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

111–120 of 222 posts

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

#111

Post by etchalon »

Oletros wrote: post #66
k-mcgrady wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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

They are not forced.

I signed up for Spotify through their website. I pay Spotify, not Apple, and maintain my account separately. In that transaction, Apple's only fee to Spotify was my minute share of their 99/year developer account. I have the same arrangement with Dropbox, Box, Harvest, etc.

However, if you want to allow user's to sign up through your iOS app directly, and you're solely delivering digital content, your only option is to use IAP. And with IAP, Apple gets 30%.

Why?

Because Apple feels that they are responsible for a. delivering a consumer to you, b. enabling you to deliver digital content to that user and c. ultimately that your relationship with that customer is predicated on that consumer's relationship with Apple.

For that, they ask for, in the first year, a 30% cut of your revenue.

If you feel that is too high, you are welcomed to get user's to sign up for an account for your service without using IAP. Many, many companies do that. And they do just fine.

Spotify, by trying to inject a "clever" "sign up" form, that doesn't actually collect money, but snags the consumers email address and THEN asks them for money, is attempting to leverage Apple's relationship and good works for free, without doing the requisite work themselves.

IF Apple did not allow service-based applications that did not utilize IAP on the store at all, people on Spotify's side of this would be right.

Apple incurs 100% of the costs of Apple Music. They develop the platform it is hosted on, they nurture the customer relationship, and they incur all costs in regards to support and infrastructure. Apple does not charge Apple Music a 30% fee because Apple is already paying that 30% fee through the ongoing costs of all their other business units.

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

#112

Post by erikpukinskis »

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…

The 30% doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that Apple prevents you from passing that cost on to your customers. You're not allowed to have your regular price be X and your Apple price be X+30%. That's what's anticompetitive to me.

Apple is saying "we're providing a value-add, pay us" but not allowing developers to price it in to their balance sheet.

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

#113

Post by coderdude »

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'm guessing you have an agenda and that you've had your apps rejected from both the app store and from Play.

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

#114

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

coldtea wrote: post #102
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. Not in the legal sense of the word, so no. To put it simply, monopoly is not "only a company dictates the rules/has near total share/control of their own marketplace/platform". It's "only a company dictates the rules/has near total share/control of the general market".

> Not in the legal sense of the word, so no.

Since that hasn't been ruled on, we won't know that until it has.

> It's "only a company dictates the rules/has near total share/control of the general market".

That's a strange definition, but even taking it, the market has yet to be defined by a court. As I've said elsewhere courts have already expanded competition law into securities, they literally declared it a market allowing them to use anti-monopoly controls.

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

#115

Post by erikpukinskis »

I'm curious, for the people in this thread who think Apple is within their rights, would you buy a DVD player that only played DVDs purchased through their own store, charged 30% to list in the store, and disallowed companies setting a different price that covers the 30% fee?

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

#116

Post by coldtea »

teacup50 wrote: post #45
coldtea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, we really don't.

The same things hold true for the non-digital age. If you open a store you can do everything you want in it (within the law of course, can't e.g. refuse to serve blacks), specify how you want it to be run, and sell or not sell whatever you like.

Doesn't matter if it serves millions or billions (e.g. McDonalds), as long as there are other vendors with a large aggregated share selling the same goods, you're not a monopoly.

Nor does it make sense to.

This essentially boils down to: Apple built the iPhone, and they've built iOS SDK, and they've build the App Store, but I, who didn't have anything to do with creating those, want to go there are sell stuff and not be bound by any rules Apple dictates.

Sure, one could say "that would be better for the customers", but it's not the customer's store. It's Apples (or Google's, etc).

If you want to sell in it, it means you see value in what Apple built (and possible profit for you), but yet you don't want to pay the requested price for this value -- and you feel entitled that you don't have to either.

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

#117

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

coldtea wrote: post #106
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Rephrasing the same thing, while refusing to understand terms with clear formal definitions, is not that different from copying and pasting.

There is no formal definition for what we're discussing, that's the entire point. A market has no fixed definition, it is up to a court to define it.

It was a copy/paste, they changed literally one word, and ignored my response to that same point above.

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

#118

Post by coderdude »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #112
3327 wrote: 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…

The 30% doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that Apple prevents you from passing that cost on to your customers. You're not allowed to have your regular price be X and your Apple price be X+30%. That's what's anticompetitive to me. Apple is saying "we're providing a value-add, pay us" but not allowing developers to price it in to their balance sheet.

They do that to prevent this scenario:

You use them to advertise your site where customers can get a discount if you bail from the app store and buy from you directly. So many developers would try that oh so clever trick that they already know better in advance.

Unless you're one of the anomalies who actually does a better job at driving traffic to your apps than they can, it makes no sense to complain about this.

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

#119

Post by peteretep »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #115

I'm curious, for the people in this thread who think Apple is within their rights, would you buy a DVD player that only played DVDs purchased through their own store, charged 30% to list in the store, and disallowed companies setting a different price that covers the 30% fee?

I buy films through the Apple Store; that's equivalent?

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

#120

Post by forthefuture »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #115

I'm curious, for the people in this thread who think Apple is within their rights, would you buy a DVD player that only played DVDs purchased through their own store, charged 30% to list in the store, and disallowed companies setting a different price that covers the 30% fee?

Isn't this kind of the point? Just stop buying Apple shit. If there is no Spotify app on iPhone, and everyone has to use iTunes and Apple Music, the iPhone platform becomes less valuable.

Of course Apple is allowed to do what they're doing. They are begging people to stop buying their products. Anyone buying an Apple product today deserves that money less than Apple.

Post reply on HN