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

201–210 of 222 posts

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

#201

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#202

Post by zepto »

DominikR wrote: post #200
zepto wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False. You don't charge people through the app.

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

#203

Post by Avernar »

MBCook wrote: post #195
Avernar wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not disagreeing with you. But those people had a choice and they chose a subsidised and/or cheaper phone that was locked down.

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

#204

Post by DominikR »

zepto wrote: post #202
DominikR wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False. You don't charge people through the app.

We do within a webview. Whats you problem that you believe you've got to explain to me how our app works?

Seems like you don't have a clue what is actually possible.

Go read the TOS for Apple's in app billing.

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

#205

Post by zepto »

DominikR wrote: post #204
zepto wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. You don't charge people through the app.

We do within a webview. Whats you problem that you believe you've got to explain to me how our app works? Seems like you don't have a clue what is actually possible. Go read the TOS for Apple's in app billing.

Sure but you aren't charging for digital goods. You are charging for infrastructure access, which is explicitly allowed.

Seems like you are trying to muddy the issue by pretending your case is representative of anything we are taking about here.

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

#206

Post by AOsborn »

oddevan wrote: post #60
tomdell wrote: 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.

One does not need to use the signup in the app at all. I both pay for Spotify, and use the iOS app, but have never paid in the app.

I trusted Spotify enough to sign up directly via their website, but for many apps I do not, and prefer to pay via the app store as I trust Apple.

In my personal opinion, this experience is pro-consumer. I can make an informed choice. Hence I don't take any issue with Apple requiring developers to a) pay a cut for the privilege of using their store, and b) impose publishing requirements to maintain the standard of apps.

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

#207

Post by Bombthecat »

canuckintime wrote: post #142
coldtea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market). In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian res…

DOJ has already previously said the Apple's in-app purchase policy could be investigated for anti-trust violations: https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-ebook-case-doj-claims-apple...

Since it is almost three years ago, I guess it is safe to say that it is not happening.

Except Spotify for example start to spent millions to push it.

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

#208

Post by Bombthecat »

zepto wrote: post #196
teacup50 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't read Google books on ios?

TiL

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

#209

Post by canuckintime »

Bombthecat wrote: post #207
canuckintime wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DOJ has already previously said the Apple's in-app purchase policy could be investigated for anti-trust violations: https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-ebook-case-doj-claims-apple...

Since it is almost three years ago, I guess it is safe to say that it is not happening. Except Spotify for example start to spent millions to push it.

The DOJ spent the past three years pursuing the broader case of Apple's collusion with the book publishers — the publishers immediately settled but Apple kept appealing. Those appeals were finally exhausted earlier this year ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/technology/apple-supreme-c... ) so the DOJ might now take the opportunity to tackle Apple's other anti-competitive tactics.

Spotify shouldn't have to spend millions to push it. It's a criminal matter not a civil case. The DOJ is duty-bound to investigate complaints.

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

#210

Post by cloudjacker »

coderdude wrote: post #113
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'm guessing you have an agenda and that you've had your apps rejected from both the app store and from Play.

How would you suggest a neutral third party makes these observations?
Post reply on HN