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

171–180 of 222 posts

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

#171

Post by MBCook »

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?

The problem with your analogy is that in that situation Apple would be doing all the customer billing, billing support, collections, etc. It's not that Apple made the DVD player, the store also outsourced a large chunk of their finance department to Apple. And that's what they're paying for.

Maybe they're paying too much, but they're getting more than just the ability to appear on Apple DVD players.

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

#172

Post by MBCook »

tw04 wrote: post #47
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!

In perpetuity? That's pretty tough to justify when they aren't charging monthly fees to apps that have a one-time purchase price. Does it somehow cost them less money to host an app with a one-time fee? If the argument is around billing... spotify is more than willing to take that on themselves, in fact that's what they're TRYING to do, and Apple is rejecting their app because of it.

It does cost them less for a one time purchase because they don't have to manage the entire subscription infrastructure.

Apple stance is pretty simple, whenever they collect money they collect 30% (ignoring the discount for subscriptions over when you're). Whether that's a one time charge, where they collect money for a subscription every month, they charged a fee.

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

#173

Post by MBCook »

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…

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 30% is the actual cost to Apple, there's no question there's tons of profit baked in there. But Apple is providing services for that 30% such as download hosting, billing, collections, subscription management, etc.

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

#174

Post by MBCook »

yawn wrote: post #35
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!

The problem that I have is that there's no way around this gatekeeper. With Android and Windows Phone I don't have to publish my app to their app stores if I don't want to--they allow me and my customers figure out how to handle this. With Apple, it's either follow their rules or nothing. I don't understand how they feel justified charging an ongoing 30% monthly subscription for hosting some assets.

They're not charging at for hosting the assets, that's why there's no fee for free apps. They only get that fee because you're using their payment infrastructure.

If someone signs up for a subscription outside the app (like I have for Netflix) then someone can use that subscription on an iOS device in the company doesn't have to pay apple a a dime.

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

#175

Post by MBCook »

abalone wrote: post #133

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 immed…

Apples and oranges.

Apple Pay has no fee to the user or the company receiving the money, it's paid by the bank and is EXTREMELY small. Normal credit card fees still apply, but those don't go to Apple. For all intents and purposes it is a single bank transaction almost like any other. Apple has almost no part in it except helping verify security.

In-app purchases are different. Apple takes a cut because Apple provides a real service. They host the app, they do the billing, they do the collections, they do the license tracking. They handle taxes in all sorts of countries in different states. They make sure their store complies with all local laws. They handle security and try to stop piracy. In short, they're providing a lot of services.

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

#176

Post by dang »

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…

This subthread has turned into a tedious spat and become increasingly uncivil. You particularly have violated the HN guidelines more than once, by calling names in the thread, complaining about downvotes, and getting personal. Please don't do those things on this site.

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

#177

Post by dang »

st3v3r wrote: post #131
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 everyt…

Please stop.

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

#178

Post by pen2l »

scarface74 wrote: post #127
pen2l wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would still need to find your way to the Spotify app though, so that defeats the point -- because you have to use your hand to unlock the phone, open the app, etc. Compare this with being able to play a song by simply saying "Hey Siri play Beatles' Rain"... and that is it.

"hey siri open Spotify" works fine.

... And then find your way to search icon, click x to clear current query, hit microphone icon to say song name? By this point I've probably killed 9 people on the road while driving.

Compare this with "hey Siri play bob Dylan's blowing in the wind" and it working just with this

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

#179

Post by [deleted] »

scarface74 wrote: post #127
pen2l wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would still need to find your way to the Spotify app though, so that defeats the point -- because you have to use your hand to unlock the phone, open the app, etc. Compare this with being able to play a song by simply saying "Hey Siri play Beatles' Rain"... and that is it.

"hey siri open Spotify" works fine.

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by NEDM64 »

Fej wrote: post #85
st3v3r wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a duopoly. I wish it were better but there isn't much choice anymore for consumer smartphones. Windows Phone is dead (even if its market share is >1%, I believe the project has been abandoned) and BlackBerry OS is hanging on but holds a trivial share of the market.

There's Amazon besides Microsoft.

Duopoly? No, more like Apple and Google are the only good companies out there.

And that didn't came from anti-competitive behaviors, but from HARD WORK.

Things like Google Maps and Apple Stores are cold hard work that are really meaningful for people's quality of life.

Amazon and others don't give any of this to the consumer, that's the reason nobody wants to go with their platforms.

Post reply on HN