Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

timetoplayfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#41

Post by rorykoehler »

darklion wrote: post #14
owenwil wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is their point: Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with

Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…

Is it really a platform if it doesn't support 3rd party businesses?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#42

Post by dmlittle »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #15
cujo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch I'm not sure this is 100% true. From browsing the spotify support forums many moons ago, some guy had built a spotify playing app for the apple watch, but spotify squashed it. Given that some random dev could do this, it doesn't seem like apple prevented anything.

Counterargument: Apple's review process is more likely to let "some guy's" app slip through the cracks and make it in the App Store than the official app of one of its huge competitors with an install base of many, many, many millions of devices.

If I remember correctly the app wasn't on the app store (presumably because it couldn't get approved)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#43

Post by numair »

alibarber wrote: post #27
numair wrote: post #17

Considering all of the dirty tricks and favoritism between Spotify and Facebook, I’m not sure they are the right messengers for this. Oh, and one of the early execs involved with Spotify told me, point blank, “that man needs to die already” in reference to Steve Jobs before his passing. Yeah, I was just as shocked as you might be in reading that. I doubt I was the only one aware of such dark sentiments. The executive…

"Making life difficult for Spotify could be seen as a way to carry on Steve’s legacy" - how does this benefit me as an Apple customer?

You might have forgotten this because the market has copied almost everything they’ve done, all of their aesthetic choices, etc — Apple creates products that are highly, highly opinionated. The Apple consumer isn’t buying access to a generic computing device, they are buying a point of view.

Sometimes that point of view is compatible with what you, personally, want. Sometimes it’s clearly obnoxious and Apple needs to change course. No matter what the case may be, however, it’s still a situation of a very specific point of view being sold to a consumer that has actively made a choice that this is, in fact, the point of view that suits their needs.

You’ve got to remember that the iPhone was an EXTREME case of this. The entire mobile industry thought the whole touch screen typing thing was never going to work at scale. I myself wasn’t completely convinced. Yet here we are. You can’t have the good without the bad.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#44

Post by georgespencer »

Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here?

Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies).

Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?

The crucial line in their argument is this:

> giving up 30% was too much for us to keep our prices low for our fans. Unfortunately, the end result is that you can no longer upgrade to Premium through the app.

How is this Apple's fault and not your fault? Every market place takes a cut from the vendor. Your business not being able to sustain the cost of doing business is nobody's fault except your own.

Apple should not be allowed to send push notifications about products or services they prohibit other apps from sending. They shouldn't arbitrarily restrict Spotify from updating the app (virtually no information is provided about what infractions Apple saw, and history suggests that companies are great at presenting one side of the argument and then we find that Apple has a legitimate grievance). They should not be able to charge Spotify more because of their competition.

But to suggest that Apple should be forced to allow Siri integration with Spotify? Homepod? Apple Watch? Ridiculous.

Monopolies where prices rise are bad news. But look at UK football coverage. On top of my free-to-air channels (£150 p.a. TV licence) I need a Sky Sports subscription (minimum £25 per month) and a BT Sport subscription (which necessitates one of BT Broadband - gross - or Sky) which I think is around £5-£10 per year. The top flight football is fragmented across all three providers. Is that better for me?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#45

Post by westpfelia »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #15
cujo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch I'm not sure this is 100% true. From browsing the spotify support forums many moons ago, some guy had built a spotify playing app for the apple watch, but spotify squashed it. Given that some random dev could do this, it doesn't seem like apple prevented anything.

Counterargument: Apple's review process is more likely to let "some guy's" app slip through the cracks and make it in the App Store than the official app of one of its huge competitors with an install base of many, many, many millions of devices.

This is the correct answer. Some guy isnt Spotify. Apple wasnt going to let Spotify proper do it however they just dont care about Jim Bob tinkering.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#46

Post by dmitriid »

theli0nheart wrote: post #30
dmitriid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: This is no longer true, and doesn't exist in the guidelines [---- obsolete info ----] Yeah, it's a bit of a grey area. However, App Store policies explicitly forbid apps that duplicate iOS and first-party functionality IIRC. Now that Apple has Maps, and Apple Music, and Podcasts, and..., and... should they enforce those rules? [---- obsolete info ----]

> However, App Store policies explicitly forbid apps that duplicate iOS and first-party functionality IIRC. Now that Apple has Maps, and Apple Music, and Podcasts, and..., and... should they enforce those rules? You should probably pull out the relevant quote from the guidelines. I don't think this is a thing anymore, at least in the way you're describing. If they did enforce it it would be a huge blow to the App Sto…

You're right. This is no longer in the guidelines, updated my comment accordingly

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#47

Post by cromwellian »

darklion wrote: post #14
owenwil wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is their point: Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with

Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…

Microsoft used to be roundly criticized for supposedly building private APIs into Windows that Microsoft Office was allowed to use either because they were undocumented, or Office got the documentation far ahead of anyone else.

I'd say if you're selling $1200 computer devices, one principle of that is ownership and that you get to run what you want, not what Apple wants. We seem to have come a long way on this site from fighting Tivoization of embedded platforms, and unrepairable, unfixable, unhackable consumer electronics, to people making excuses for a super locked down platform, and not even on the excuse that it helps security, but from a philosophical standpoint that somehow Apple is morally right to do whatever they want.

Yes, you have a choice of not buying Apple software, just like you had the choice of not buying Windows and using Linux, or building a MythTV instead of a Tivo, but keep in mind, in the latter case, this was only possible because the CableCard standard was forced by law on the cable industry.

Apple can maintain their high levels of security and privacy without their 30% cut of subscriptions, it's a false dichotomy to pretend their behavior is anything but rent seeking.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#48

Post by simongr3dal »

mcphage wrote: post #32
owenwil wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is their point: Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with

> Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with There's a vast gulf between "Spotify was blocked" and "Apple didn't spend time and money building a service that Spotify wanted".

From a layman perspective: Why can Siri make Apple Music play artists, albums, playlists, and songs but I can't ask Siri to do the same with Spotify?

Clearly the technology is there, but Apple is not letting Spotify use it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#49

Post by abelsson »

darklion wrote: post #14
owenwil wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is their point: Apple deliberately leaves those features unbuilt in order to give itself a market position that others can't compete with

Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…

> Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices?

Yes.

> An app store? A payment provider? A cloud provider? A health data store? An update mechanism?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.

To do otherwise, is to invite platform owners to be (potentially abusive) monopolists with a license to favor their own services instead of promoting and maintaining fair competition in markets on top of that platform. In western societies, since the last century, that has been behavior which has been regulated by law and courts.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#50

Post by simongr3dal »

ayvdl wrote: post #18

To whoever is responsible for this page: in the svg files, turn the text into paths, otherwise they look like Arial with terrible kerning. https://i.imgur.com/uLaVwnd.png

It's also very bad on the "There's an app for that" image.

The other parts of the page are very nice though. The font contrast is fine and the font has a nice weight to it. When they want us to read something they actually still know how to make a proper webpage. And it works fine without JS.

Post reply on HN