Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment' • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by UnoriginalGuy » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #74

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"The app store itself is a monopoly." No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. "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." Which will not ha…

> No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there.

Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores.

> Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices.

You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made.

> Which will not happen, because you can't have a monopoly on your own platform.

You, nor I, have any way of knowing or proving that. This will likely go to SCOTUS in our lifetime, until that happens we won't know the scope of what is a monopolistic market.

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

#92

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

eldavido wrote: post #38

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…

Yeah, I agree, Spotify's case is pretty compelling. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the Sherman Antitrust Act (I wrote a paper on this in engineering law undergrad about the Intel/AMD case) is that whenever a company uses its dominant position in one market to attempt to restrict competition in an adjacent market, that's called "tying" and it's illegal. And this seems like a pretty textbook case of it: Appl…

"I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the Sherman Antitrust Act (I wrote a paper on this in engineering law undergrad about the Intel/AMD case) is that whenever a company uses its dominant position in one market to attempt to restrict competition in an adjacent market, that's called "tying" and it's illegal."

But it doesn't have a dominant position. It definitely doesn't have one in mobile OS marketshare. It doesn't in app store usage.

"And this seems like a pretty textbook case of it: Apple has a strong, powerful position in mobile devices, and they're making it harder for Spotify to compete with them for music streaming services."

But they don't. Android has far, far higher marketshare.

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

#93

Post by WayneBro » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #79

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. Sibling comment covers this perfectly. - Fast lanes for their services with ISPs. I haven't heard of this, it just seems like a good idea from the ISPs side given how big Apple is. Do you have any evidence they've actually forced someone to do this? - Making illegal deals with book publishers so they get preferential pricing. Same for music. You mean a pretty st…

> Sibling comment covers this perfectly.

Which one? The one that asked if it was wrong for carriers to block updates in the first place? Right vs wrong isn't my concern here.

Here is the sum of my comment: Apple used their market pressure to make carriers (and others) change. Now they're whining about somebody trying to make them change.

That's all.

I didn't say that I have evidence that they force carriers to do anything through any means other than market pressure.

> You mean a pretty standard most-favored-nation clause?

No. I mean the illegal price fixing that they were convicted of 3 times. You can read the rulings here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.#Ru...

The final ruling - "In June 2015, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote concurs with Judge Cote that Apple conspired to e-book price fixing and violated federal antitrust law."

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

#94

Post by Oletros » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #86

Oletros wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, for example

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

No, they don't have the same rule, nor Spotify, nor Netflix nor Amazon music have to use Google payment system

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

#95

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #91

st3v3r wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The app store itself is a monopoly." No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. "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." Which will not ha…

> No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores. > Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in…

"Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores."

Which is irrelevant, as Spotify can still sell apps through those stores. Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS.

"You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made."

It is currently an established fact. If that changes, then we will have to revisit. But as of now, it stands.

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

#96

Post by j2bax » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

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.

I read a comparison on another forum that I thought made sense... Consider Apple is Walmart and Spotify is wanting to sell their product in Walmart. Is Walmart going to take a cut? Of course they are! What if Spotify asked Walmart to give their product box away free from their stores and inside there was a message that said "Hi there, please come to our website and pay to signup for our service!". How is this any different? Does Walmart have an advantage in its store when it sells its own Great Value products? Yes of course they do. If you don't like it, start your own Big Box store!

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

#97

Post by UnoriginalGuy » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #95

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it isn't. There is Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon, and a whole host of other app stores out there. Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores. > Remember, the market is mobile devices altogether, not just iOS devices. You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in…

"Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores." Which is irrelevant, as Spotify can still sell apps through those stores. Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS. "You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made." It is currently an established fac…

> It is currently an established fact. If that changes, then we will have to revisit. But as of now, it stands.

It hasn't been ruled on. So, no, it hasn't been established.

> Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS.

Why are you copying and pasting? I won't reply to this again, you already posted this above.

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

#98

Post by joemi » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

cassieramen wrote: post #20

mackey wrote: 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.

This practice is common in digital marketplaces. For instance, Amazon doesn't allow Marketplace Sellers (people who aren't Amazon but sell goods on Amazon.com) to:

- link to a non-Amazon webpage

- provide buyers with a phone number or email address to reach them at

- or any other thing that could funnel sales outside of Amazon

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

#99

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #87

redial wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

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

That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market.

"There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace."

Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Android exists, and has several app stores.

"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."

Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists.

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

I love when one side of a discussion is completely wrong and is not contributing to the discussion.

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

#100

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #97

st3v3r wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apple has banned all of those from iOS. It allows no third party app stores." Which is irrelevant, as Spotify can still sell apps through those stores. Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS. "You cannot just tack on the word "remember" to make something an established fact. We don't know what the scope of future legal decisions will be until they're in fact made." It is currently an established fac…

> It is currently an established fact. If that changes, then we will have to revisit. But as of now, it stands. It hasn't been ruled on. So, no, it hasn't been established. > Remember, the market is mobile as a whole, not just iOS. Why are you copying and pasting? I won't reply to this again, you already posted this above.

"Why are you copying and pasting? I won't reply to this again, you already posted this above."

Yet, you continue to say the same thing in every one of your comments, trying to define the market so as to ignore other mobile OSes. If you're going to post the same thing, then expect to get the same responses.