Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#101

Post by iwasakabukiman » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

supermatt wrote: post #71

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 pla…

> Vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS.

So then how would a novice user get apps the first time they boot up their phone? They would have to know where to get apps from. That seems like an easy way for users to end up downloading a bunch of malware because they think it's the official Apple or Google app store when it's just a random website.

Having a built in app store has huge advantages in security and usability for the end user.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#102

Post by bpyne » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

I've been with Apple Music and Pandora for years. A few months ago my teammates at work convinced me to try Spotify: I love Spotify! Both the content and the UX work for me.

While this post represents Spotify's view without having Apple's to contrast it with, it seem eerily similar to the "Browser War" days leading up to Microsoft's admonishment. Apple seems to be the equivalent of a drunkard walking a fine line.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#103

Post by Hamuko » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #96

Hamuko wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But you can still sideload an app onto an iPhone Can you?

Yup. Look at the way Facebook and others circumvented the app store using certification recently.

You still need certificates from Apple in order to do so. So your ability to sideload requires a $99 subscription to the iOS development program and the continued support of Apple.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#104

Post by fauigerzigerk » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

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…

>Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?

It's not that you have to, but if you do and you become one of only two or three platform oligopolists worldwide, then you better make sure it's a level playing field or you risk getting regulated as a utility.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/11/sen-elizabeth-warren-wants-t...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#105

Post by unethical_ban » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

Spotify is platform neutral. All things being equal, that's enough to use them vs. Apple/Google/Amazon anything.

Those three serving up things like music or movies are ancillary to their main product. Spotify has a vested interest in being the best music platform. Apple as an interest in selling more phones and computers, which may be benefited by a good in-house music app.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#106

Post by alanfranz » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

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…

> Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?

Because Apple+Android = de facto monopoly.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#107

Post by spac » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

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…

On my opinion there is no comparison with the dominance MS in the OS market and Apple, I think Apple’ market share is very far from the 90+% windows enjoyed

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#108

Post by dmitriid » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

tomphoolery wrote: post #31

dmitriid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify not playing fair with artists Spotify is paying as much as music industry extorts from it. Where does the money go? Ask the big labels that are the ones paying artists.

The big labels aren't important, they're going to get their money anyway. This hurts the smaller labels, like my label, and countless others who never see a god damn dime from Spotify streaming. Meanwhile, Bandcamp streams the songs for free but they allow you to pay what you want. I've made at least 10x the profit from selling tracks on Bandcamp than I ever did in the streaming world. If Spotify wants to play fair,…

> If Spotify wants to play fair, they need to pay artists more for streams.

How? 90% of their catalog is owned by big labels. They cannot sign up artists directly because it will put them directly into competition with the labels.

They are trying to move towards paying artists directly [1], but you have to be eligible (most likely read: not signed up for a label already).

This is a legal and financial nitghmare.

[1] https://artists.spotify.com/upload

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#109

Post by Sharlin » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #55

fmo91 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that. However, what worries me about PWAs is discoverability. How can I find a catalog of available PWAs to download? Is there a way?

Counter point: the discoverability on all of the app stores I've tried has been pretty terrible. Unless I know the name of an app that I'm trying to install I almost never find what I'm looking for. Most often I search for 'the best app to do X' on Google and then put a name from that into the app store.

App store UX is so horrible I’m sure it is intentional. But I have no idea what they’re trying to achieve. In the case of Apple’s store, I have literally never wanted to browse any of the curated lists of apps, just to open the search view which doesn’t even have the search textbox focused by default!

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#110

Post by georgespencer » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

pedroaraujo wrote: post #93

georgespencer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. That should be covered by the one time fee that developers pay to Apple in order to publish apps into the App Store. I am not sure if a simple binary needs a 30% cut of the entire Spotify profit to keep up with the costs of…

> That should be covered by the one time fee that developers pay to Apple in order to publish apps into the App Store. I am not sure if a simple binary needs a 30% cut of the entire Spotify profit to keep up with the costs of hosting an app there.

We're now into the murky world of trying to tell other people what their cost base or margins should be.

> Because Apple is using a completely different market, which they have a strong presence on, to increase the value of Apple Music and consequently devaluing any other competing music streaming services.

Another view is that Apple fairly charges a consistent 30% to all customers in the app store. In the same way as Amazon doesn't pay to list its own products on Amazon, and Google doesn't pay to advertise Chrome on google.com, Apple should not have to pay to market its own services on its own marketplace.