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

81–90 of 222 posts

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

#81

Post by MBCook »

mackey wrote: post #18
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.

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.

> You also can't advertise signing up for the subscription outside of the app.

IN THE APP.

This is why you can't buy kindle books in the Amazon app, because then they would have to pay the 30% tax. This is also why Amazon doesn't have links in that app to take you to a web browser where you can buy the books.

But if you don't want to pay the 30% tax and you have a subscription service, you are free to charge whatever you want on your own website. You just don't have to have people sign up inside the app or links to where to sign up inside the app.

This has ALWAYS been the rule. It's not new. Some companies charge extra to cover the fee, some company seem to eat the fee because they're happy to get that many extra sign ups.

I imagine if you open the Spotify app and it said that it's a subscription service and you must have a Spotify account to login and listen to music, and nothing else, the vast majority of people would figure out to check their website to sign up.

I'll ignore the question of whether not what Apple is doing is right. There's nothing new here, so why is Spotify making noise now? Could it be because they're losing members and losing money and need someone to blame?

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

#82

Post by st3v3r »

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.

"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."

Which Apple is not doing.

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

#83

Post by st3v3r »

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-…

That's entirely Google's fault for not fighting for the same thing.

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

#84

Post by WayneBro »

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 not saying that it's RIGHT that carriers block updates for anyone. I'm saying that was a rule that was in place by carriers before Apple came along and made a stink about it. Now they're complaining about Spotify trying to get Apple to change their rules.

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

#85

Post by Fej »

st3v3r wrote: post #72
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.

If iOS was the only mobile OS out there, then you might have a point. But there's not. There's a decent amount of competition out there.

It's a duopoly. I wish it were better but there isn't much choice anymore for consumer smartphones.

Windows Phone is dead (even if its market share is >1%, I believe the project has been abandoned) and BlackBerry OS is hanging on but holds a trivial share of the market.

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

#86

Post by st3v3r »

Oletros wrote: post #53
coldtea wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Google, for example

Nope. They have plenty of garbage rules of their own. Also, they have the same rule Apple does in this case.

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

#87

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

redial wrote: post #78
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.

> Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market.

And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market.

> You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market.

Law is expansive. When competition laws were written several securities didn't really exist, but the law expanded to encompass them. There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace.

Ultimately competition law exists as a concept to protect consumers, it is clear as day that Apple is abusing its monopolistic control of its app store in a way that hurts consumers. Even if existing law wasn't able to expand to encompass that situation, new law could and should.

PS - I love the people who turn up late and downvote every comment on one side of a discussion.

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

#88

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

st3v3r wrote: post #82
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.

"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." Which Apple is not doing.

So Apple charges their own music service a 30% fee?

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

#89

Post by samfisher83 »

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).

Look at Herfindahl index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herfindahl_index

It is over .25 which means the government will scrutinize it.

Post reply on HN