with Google’s product and engineering teams to build this new experience&quot;<p>It&#x27;s so absolutely bizarre to announce something at this stage. I wonder what is prompting it.

I do see one potential customer benefit: rather than increasing your attack surface by giving <i>two</i> companies your CC info you just give one (google). In theory Google is going to have more security than a bunch of smaller companies.<p>I use Apple Pay whenever possible for this precise reason. I don&#x27;t want to trust Target with my CC info.<p>Of course since under this scheme the company I&#x27;d be sharing my card info with is the largest dossier assembling company in the world, so I wouldn&#x27;t be comfortable with it. But presumably they will collect the info anyway (even though they aren&#x27;t subject to the same regulation as the credit bureaux or credit card networks), so perhaps going directly through them doesn&#x27;t make things worse and at least eliminates one risk (spotify themselves).

&gt; represents a first-of-its-kind option in payment choice and offers opportunities for both consumers and developers<p>What is the opportunity here? For consumers is it that you can pick who you pay? That doesn&#x27;t sound like much of an opportunity to me.<p>What is the opportunity for developers?

Is this &quot;the enemy of my enemy is my friend&quot; play where Google makes Apple look bad in an effort to avoid some of the regulations that might catch Apple?<p>I cant figure out why Google would want this otherwise?

It has always seemed weird that if I use my Spotify account on my Android phone, iPad, and desktop, who gets a cut of my money depends on which one I use to set up billing.

Why do&#x2F;should I, as a Spotify subscriber, care about this at all? I don&#x27;t understand why there&#x27;s so much fanfare around this. I feel like I&#x27;m missing something basic here...

Seems like a step towards non-vendor locked payments _if you&#x27;re big enough_. This future does not look so bright.

keep in mind that it&#x27;s not for everyone, it says: &quot;pilot will allow a small number of participating developers&quot;<p>it&#x27;s also an agreement, so it&#x27;s very likely that they are requiring price parity.<p>in that case the only benefit of picking a different payment processor for end users would be for they joy of typing their billing information again.<p>regardless, looks like a step in the right direction

Imagine if AWS, Azure, Gcloud were charging for your VMs a % of your business revenue… AppStores are services, they should have a fixed price like any other service, and that can cover also variable costs like cents per download, cents per review, etc

Spotify doesn&#x27;t disclose their pay cut so I have to assume Google is still getting their cut of revenue, maybe 25% with payment processor fees taken into account instead of 30%, since they surely wouldn&#x27;t want to set a precedent of any digital content app being able to not pay for the OS&#x2F;platform by simply adding their own payment method (otherwise Epic wouldn&#x27;t have needed their lawsuit).

This may sound like a snippy question, but I&#x27;m genuinely curious as to why this is considered news? Isn&#x27;t this just getting another payment option, similar to what many, many other services have been offering for over a decade? Seriously, am I missing something?

So I guess the big questions remains: (1)Do Google still get to tax all revenue made by the app? (2) are we likely to see price differentials, so that Spotify can return some of the savings to users?

The &quot;Chief Freemium Business Officer&quot; seems an odd choice for a quote about consumer billing.

I have paid spotify but I can&#x27;t remember how I got the all or paid for it, other than there is not way it involved google because I wouldn&#x27;t do that.<p>Is this a compromise that gives google some in-app purchases that used to go to spotify, or is it the opposite?<p>And I wonder if it means some kind of data sharing with google? One whiff of google involvement in the actual experience or data use would be the end of my spotify subscription. If it&#x27;s just a settlement about app store rules then I don&#x27;t care.

For a site filled with developers y’all really misunderstand the whole 30% cut thing.<p>It’s an alternate way to pay for API, sdk, and platform access.<p>Before the era of phones, if you wanted to develop for some kind of gated platform, for example video game consoles, one would have to pay very high SDK fees. Fees that would scale based on licensed seat, enterprise size, and more. Then when you ship, you’d pay royalties on a per item basis. You sold a game cartridge or cd? Great, a portion of your sale prices goes back to Sony&#x2F;Nintendo&#x2F;whatever.<p>If Apple and google were to provide un-marked up card services, they’d probably charge 3-5% like stripe: there’s a certain amount of fraud that would be priced in.<p>Then they would charge for dev tools. A lot. They’d probably charge for API or SDK usage, perhaps tied to the sales volume and enterprise size.<p>But instead they give the tools away for free, and charge at point of delivery.<p>I think the current situation is actually a great deal for developers: you get access to an always improving platform, it’s free for personal&#x2F;hobby use, and if you make sales, you get paid. And the first $X is fee reduced&#x2F;free. And it’s a highly available distribution platform that scales world wide. Good luck getting your Indy game into every brick and mortar store.<p>The world is really different, and way way better, for developers. This Spotify announcement is great for users, it’s handy to have all your subscriptions in one platform. And not having to sign up on a desktop or outside the app flow.

They mention the fee for small businesses but don’t say that there is 0 fee or a reduced fee for this program, so it’s pretty obvious that they’re still at least making 15% per transaction under this agreement, maybe 27% if they do what Apple did by only reducing their fee to account for the fee taken by the alternative payment processor.

This is great, I guess? Is Google just caving in at a smaller scale before they get <i>forced</i> to do this at a larger scale? I feel like by doing this now, they are trying to dodge something that’s very likely to come down the road. (antitrust regulations)<p>Then again, partnering with only the big names will create a new wave of complaints.

This is one of the most boring and insignificant things I&#x27;ve ever seen on HN. The amount of intense discussion it&#x27;s getting is very funny.<p>I would consider it a <i>much</i> bigger event if Costco announced they&#x27;d take American Express.<p>(No judgment against anyone who finds this event fascinating! You all clearly know more than me...)

This does not warrant PR excitement getting built up. It’s just another payment option, not a discount package deal for consumers, so … who cares enough to make a press release about a feature this boring.

ApplePay checkout is so smooth and amazing I wish all apps and websites supported it. More related to this, I am not on the Google ecosystem but if an app in the Appstore offered say something from a third-party and that of Apple&#x27;s I&#x27;d choose Apple&#x27;s all day long. Subscription management is so much better, I trust the payment platform, and it&#x27;s all very seamless. That being said, if Apple were not so heavy handed perhaps the other providers could offer or plug into the Apple Pay system.

Imagine being a member of a duopoly with a fairly locked-down market and then releasing the ability to pay another way as a revolutionary &quot;feature&quot; worthy of a press release

Is the price the same for both?<p>It seems odd not to include this information.

I don&#x27;t understand what i&#x27;m getting here?<p>I downloaded Spotify on to my android phone, it takes my payment and it works.<p>For a tech non-Silibro, what does this blog post mean?

Maybe this is controversial but the fact that it&#x27;s &quot;revolutionary&quot; to use&#x2F;not use a non play store payment options is a sign of monopolization of payment method this should already have existed. And while I know Google is not the worst (looking at you apple) it&#x27;s still not an achievement in my eyes it&#x27;s management imposed dilemma.

I was under the impression that they were combining the libraries or you&#x27;d get to pick which provider you wanted to stream music from but use the same app. If all this does is give you the option to pay for Spotify using Spotify app or a Google Pay subscription, then it only matters if Google is giving this option to all developers for any app.

&gt; “Android has always been about openness and user choice,” said Sameer Samat, Vice President, Product Management at Google.<p>Oh **** off. Publish the Android MADA to the public, lol. Also, reinstate Fortnite then?<p>Great, you cut a deal, can we not pretend that it&#x27;s an openness thing though? We know it&#x27;s not.

They&#x27;ll unlock a ton of innovation by letting developers use documented and testable payment platforms instead of the &quot;I really hope this works in production&quot; android (and apple) payment systems. Having to support all of these payment processors is such a pain the ass.

I wonder how much Google sweetened the deal. I can&#x27;t imagine Spotify accepted a standard 15% cut.

Does this actually reduce the fees, or simply let Spotify make it harder to cancel you subscription? I know on Mac+ios it’s controlled through centralized UI (which let me catch paramount charging two subscription when they renamed some service).

I thought at first it was &quot;pay what you want,&quot; which I&#x27;d prefer with Spotify.<p>I keep getting near-free SiriusXM deals, and with the integration in my car, why not. Then I start Spotify after two weeks, and it takes five minutes to load.

&gt; Today, we are excited to announce a new chapter in our partnership with Google<p>Not related to payment but recently Spotify is half broken (like unusable search) if I block calls to Google in Little Snitch on Mac.

Google sees the writing on the wall. Their billing monopoly is under threat, and is probably not going to last forever.<p>This situation looks like Google allowed Spotify to add their own payment system with some terms. The obvious one is that they need to keep Google&#x27;s payment system alongside their own. A less obvious (but IMO likely) requirement may be that Spotify cannot offer a much lower price through their billing system to incentivize users to switch (100% assumption here).<p>From the outside, this looks like a pro-consumer move: consumers get more choices (even if the prices are the same). But the reality is (probably; I&#x27;m just assuming here) that Google still has the power to shove their billing system down developers&#x27; throats, since there aren&#x27;t yet any laws or rulings to prevent it.<p>So even though the writing in this press release makes it seem like a pro-consumer move, I hope it doesn&#x27;t take any momentum away from all of the antitrust lawsuits. Google&#x27;s (and Apple&#x27;s) monopolies need to end. In an ideal world, Spotify would add Google billing (and others) as options to attract more customers, not because Google is forcing them to.

I just want to point out that Spotify as a position with the title &#x27;Chief Freemium Business Officer&#x27;. Is there also a &#x27;Chief Subscription Business Officer&#x27;?

Google&#x27;s post <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30782640" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30782640</a>

This is so terribly full of corporate bullshit snake-oil.<p>I would like so much that, one day, the whole tech community would decide to call out loudly each time of abusive PR like that is published. With something like &quot;no one is duped by your shit, we are not stupid enough&quot;.<p>&quot;User Choice Billing&quot; =&gt; it is a feature when we don&#x27;t racket you.<p>&quot;When users choose Google Play, it’s because they count on us to deliver a safe experience, and that includes in-app payment systems that protect users’ data and financial information.&quot; =&gt; No, Google says that but users don&#x27;t. Remember it&#x27;s a racket they have no choice than using the Google store in most cases to have their device working. No one let you the choice to install your bank app from anywhere else than the play store.<p>&quot;We think that users should continue to have the choice to use Play’s billing system when they install an app from Google Play&quot; =&gt; this is legendary as a sentence: we <i>decided</i> that you will not have the choice to integrate our billing system. But we said the work &#x27;choice&#x27;, so like in communist Russia, it looks like that you decided to use us (...without constraint...)<p>&quot;We also think it’s critical that alternative billing systems meet similarly high safety standards in protecting users’ personal data and sensitive financial information.&quot; =&gt; Even if the user willingly don&#x27;t want to do business with Google&#x27;s racketeering shit, still we decided that we will decide what the user and app developer can do. Because... fuck you!

&quot;Chief Freemium Business Officer&quot; is an interesting, genuinely not-made-up title.

I&#x27;m sure Spotify will pass on the extra profit from the savings to the artists, right?

&quot;new experience&quot; lol.

Yet another decision a user has to make to buy something online. Why? Infrastructure?

I was hoping this would mean I get to decide how much I pay

truly the innovation the end user has been clamoring for

&gt; Spotify has been publicly advocating for platform fairness<p>Big companies arguing for &quot;fairness&quot; is absurd and in the long run it will blow up in their faces.<p>In a society that prioritizes &quot;fairness&quot; over capitalism, Spotify and Google are not allowed to exist.

&gt; Together, we’ll work to innovate in how consumers make in-app purchases, deliver engaging experiences across multiple devices, and bring more consumers to the Android platform.<p>I wanna vomit. The fix is just deleting 3 lines of your policies. The world will innovate on its own. No need to limit innovation to a couple companies who are big enough to negotiate.

Crazy that this new revolutionary &quot;first of its kind&quot; feature is – letting the user pick between two payment processors.

Google and Spotify have announced a first-of-its-kind partnership that will give Android users a choice to pay for the music streaming service with a payment method other than Google Play Billing.<p>Google is also working with other developers to test third-party billing in the Play Store that will allow users to bypass its own billing system.

This is smart and what Apple should&#x27;ve done. Apple is clearly beholden to the massive cash cow that the App Store has become. Apple&#x27;s attempts at complying with various orders are that their cut should be 27% and the payment processor can have 3%. That&#x27;s ridiculous and is going to get them into trouble.<p>You see this pattern repeatedly and people will bring up things like the Pareto Principle or argue it&#x27;s better to squeeze the profits for as long as you can but ultimately some government or court will take away your monopoly.<p>As someone in possession of such a monopoly it is always better for you to control how that happens. Having it decided for you could be truly disastrous. Any government investigation could widen in scope to areas it otherwise wouldn&#x27;t.<p>I predict App Store cuts will ultimately drop to a far more reasonable 10-15% including payment processing or 5-10% without.

Keywords “to allow.” You still don’t own your device or have control over it, they are merely giving permission to some of their serfs

If this was Spotify vs Google I’d take Spotify.<p>If this was anything vs Apple I’d take Apple.<p>That’s the ranking of trust I have as far as customer support goes. It’ll be a crap fest when match.com or some other atomic level shyster markets their way into sounding more reputable than they are.