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

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#151

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

brmgb wrote: post #116

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…

> 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.) I perfectly understand why Apple would be as anti-competitive as they can away with on their plateform. It benefits them tremendously. What I don't understand is why some comsumers, who are definitely loosing from the situation - even if you prefer the Apple solution co…

All I know is I don’t have to deal with blue screens, malware, and facetime has worked flawlessly for 10 years. And I can walk into a store and get a replacement device in 30 minutes when I break it. The time and effort I’ve saved not dealing with Windows/Android BS (which I experienced) has been well worth it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#152

Post by Grustaf » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

jordansmithnz wrote: post #135

Something to note: competition wise, Spotify doesn’t have a 30% App Store profit handicap compared to Apple Music, it has a 60% one. Spotify doesn’t just forfeit 30% of their App Store revenue, they pay this directly to Apple - so the relative handicap is doubled.

No, Apple doesn’t get all its money from Spotify. For Apple it’s insignificant.

And of course it only applie for in app purchases, if you browse to Spotify.com on you iphone and pay there, Apple doesn’t get a penny.

Most of these claims are dubious at best. Bunch of cry-babies.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#153

Post by colde » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

tumetab1 wrote: post #112

owenwil wrote: post #4

The claims in here are pretty wild, particularly around how Apple has favored its own products: - Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch - It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod - It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri - It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis - It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies I genuinely hope Europe t…

> The issue of the 30% cut alone is enough for further investigation, Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify.

> Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify.

As they mention on the website. That's not true. It's not 30% for Uber or Deliveroo. And most importantly, it's not 30% for Apple Music.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#154

Post by onion2k » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

iwasakabukiman wrote: post #101

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 advant…

Microsoft were pushed to add a screen to the Windows installer asking the user which browser they wanted to be the default. That would work perfectly well for app stores.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#155

Post by hokumguru » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:57 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…

Something not mentioned anywhere in this thread either is the fact that, after 1 year, any subscription made through the app store goes from a 30% cut to 15% - what I would call much more manageable.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#156

Post by hobbescotch » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

Has anyone noticed in CarPlay that Spotify sounds much quieter (and worse) than Apple Music? I have always had a suspicion that this was Apple’s doing, but now it seems much more likely. But if I’m wrong someone please let me know! I’d really love to know what is causing it. It almost makes me want to subscribe to Apple Music just for listening in the car.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#157

Post by ihuman » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:58 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…

> Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS

What do you mean? Every time I've installed Windows, it came with Internet Explorer or Edge (which I then used to install another browser).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#158

Post by flanbiscuit » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

judah wrote: post #29

This exemplifies some of the reasons proprietary app store lock-in is bad for consumers. Progressive Web Apps -- web apps that are installable and available offline without any app store -- are a viable alternative, and ultimately a threat to Apple's app store racket. It's likely why iOS Safari continues to drag it's feet on PWA support.

Would a PWA be a viable option for an app like Spotify? I'm definitely on board with them for simple CRUD type apps

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#159

Post by W4ldi » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

novaRom wrote: post #80

bovermyer wrote: post #60

Unpopular opinion: I will never go back to the Apple ecosystem. I like my freedom way too much.

Why unpopular? It's a rational decision. Diversity vs centralization.

diversity vs privacy. iOS is still much more secure and has much more protection for the typical user than android.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#160

Post by jfoster » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #75

pedroaraujo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Their primary complaints seem to center around the rules being unfair and arbitrarily applied.