Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#41

Post by a_small_island »

coldtea wrote: post #32
WayneBro wrote: post #5

You mean kind of like how Apple asks for preferential treatment from every other entity? You know, for things like: - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. - Special or even FREE rent for their physical store fronts (see Grand Central Terminal and many others.) - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. The l…

> - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Why the fuck should they "ask the ISP"?

I'm also curious what OP meant by that point

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#42

Post by fhood »

mhomde wrote: post #22
fhood wrote: post #2

Who is the bad-guy here? (Both probably, but who is the worse bad-guy?) Obviously Apple's letter makes it seem as though they are being perfectly reasonable, but neither of the articles that I read have provided much analysis.

Apple is being a bit greedy when it comes to subscriptions for high-grossing services IMO. Spotify already has razor thin margins and paying out minuscule licensing fees to content producers, it's not viable to pay out 15-30% off the top to Apple. However, Apple clearly should be able to require a fee for providing the marketplace and payment framework, and you can see their point in not wanting apps to circumvent th…

my understanding is that this only applies to subscriptions paid through the app though right? What percentage of the total subscriptions does that represent.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#43

Post by a_small_island »

dandelany wrote: post #28
cassieramen wrote: post #13

How exactly does Apple's payment system work for companies that are cross platform? If I have a Dropcam subscription and am using the ios app, is Dropcam paying Apple 15% of my subscription cost? That seems nuts.

Yes - and it's 30%. Previously, Spotify would charge $9.99/month for a subscription through their website, or $12.99 for a subscription purchased through the iOS app, to cover this cost. In the most recent version of the iOS app, they decided to disallow in-app subscriptions entirely and push all subscriptions to the web app. IIUC this is the app update that has been blocked by Apple... (disclaimer: I work for Spotif…

>IIUC

First time seeing this, but it's If I Understand Correctly for those who didn't know either.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#44

Post by Avernar »

coldtea wrote: post #32
WayneBro wrote: post #5

You mean kind of like how Apple asks for preferential treatment from every other entity? You know, for things like: - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. - Special or even FREE rent for their physical store fronts (see Grand Central Terminal and many others.) - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. The l…

> - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Why the fuck should they "ask the ISP"?

I think he meant cell carrier, not ISP.

But I disagree with him on this one. I'm glad Apple was able to get "special treatment" for many things from the carriers. They were more draconian than Apple with their rules.

Now Android can also install firmware and applications without the carriers saying no so that was a good thing.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#45

Post by teacup50 »

coldtea wrote: post #27
cloudjacker wrote: post #19

Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to other developers. Onlookers will say developers agreed to the contract, so no sympathy, a Federal Judge on the other hand will rip that contract to shreds and take a dim view on Apple's practices. And no, Google Play's robo rejector isn't exempt.

> Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian res…

We really need to revisit the purely geographic definition of a "market" when it comes to antitrust law in a digital age.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#46

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

coldtea wrote: post #27
cloudjacker wrote: post #19

Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to other developers. Onlookers will say developers agreed to the contract, so no sympathy, a Federal Judge on the other hand will rip that contract to shreds and take a dim view on Apple's practices. And no, Google Play's robo rejector isn't exempt.

> Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian res…

The app store itself is a monopoly.

Apple then leverages its monopoly in app stores on Apple's platform into other business (Apple Music, eBooks, digital video, etc). This is anti-competitive behaviour and illegal.

Only legal gap is declaring Apple's app store on its platform a monopoly, the second that is done then everything else naturally falls into place and Apple receives antitrust violations.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#47

Post by tw04 »

basch wrote: post #21
DominikR wrote: post #9

I believe that in this specific case Spotify makes a very compelling argument. App publishers that do not directly compete with Apple have a level playing field although the Apple tax certainly hurts. But Spotify directly competes with Apple, and while Apple does not have to pay this tax as they can (probably) use their own billing services cheaper, Spotify couldn't do the same even if they implemented their own bill…

30% isnt a payment processing fee, its a commission + infrastructure tax. You make money off your app? Because apple made it discoverable in the app store! You make money off your app, pay a share back for os/api r&d!

In perpetuity? That's pretty tough to justify when they aren't charging monthly fees to apps that have a one-time purchase price. Does it somehow cost them less money to host an app with a one-time fee?

If the argument is around billing... spotify is more than willing to take that on themselves, in fact that's what they're TRYING to do, and Apple is rejecting their app because of it.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#48

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

tdkl wrote: post #25
dirkdk wrote: post #6

Regardless of pricing, this is Windows/Internet explorer vs. Netscape all over. Easy to see Apple introduce features tied to Apple Music that Spotify can't because it doesn't have the same control over iOS

Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).

Apple have 100% of the market share in distributing apps in the Apple ecosystem. If you define the "market" as the ecosystem then Apple is in monopolistic control of it, and by extension violates competition law.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#49

Post by tomdell »

3327 wrote: post #33
cloudjacker wrote: post #19

Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to other developers. Onlookers will say developers agreed to the contract, so no sympathy, a Federal Judge on the other hand will rip that contract to shreds and take a dim view on Apple's practices. And no, Google Play's robo rejector isn't exempt.

Curious on what grounds are you making these claims? Would you disagree if this was a startup whom had built an app store over a decade and was getting violated? I am not a fan of jagurnaut tech companies but the rules are the rules. They built it and from what I can see (I am an IOS developer) the payment system is indeed in violation. The guidelines clearly say that apple payment system MUST be used. It doesn't mat…

I think you're misunderstanding something.

The specific, supposed violations weren't mentioned in the article. It was just mentioned, as an aside, that Spotify claims Apple is pressuring them into forcing all iOS Spotify users through Apple's pricing scheme.

If the violation were that Apple was forcing Spotify to pay Apple 30% for subscriptions, then that would be a very clear breach of the spirit of anticompetitive laws in the United States, considering the existence of Apple Music, and considering that it would force Spotify to either raise its prices and reduce its consumer appeal or take a substantial, perhaps fatal, revenue cut.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#50

Post by SyneRyder »

coldtea wrote: post #32
WayneBro wrote: post #5

You mean kind of like how Apple asks for preferential treatment from every other entity? You know, for things like: - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. - Special or even FREE rent for their physical store fronts (see Grand Central Terminal and many others.) - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. The l…

> - Being able to install updates without asking the ISP. Why the fuck should they "ask the ISP"?

I think they meant how Apple is able to update iPhones without first getting permission from the phone carriers, whereas on Android & Windows Phone the OS updates for devices can be delayed by the carrier imposing a certification process before it is released.

For example, here's an Australian phone carrier / ISP blocking updates to Google Nexus devices on their network:

http://ausdroid.net/2014/12/04/yes-telstra-is-blocking-your-...

Post reply on HN