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

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

#131

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #105

st3v3r wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 compe…

> That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market. Now who's making up arbitrary markets? > Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Apple allows no other app stores on its platform. There is no competition. > Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists. Android is not allowed on Apple's hardware or in Apple's ecosystem. > I love when one side of…

"So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing)."

No, you're not contributing because you're trying to define arbitrary markets to prove your point. And when told that's not how it works, you continue to base everything off the arbitrary markets that you've defined.

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

#132

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 10:17 PM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #105

st3v3r wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 compe…

> That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market. Now who's making up arbitrary markets? > Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Apple allows no other app stores on its platform. There is no competition. > Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists. Android is not allowed on Apple's hardware or in Apple's ecosystem. > I love when one side of…

"Now who's making up arbitrary markets?"

Still you.

"Apple allows no other app stores on its platform. There is no competition."

Sure there is. Android is still out there, and they run apps too. If Apple is too controlling with it's store, developers will go to Android.

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

#133

Post by abalone » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

What's weird is that Apple has a lovely, convenient system for in-app payments called Apple Pay that has a great pricing model that everyone is happy with (usually 2-3%). They just don't allow it to be used for subscriptions. Why? What is their goal here? Let's survey the possibilities...

1. To make a ton of money by extracting revenue from developers and content providers. This is the "obvious" goal everything immediately thinks of, but I think it's actually unlikely. Apple makes MUCH more money from device sales. It makes more financial sense to have a robust offering of content and apps. They are making good margins on their own services, but their business model in terms of the app/music stores is to run them just above break even.

2. Convenient payment. Not the reason, because Apple Pay would do that at a lower price.

3. Customer service. Since Apple is technically the merchant here reselling a digital good, they can also provide refunds and customer service. But I doubt they need a 15-30% margin for this. They could just contractually require that developers refund in-app Apple Pay transactions under certain conditions.

4. Privacy. Now here's a real reason. To offer a 2-3% fee, payment processors need to control for fraud. One way they do this is by verifying contact info. Now, for physical goods there is no way around asking for the billing address, so Apple Pay supports that. But it's not necessary for digital goods. Apple would not be able to offer Apple Pay for subscriptions without degrading user privacy.

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

#134

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #117

coldtea wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's not true at all. The market is very clearly all of mobile software. You do not need a court to define that.

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

#135

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 10:22 PM UTC

drewcrawford wrote: post #123

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…

It's way more complicated than that. Antitrust law doesn't care about "the market", it cares about "the relevant market", where "relevant" is a legal term of art that may or may not have anything to do actual markets. There were 6 factors considered in establishing the relevant market in the Microsoft case (paraphrasing Court's Findings of Fact, §2 )[0]. A) Servers were not cost-effective replacements for consumer ha…

"D) The court observed that market conditions create a feedback loop, e.g. more people write apps for the dominant platform, that make the dominant platform more attractive to write apps for, round and round it goes, etc. This is obviously true for the smartphone market."

Is it? Android dominates mobile marketshare. Yet iOS is not hurting for apps.

Everything else considered, you would have to make an extreme stretch to say that the app market does not include Android.

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

#136

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 10:24 PM UTC

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.

"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."

That's not true at all. In fact, Spotify did have IAP in the app, and they charged an extra $3 for it.

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

#137

Post by SyneRyder » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

boodm wrote: post #125

SyneRyder wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

Is it not true Google pushes updates to their Nexus line without going through the carrier?

The Google support pages say "Based on your carrier, it may take longer than two weeks after release to get an update." See the section marked Timing For Android Software Updates and click on Nexus devices.

https://support.google.com/playedition/answer/4457705

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

#138

Post by Tiksi » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 11:10 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #104

Oletros wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ Right there. "Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment" The exceptions are for physical things, and for things that can be used outside of the app. You can't use a Spotify subscription outside of Spotify.

You can absolutely use it outside of the iOS Spotify app.

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

#139

Post by cbreeden » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 11:25 PM UTC

j2bax wrote: post #96

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 dif…

Maybe it's more like: hey, I see that you bought that phone at Walmart. You better give Walmart a 30% cut from that phone bill!

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

#140

Post by ominous » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 11:27 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #31

iLoch wrote: 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?

Commercial stores? I pay for the app, not for the store.

I use Aquamail: http://www.aqua-mail.com/?page_id=22

I paid the developer for a license and don't need a special "app store" to use it. What is all this talk about "rules" that specify which binary files I can run on a general purpose machine? Can you sideload apps in iOS?

Oh right. It is the current year again and everyone loves the iPhone because it is shiny, forgot you can install apps on your own, and prefer to have a gatekeeper do it for them. Carry on.