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

161–170 of 222 posts

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

#161

Post by MBCook »

canuckintime wrote: post #143
tdkl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).

Apple/iTunes has(had?) the dominant marketshare for digital music retail in the USA

That's true it did, but there were perfectly reasonable alternatives such as CDs. That was always the problem with the argument against iTunes Music Store. As time went on other DRM free stores came around like Amazon.

The difference with the App Store (full disclosure: I don't think there's anti-trust issues here) is that it's THE ONLY place to buy apps for iOS. There's no place to get a substitute (HTML isn't competitive).

The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store.

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

#162

Post by zepto »

DominikR wrote: post #26
basch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% isnt a payment processing fee, its a commission + infrastructure tax. You make money off your app? Because apple made it discoverable in the app store! You make money off your app, pay a share back for os/api r&d!

Where can I find more information about this infrastructure tax? Because I highly doubt that Apple actually needs 30% to pay for the app store infrastructure. And why are you mixing this with the OS API? I could just as well say that Apple needs some kind of OS anyways to be able to sell their expensive hardware. Also there are certain categories of apps that are allowed to use other billing providers. Why don't they…

The apps that use other billing providers are not selling digital goods.

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

#163

Post by MBCook »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #109
st3v3r wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is being charged the same rates as other apps on the platform

Including Apple's?

Honestly could be. Since Apple is both sides they could decide to find the cost between divisions in such a way that they were still paying the 30% fee. It just happens that 30% goes to them.

That wouldn't prove either way whether Apple is being mean to Spotify. Kind of a moot point.

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

#164

Post by MBCook »

Me1000 wrote: post #90
st3v3r wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the same OS that opened up the Siri API?

The Siri API doesn't support music.

I imagine it will it some point, but you're right right now that's only available for Apple. That means the question is: is the lack of Siri integration a big enough hindrance that it should be considered unlawful interference with competition?

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

#165

Post by MBCook »

zepto wrote: post #156
WayneBro wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

After spending multiple years having agreed to the original deal.

In fact Apple IMPROVED the deal this year when they said that for people who have been a subscriber for over year they'll cut their fee to 15%. I believe it may even have been applied slightly retroactively.

Spotify's terms with Apple haven't gotten any worse, they've gotten slightly better. But NOW they're loudly complaining. It's not like iOS has become more of a monopoly in the last five years, I'd argue the opposite.

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

#166

Post by MBCook »

dandelany wrote: post #28
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.

Yes - and it's 30%. Previously, Spotify would charge $9.99/month for a subscription through their website, or $12.99 for a subscription purchased through the iOS app, to cover this cost. In the most recent version of the iOS app, they decided to disallow in-app subscriptions entirely and push all subscriptions to the web app. IIUC this is the app update that has been blocked by Apple... (disclaimer: I work for Spotif…

The answer is no. Not every user who uses some subscription thing on iOS has to pay Apple 30% cut.

The deciding factor is whether or not Apple handles the subscription and billing. If you sign up through the app (and therefore the iTunes Store), and Apple does the billing, you have to pay the cut.

If you sign up for a dropcam subscription OUTSIDE the App Store and then log into the app there is no cut.

Example: I subscribe to both Hulu, Netflix, Comcast, and a few other things. I pay all of them directly. They all have free apps. Apple gets exactly 0% of my bills to them because I didn't sign up in the app.

I get that in-app sign-up is INCREDIBLY convenient. But the fee does not apply regardless of where the subscription was purchased, which is what I read OP's question to be.

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

#167

Post by MBCook »

dandelany wrote: post #147
k-mcgrady wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "In the most recent version of the iOS app, they decided to disallow in-app subscriptions entirely and push all subscriptions to the web app." We should be clear about this though as doing that is not against the rules. Take the Kindle app for example. You can buy books through the Amazon website and use them in the app. Apple doesn't get a cut. Spotify can do the same thing. The issue is that there are very speci…

Thanks, this is an important point. I'm not sure exactly what Apple allows/disallows in terms of informing users about other payment options, or what Spotify is doing that would be in violation of these rules, but this is the crux of the disagreement.

My understanding is that you're allowed to sell things however you want, but inside the app you have to use Apple's purchase methods. You can't use your own, and you can't put directions in the app to go to a website or something else to purchase content. So in the app you have to do what Amazon does and never show it by button or a "how to buy" button.

And just for extra clarity, Apples policies only apply to digital goods. If you buy a real world service or physical item through an app Apple does not take a cut, but they also don't handle the payment. That's why Amazon doesn't have to pay Apple 30% when you buy a new TV from them.

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

#168

Post by MBCook »

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.

Sorry for the accidental down vote. Dead on correct.

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

#169

Post by MBCook »

mhomde wrote: post #55
fhood wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my understanding is that this only applies to subscriptions paid through the app though right? What percentage of the total subscriptions does that represent.

Yeah, but that combined with that it's forbidden to circumvent paying inside the app puts app providers in a weird position. For somewhat technical savvy I guess it's not much of problem but I can imagine my mom would be confused why they couldn't pay for the service. Also, every user that is acquired through the app would potentially be a drain on Spotify due to the draconian fee's and there's no feasible way to wea…

You're allowed to charge a higher price on the App Store than you do outside of it (to make up for the fee), Spotify did that for years. But you can't point that out inside the app.

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

#170

Post by MBCook »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #64
oddevan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cut happens automatically, and it's in place now for all subscriptions. So any Spotify subscriptions that started through the app at least a year ago are now getting the 85/15 split, without Spotify having to do anything.

I think his point is that if Spotify charges users 30% extra on iOS to cover the split there is no way for them to reduce that to 15% extra for users registered more than a year. So Spotify will get more money but the user will still pay 30% extra for signing up via iOS.

True. Or Spotify could choose to charge something else, say 10% more, so that on average it worked out to be roughly even for users based on how often they unsubscribe. Where they could charge 15% and eat the other 15% until the subscriber has been around for a year.
Post reply on HN