Live data from Hacker News

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

buzzfeed.com

151–160 of 222 posts

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

#151
post #72

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.

I read this comment and the other ones, and it is interesting how you guys collectively think that being a monopoly is a prerequisite for an antitrust violation, and decided to debate the existence of a monopoly or not, instead of an actual antitrust issue lol

I wonder if this is also a reflection on broader society too

because it is very very inaccurate.

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

#152
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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'm not so optimistic. I'd presume a nontrivial number of people would be confused and leave a 1-star review. I can't imagine how many people are confused about how the Ki…

That's possible too. I guess you'd have to weigh the loss of the 30% to Apple (now 15% if they keep the scription over a year) to the lost 100% from the people who don't sign up at all.

I remember hearing somewhere that some apps have fantastic subscription conversion inside the app because payment to so convenient compared to doing it outside. I don't know if that was a dating app, or Netflix, or what. But Apple's payment system is so simple and frictionless that user seem to be very willing to spend money.

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

#153
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a believer in the idea that breaking up an illegal monopoly by selling books under a reasonable contract the publishers came up with before Apple was involved is a criminal act on Apple's part. That case never made sense except as a way to generate headlines by attacking Apple. Amazon had a TRUE monopoly in eBooks and WAS abusing it.

Amazon had no more of a monopoly with the Kindle and eBooks than Apple did with the iPod and AAC.

That's not true.

The fact of the matter is Amazon had a huge lion's share of the market for e-books (measured by $$$). They had such a huge monopoly position that they could dictate terms to all publishers, more than once they refused to carry a publishers e-books (effectively killing them) if a publisher didn't agreed to some terms that Amazon wanted. They would stop selling PHYSICALS books to push the contract. Since no one else old e-books in any reasonable quantity, Amazon was in the monopsony position of being the only real buyer.

So not only did they do that, what they really like doing with selling Kindles. And a great way to sell Kindles is to discount the books below the actual selling price; eating the loss and making the publishers e-books on other platforms (as well as physical books) worth less. To a fair degree it didn't matter to Amazon if the prices were unsustainable, it fueled growth in their devices which fueled growth in their profits.

And then they would do something like push Prime since you could get free books that way (more loss for publishers) and Amazon would make up the money. And the publishers could either choose to go along with it and get a small price for each book or say no and get all their e-books pulled.

Plus Amazon had cable direct, which was a publishing platform that anyone could access. This meant that they had TONS of content by authors who were willing to sell it dirt cheap. This put the publishers in the same position that the media is right now competing with YouTube. And of course some of those books were actually really really good (Silo series by Howey) and became great sellers. Maybe even books that the publishers had passed on. It wasn't all garbage. So Amazon could show the publishers that they weren't nearly as necessary as the publishers thought they were.

Apple NEVER did anything like that. When Apple sold music it was at a flat price. They never undercut the publisher. After a little while to even let the publishers raise prices. And the whole time selling on the iTunes Music Store was an option since you could still sell CDs or sell to other DRM music stores like Amazon.

Amazon was easily the standard oil of the e-book market. They WERE the e-book market. No one ever went after them.

Then Apple came along, is part of the deal with publishers that broke Amazons monopoly, and they got an antitrust suit. None of that makes any sense to me.

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

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything stopping people from buying non-Apple smart phones?

Yes. It's quite similar to what stops people from simply moving to a new city to escape a local monopoly.

What are you talking about? Android phones are sold everywhere that iPhones are sold.

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

#155
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At this point there are only two mobile phone platforms with apps. iOS is smaller, but has tons of apps. It started the trend and people seem to like to pay more money on iOS for apps than they do on Android (I don't know if that's as true today as it used to be, but I think it still holds). Even if users don't like paying as much on android or paying it all, Android has a larger market share in thus is still worth developing for. Both platforms have hundreds of millions of users.

Windows phone is dead. BlackBerry is dead. Palm OS. The previous versions of Windows Phone. The Sidekick. Amazon Fire Phone. Canonical's phone, the Firefox phone, whatever other Linux phones I can't think of.

It doesn't matter how big the company backing it is, even if they actually do a good job (like supposedly the recent Windows Phones). At this point the first mover advantage for Android and iOS are too big. Even if you spend all the time to make a great platform no one's going to buy it because the top hundred or thousand apps aren't available. Because no one's gonna Byatt know it's gonna make apps for because there's no one to buy the apps. You're stuck in a cycle.

Microsoft tried to buy their way out of it, and blackberry did too to a degree. But it doesn't matter if you pay to get the top 40 apps from iOS, because nobody uses all of them. They use some percentage of the top hundred apps. Or 500 apps. So every users going to have a couple of apps that they really want that are unavailable and will never get ported. The apps that do exist (like Twitter and others) often don't get updates, and if a game or something does come out for the platform it's not until years after the big two.

Until something very different comes along, or some HUGE external force appears, we're only going to have two big phone OSes. The only thing that slightly possible (in my eyes) would be someone as big as Samsung pushing their own OS in other countries and possibly getting a good foothold there. Maybe Xaiomi.

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

#156
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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.

Apple didn't make any stink about it at all. They negotiated privately with the carriers and came to a mutually acceptable deal.

Spotify is doing another thing altogether by impugning Apple publicly.

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

#157
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Apple doesn't get a 30% cut from any user who uses Spotify on iOS, that would be pretty blatant anti-trust. However Apple gets 30% from anyone they handle billing/tracking for.

Spotify, if they allow subscriptions purchased in app, is paying Apple for a service. They're free to think that price is way the hell to high and not sell there.

What if Spotify got their way? What if any app could embed their own payment system minute? Now Apple has hundreds of millions of users who could easily be defrauded and have their credit card stolen from stuff downloaded from their store. They get sued.

As a user, I wouldn't use any of them. The reason I buy so much on iOS is because I trust Apple. I know that if I signed up for a subscription for something it turns out to be a piece of junk, I can easily cancel it with one click. No weird cable company style negotiations. No worrying if some unscrupulous company is going to steal my credit card. Apple has some pretty reasonable reasons for this policy (besides all the obvious selfish/monetary ones).

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

#158
post #49
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…

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…

Crud. Sorry for the accidental down vote, you had a good comment.

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

#159
post #60
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.

That's not the case at all. You only have to pay the 30% IF APPLE HANDLES THE BILLING. Any subscription Spotify sells directly, outside the app, does not give Apple a penny even if that user only ever listens to Spotify on your iOS devices.

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

#160
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

If you were paying attention, you would see that it's completely acceptable for people to sign up for Spotify and pay directly at the Spotify website, and then use the app with that subscription.

Apple is doing nothing to interfere with the scenario that you outline and will happily distribute millions of Spotify binaries in support of that.

Your anger is misplaced.

Post reply on HN