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

61–70 of 222 posts

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

#61

Post by whamlastxmas »

SyneRyder wrote: post #50
coldtea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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-…

If I had to guess this is only for carrier branded phones in most cases, that article is an exception obviously.

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

#62

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

redial wrote: post #59
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If Microsoft chooses to operate a store on the XBox, it should give its own services and competing services an even playing field. It is anti-consumer to do otherwise, which is why competition laws exist.

A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate.

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

#63

Post by k-mcgrady »

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…

>> "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."

We should be clear about this though as doing that is not against the rules. Take the Kindle app for example. You can buy books through the Amazon website and use them in the app. Apple doesn't get a cut. Spotify can do the same thing. The issue is that there are very specific rules around it - for example I don't believe you can include a 'sign up' button that throws the user out of the app to your payment page. It sounds like Spotify was trying to get around this by sending the user an email when they signed up through the app, and telling them to look in the email for a link to the payment page. At least this is what I've read over the last couple of days.

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

#64

Post by k-mcgrady »

oddevan wrote: post #40
mackey wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But remember that the 85/15 split only occurs after a year, so Spotify would still need to charge more. I also don't know if the app store is flexible enough to lower the customer's price after that year cut goes into affect.

The cut happens automatically, and it's in place now for all subscriptions. So any Spotify subscriptions that started through the app at least a year ago are now getting the 85/15 split, without Spotify having to do anything.

I think his point is that if Spotify charges users 30% extra on iOS to cover the split there is no way for them to reduce that to 15% extra for users registered more than a year. So Spotify will get more money but the user will still pay 30% extra for signing up via iOS.

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

#65

Post by k-mcgrady »

Oletros wrote: post #56
basch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

They're using Apple's infrastructure to distribute their app to millions of people globally. They're also getting access to Apple's payment infrastructure and the huge database of payment information Apple holds.

The reason Apple forced IAP in the first place was so that users on small phones didn't have to enter address and card information in dozens of apps. If they allow apps to use their own payment processing it'll worsen the user experience for Apple's customers.

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

#66

Post by Oletros »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #65
Oletros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>> "What infrastructure tax? Spotify is not using Apple's infrastructure to serve the music" They're using Apple's infrastructure to distribute their app to millions of people globally. They're also getting access to Apple's payment infrastructure and the huge database of payment information Apple holds. The reason Apple forced IAP in the first place was so that users on small phones didn't have to enter address and…

> They're using Apple's infrastructure to distribute their app to millions of people globally.

This is paid with the $99/year developers pay

> They're also getting access to Apple's payment infrastructure and the huge database of payment information Apple holds.

No, they are FORCED to use Apple payment infrastructure. Spotify has their own and they are very glad to use it if they are allowed

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

#67

Post by Oletros »

oddevan wrote: post #60
tomdell wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Spotify has pulled the signup process in the app

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

#68

Post by redial »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #62
redial wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If Microsoft chooses to operate a store on the XBox, it should give its own services and competing services an even playing field. It is anti-consumer to do otherwise, which is why competition laws exist. A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate.

What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell?

Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal.

In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.

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

#69

Post by pfg »

Whenever this pops up, I keep wondering if there's any precedent for antitrust rulings against companies in industries where they don't exactly hold a monopoly, but have essentially created their own market-like structure while also competing in that market themselves. Do comparable concepts even exist in other industries?

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

#70

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

redial wrote: post #68
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Microsoft chooses to operate a store on the XBox, it should give its own services and competing services an even playing field. It is anti-consumer to do otherwise, which is why competition laws exist. A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate.

What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell? Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal. In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.

We're discussing competition law.

Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment.

As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. So if you're going to disallow a Sony branded music streaming service then you also have to disallow a Microsoft branded music streaming service, otherwise you're using your monopolistic position abusively.

Post reply on HN