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

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

#191

Post by Oletros » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 7:04 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #167

dandelany wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 digita…

Tell me what's the difference between selling physical goods and digital services when none of them are stored or distributed by Apple

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

#192

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

ageitgey wrote: post #51

fhood wrote: post #2

Who is the bad-guy here? (Both probably, but who is the worse bad-guy?) Obviously Apple's letter makes it seem as though they are being perfectly reasonable, but neither of the articles that I read have provided much analysis.

Who is the bad guy? It depends on your point of view. Both sides have valid arguments and are "right" from their own point of view. But in my personal opinion, Apple is the anti-competitive / anti-consumer party here. Apple's point of view is that they created the iPhone and spent a lot of money to build the app store, so they get to set the rules of the store. And further more, they treat every dev in the store exac…

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by Avernar » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 9:16 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #110

Avernar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he meant cell carrier, not ISP. But I disagree with him on this one. I'm glad Apple was able to get "special treatment" for many things from the carriers. They were more draconian than Apple with their rules. Now Android can also install firmware and applications without the carriers saying no so that was a good thing.

Can Android install firmware without carrier approval? I know that they've structured things so many updates can be installed without a true firmware update but I was under the impression the carrier restrictions still existed in some form.

For the carrier specific models, yes. But you can get a non-carrier specific one.

Nexus models get updates direct from Google. Otherwise you have to wait for the manufacturer to do their customizations.

Or you just install one of the many other firmwares out there.

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

#194

Post by j2bax » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 1:20 PM UTC

canuckintime wrote: post #181

MBCook wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sy…

> 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. No, they don't 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 subscr…

Why should they though? This is their monteization strategy and it seems to be working well for them. Why should they provide a platform free of charge for Spotify to make money off of? After all, they are only charging for Spotify customers that became paying subscribers through their platform (App Store). If Spotify advertised and captured a user outside of their platform they don't charge for those subs. How is this difficult to make sense of?

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

#195

Post by MBCook » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

Avernar wrote: post #193

MBCook wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can Android install firmware without carrier approval? I know that they've structured things so many updates can be installed without a true firmware update but I was under the impression the carrier restrictions still existed in some form.

For the carrier specific models, yes. But you can get a non-carrier specific one. Nexus models get updates direct from Google. Otherwise you have to wait for the manufacturer to do their customizations. Or you just install one of the many other firmwares out there.

That's true, but what percent or android phones bought every year our carrier specific models? I'm guessing it's a very high percentage. So for the average user things are restricted by the carrier.

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

#196

Post by zepto » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 3:10 PM UTC

teacup50 wrote: post #185

zepto wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do they run your purchased iOS software? Play your purchased iTunes movies locked with Fairplay DRM? Read your purchased iBooks? Read your personal documents, passwords, and data locked into iCloud? Synchronize with your other Apple iCloud-only devices? At some point, product tying results in lock-in far more costly to escape than, say, a video game console with platform-only titles.

This is standard practice and applies to Android too.

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

#197

Post by hrbrtglm » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 3:12 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #175

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…

> They handle taxes in all sorts of countries in different states.

And they handle it so poorly that you have to write them to get a proper invoice in order to recover your VAT.

If your customer buy your application through the app store, they ask "you" an invoice with VAT, and you have to tell them to contact Apple, that's so unprofessional. For a 30% cut, they could clearly put a download link or include a PDF in the sent email.

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

#198

Post by canuckintime » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 3:23 PM UTC

j2bax wrote: post #194

canuckintime wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. No, they don't 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 subscr…

Why should they though? This is their monteization strategy and it seems to be working well for them. Why should they provide a platform free of charge for Spotify to make money off of? After all, they are only charging for Spotify customers that became paying subscribers through their platform (App Store). If Spotify advertised and captured a user outside of their platform they don't charge for those subs. How is th…

> Why should they though? This is their monteization strategy and it seems to be working well for them.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ because it's anti-competitive and anti-consumer?

There used to be a type of monetization strategy in the USA known as 'company towns': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town

The company owned the land, built the stores, so it only seemed right that they payed their workers in scrip and only allowed merchants to accept scrip in the town, yes? Eventually the country decided that such monetization platforms were too controlling and unfair...

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

#199

Post by vivekd » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

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".

I wonder about that, because the Sherman anti-trust act says

1. "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."

which is, extremely vague.

I think you are right, intuitively, creating a mobile platform on which only your approved vendors may sell is not breaking anti-trust because you created that platform and there was conspiracy or anti-trade sentiment involved in just the platform getting popular. Certainly we can agree it would not be a monopoly if the iphone only had a market of a few thousand people and apple controlled the app store.

At the same time, the law is so vague that it could easily be applied to Apple. All the Sherman anti-trust act seems to require is some kind of interstate or foreign trade (to bring it under Federal Jurisdiction) and a large control of any kind of Trade, which it seems to me could be applied against Apple on the whim of the Feds.

The question a judge would ask if this came to court is does the app store constitute a monopoly and is apple using that monopoly to it's advantage to crush competition. And I think the app store is a monopoly and of course when you have a monopoly you are going to use it to prevent people from competing with you.

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

#200

Post by DominikR » Sat, Jul 02, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #162

DominikR wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course you can, I have such an app in the store. A telephony app where you can access all features without the app. (You just dial one of our local numbers and that will be mapped to a foreign number)

So this argument doesnt make sense.