Live data from Hacker News

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

buzzfeed.com

51–60 of 222 posts

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

#51
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.

Who is the bad guy? It depends on your point of view. Both sides have valid arguments and are "right" from their own point of view. But in my personal opinion, Apple is the anti-competitive / anti-consumer party here.

Apple's point of view is that they created the iPhone and spent a lot of money to build the app store, so they get to set the rules of the store. And further more, they treat every dev in the store exactly the same - whether you are Google or Spotify or an indie dev. Everyone pays the same fees to use the store. Since Spotify has decided to break the well-established store rules that apply to everyone, of course their app should be rejected. Apple is just applying their rules.

From that very micro point of view, Spotify is 100% wrong and the app should be rejected. Except that totally ignores the larger competition issue and conveniently forgets to mention that Apple itself isn't subject to it's own rules.

Spotify's point of view is that Apple's App Store is the ONLY way to sell apps to iOS users (to users who own their own devices!) so Apple has a de facto monopoly over iOS software sales. As such, they should by subject to antitrust law which provides limits on what a monopoly is allowed to do. Specifically, they say the rule that Spotify has to pay 30% of all subscription fees to Apple just to allow user sign-ups in their app is unfair. It's unfair because Apple has a directly competing product called Apple Music. Apple Music has an unbeatable advantage over Spotify on iOS because they don't have to pay 30% of subscription fees to a third party. In a low margin business, no one can possibly compete with Apple if they have a 30% price advantage.

I tend to agree with Spotify. Apple is trying to cripple their competition by giving themselves a huge, unfair price advantage by using their monopoly over iOS software sales. It would be fine for Apple to take a 30% subscription fee cut if Spotify chose to use Apple's subscription billing service. But it's not a choice - iOS apps aren't allow to use any other subscription billing service and aren't allowed to even mention other ways to sign up outside of the app. They can't even say the words "go to our website to sign up" without getting kicked out of the store. That seems evil to me. That's the crux of the issue. IMO, Apple created those censorship rules specifically to kill competition with their own products.

It's very similar to Yelp's complaints against Google. Yelp complains that even if they have the #1 search result for a restaurant, Google shows their own giant restaurant widget above all organic search results. You don't even see any organic search results "above the fold" anymore. Thus, it's impossible for Yelp to fairly compete with Google in the area of restaurant recommendations because Google controls the user's point of access.

The key factor in both the Apple and Google cases is if you believe the companies have a monopoly. Monopolies have more rules to follow than normal companies because they have the superpower to keep the market noncompetitive if they want to. Normal companies don't have that power in a fair market, so they are allowed to be more vicious in how they compete.

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

#52
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, Facebook has a 100% monopoly on its website, I want it to be opened up so anyone can add pages without oversight! Or Twitter! Or hacker news! Why should we have to follow the rules of the platform as chosen by its creators? (Straw man and all that)

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

#53
post #31
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC any subscriptions and/or purchases driven by apps downloaded from the App Store are subject to a fee paid to Apple. That's according to their (garbage) App Store rules.

Are there many commercial stores (especially one pushing 50 billions of product) without such "garbage" (sic) rules?

Google, for example

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

#54
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case, Facebook has a 100% monopoly on its website, I want it to be opened up so anyone can add pages without oversight! Or Twitter! Or hacker news! Why should we have to follow the rules of the platform as chosen by its creators? (Straw man and all that)

You're conflating a website owned and operating by the company, and consumer's personal devices owned and operated by the consumer.

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

#55
post #42
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but that combined with that it's forbidden to circumvent paying inside the app puts app providers in a weird position. For somewhat technical savvy I guess it's not much of problem but I can imagine my mom would be confused why they couldn't pay for the service. Also, every user that is acquired through the app would potentially be a drain on Spotify due to the draconian fee's and there's no feasible way to wean them off the the app store.

I'm not sure of the actual percentage, don't think they're public. Spotify have been desperately trying to sign-up people outside of the App store which I guess is what started this debacle.

If the fee's are so high that you can't go through the app store it feels like it should be lose-lose for everyone.

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

#56
post #21
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!

> 30% isnt a payment processing fee, its a commission + infrastructure tax.

What infrastructure tax? Spotify is not using Apple's infrastructure to serve the music

> 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!

Then why then don't have a cut from eBay, Amazon store (not the digital products), air companies, etc?

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

#57
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you subscribe through the iOS app, Apple gets 30% of the subscription. That 30% drops to 15% after a year. You also can't advertise signing up for the subscription outside of the app.

Oh wow, that's harsh. I can't believe you aren't allowed to direct people to the web experience. That must seriously erode margins for hardware folks.

Not quite sure what you mean by hardware folks? Any physical good sold in an app from the Apple App Store has to be processed by the vendors payment processor not by Apple.

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

#58

When Apple says Spotify is asking for preferential treatment over developers of other apps, does that include the developers of Apple Music? Does Apple Music go through the same sort of independent and opaque approval process Spotify does? Do they have to wait the same time? Do they get rejected for unapproved business models? Does Apple Music take 30% of it's cut and give it away to the rest of the company? While I…

Of course not. Apple uses the setup of iOS to ensure that its first party apps have a better experience than third party providers. Apple has always done this on iOS. If you attempt to compete with Apple on their own platform where they have the keys and make (and change) the rules on a whim, you will lose. People choose Apple Books because it's more convenient to pay vs Amazon (since Amazon isn't allowed to let people buy content like they can on competing platforms unless they funnel payments through Apple and give up 30%). People were choosing Apple Music over Spotify because Spotify cost $3 a month more (since they had to charge that to Apple users to cover the Apple tax for payments and weren't allowed to direct Apple users to the Spotify site to sign up for the same price as Apple Music without the Apple tax). Firefox and Google had to give up using their own browser engine (and all the competitive features and functionality that went with it) and use the Mobile Safari engine in order to even participate on iOS. Up until recently, they were even forced to use a lesser and slower version of the engine to ensure that Safari was always the (artificially) fastest browser on iOS.

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

#59
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, Facebook has a 100% monopoly on its website, I want it to be opened up so anyone can add pages without oversight! Or Twitter! Or hacker news! Why should we have to follow the rules of the platform as chosen by its creators? (Straw man and all that)

You're conflating a website owned and operating by the company, and consumer's personal devices owned and operated by the consumer.

Should Microsoft be forced to let Sony sell Playstation games on the XBox?

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

#60
post #49
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except that's already happened. That's been the rule since the App Store was set up. And Spotify responded by having the in-app price be $13 instead of $10. Spotify's other option is to not allow signups in the app at all; I believe this is what Dropbox and Amazon do to avoid falling afoul of these rules.

Spotify is trying to have it both ways here.

Post reply on HN