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

71–80 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#71

Post by supermatt »

Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS.

You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your "purchases" - there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems they created.

They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple platforms. They can market themselves as official/curated/whatever they want but the user should have the choice.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#72

Post by spunker540 »

hbosch wrote: post #22
steve1977 wrote: post #9

Spotify asking someone else to play fair, ha, that really made my day... I mean, of all companies, Spotify. Their whole business model is built upon not playing fair with content creators.

Which streaming service plays the most fair?

Going by the latest lawsuit against songwriters (suit filed by google, Spotify, amazon and pandora), it’s probably Apple.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/03/11/spotify-amazon-g...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#73

Post by georgespencer »

pedroaraujo wrote: post #58
georgespencer wrote: post #44

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 i…

A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribes to Spotify through Apple devices. This cost doesn't doesn't exist for PC users, for example. They probably could live with it but I can understand why it feels like an artificial cost that Apple came up with. It would be an understandable cost if they were selling the Spotify App through the App Store and using the actual store i…

> A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribe to Spotify through Apple devices

Not so as I understand it. Only if you put the option to subscribe into your app in the app store. That cost doesn't exist for Mac or PC, but Apple doesn't heavily curate and have costs associated with the wild west of downloading apps from the web.

> it doesn't weight anything to Apple

There are significant costs associated with the app store, no? Part of the reason users gravitate towards the iPhone is because you can download high quality apps without malware, viruses, etc.

> Apple Music doesn't need to have their profitts cut in 30% because they are owned by Apple itself.

Conceptually I'm with you. This is an area I'm struggling with though. The Apple Online store charges accessory manufacturers a fee to be featured there. Should Apple also pay a fee to feature their own products there? I don't think so.

> it's even worse if they are using Siri, Homepod and Apple Watch to make Apple Music more appealing in comparison to Spotify

Why? They've made the hardware. Why should they have to let Spotify run on it in the exact way Spotify wants? (You can Airplay Spotify to Homepod.)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#74

Post by laumars »

georgespencer wrote: post #44

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 i…

> 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?

I see your point but you could flip that a 3rd way:

"Consumers pay for their hardware - they own the device - so why should manufacturers tell consumers what they can or cannot install on their hardware?"

I grew up in an era when hardware wasn't so tightly coupled with software. In fact you could go further than that and mod your hardware with custom chips and so on without violating anything more than your warranty. So I find this current era where consumers are expected to pay high prices for hardware and still not have any rights over that platform to be a massive con.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#75

Post by baxtr »

pedroaraujo wrote: post #58
georgespencer wrote: post #44

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 i…

A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribes to Spotify through Apple devices. This cost doesn't doesn't exist for PC users, for example. They probably could live with it but I can understand why it feels like an artificial cost that Apple came up with. It would be an understandable cost if they were selling the Spotify App through the App Store and using the actual store i…

How much does Spotify pay for "PC users"? Of course, they have Customer Acquisition costs there too. Google gets the money. Why do they not fight Google? Spotify got big through the apple app store channel. Now that they are big they start whining about the cost of the channel. If you don't like it, then don't use it?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#76

Post by georgespencer »

xrmagnum wrote: post #67
georgespencer wrote: post #44

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 i…

More than a decade ago, the EU forced Microsoft to let people choose their browser on a Windows machine with a fresh install. Not only that but the list of choices was randomly sorted so that IE would not be the first listed. > Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible? Of course if you were Apple, you would not want to do it. But, that’s what a…

I use Spotify on my Apple Watch all the time. But there isn't the particular integration which Spotify wants: you can't store music on it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#77

Post by numair »

maaaats wrote: post #53
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…

What are the dirty tricks you're mentioning? And I'm not shocked about your comment, as I don't really believe it. I don't think HN should be a place to spread gossip and possibly lies like this.

There’s been several lawsuits’ worth of material uncovering highly preferential treatment afforded to Spotify by Facebook, which both parties pretended didn’t exist. I’m sure a Google search can help you out with this one.

As for your second comment, well... You’re aware that the parent post is a website that was specifically created to ax-grind, right?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#78

Post by empath75 »

pedroaraujo wrote: post #58
georgespencer wrote: post #44

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 i…

A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribes to Spotify through Apple devices. This cost doesn't doesn't exist for PC users, for example. They probably could live with it but I can understand why it feels like an artificial cost that Apple came up with. It would be an understandable cost if they were selling the Spotify App through the App Store and using the actual store i…

I was about to argue that in a free market, 30% would never be a reasonable price, but then I looked and that's what Steam charges and they have multiple viable competitors on the same platform, so now I don't know.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#79

Post by georgespencer »

5trokerac3 wrote: post #64
georgespencer wrote: post #44

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 i…

The difference comes in when Apple introduced Apple Music, a direct competitor to Spotify. So now, they're not only offering an essentially identical service, they're extracting a toll from their competition through their other holdings. To put this in 19th century anti-trust terms, the manufacturing company owns the railways and charges the competition a toll to transport their goods. It's a clear cut case for Spoti…

Hmmm. It's absolutely not that as far as I can tell. Apple is not extracting a toll from their competition through their other holdings. Nothing has changed for Spotify: if you want to sign up users through Apple's infrastructure, which has a cost associated with it, you have to pay the same price as everyone else.

To repeat my question asked of someone else in this thread: Apple charges e.g. Mophie a fee to feature their products on the Apple Store online. Should Apple be required to pay the same fee for featuring their own products there?

Post reply on HN