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

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#191

Post by mido22 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #91

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…

Apple invests billions into R&D, design, manufacture, and UX design for its devices. Your logic would then see them dealing with picking up the pieces for bricked devices, hacked passwords, lost data, viruses, etc. Using an Apple devices is accepting a benevolent dictatorship, and it's a trade off tonnes of users are happy to make.

oh, I didn't know that they were giving away the devices for free.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#192

Post by gumby » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

You can already write web apps (which can be pretty sophisticated these days) and users can even “install” them right on their home screen. This capability has been there since the original iphone though the power available to web apps has grown enormously.

Unfortunately not every app can work his way, e.g. access to PII-sensitive sensors. But nothing stops Spotify from doing this — it’s how Spotify works on a laptop anyway.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#193

Post by znpy » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

Me to Spotify: it's time to start looking closely Purism's PureOs and Librem 5.

It has the potential to really be the one true alternative runtime that can get mass adoption.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#194

Post by jdietrich » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

ihuman wrote: post #172

jdietrich wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless "everyone" also includes Apple Music, then it's anti-competitive.

Technically it does? Apple could be taking a 30% cut all Apple Music subscriptions for hosting the application and processing the payment. Apple then gets the remaining 70%.

Do they actually take a 30% cut? If they're accounting in that manner, then it's likely that Apple Music is running at a substantial loss, which would constitute predatory pricing under EU competition law.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#195

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#196

Post by phatfish » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

cududa wrote: post #180

onion2k wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Europe* and no one used it.

Humm, everyone "used" it. It popped up on the first log in and didn't go away until you chose a browser. That was the point.

Also I believe it had a positive effect on Firefox gaining users, no one can claim that was a bad thing.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#197

Post by krait » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

ihuman wrote: post #172

jdietrich wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless "everyone" also includes Apple Music, then it's anti-competitive.

Technically it does? Apple could be taking a 30% cut all Apple Music subscriptions for hosting the application and processing the payment. Apple then gets the remaining 70%.

Apple does pay artists a much larger cut than Spotify. At e.g. 5000 streams Apple pays the artist ca 37 USD vs the 22 USD that Spotify pays out.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#198

Post by ppeetteerr » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

iambateman wrote: post #184

Just because Apple can do as they please, doesn't mean they ought to be allowed to. Antitrust is a useful tool for when players end up controlling monopolies and using them in anti-competitive ways.

Antitrust would not apply here as Apple's share of the smartphone market is less than monopolistic.

There is a stronger case against Amazon for selling Amazon-branded, well-moving products like batteries and diapers, even though they don't stifle the other brands.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#199

Post by qhwudbebd » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #187

ppeetteerr wrote: post #165

I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight. Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained. The only…

> Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple? Apple shrugs and bans Spotify. Next move?

Spotify petitions EU to sanction Apple for abuse of their monopoly on the iOS platform? Which looks a bit like what they've just done...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#200

Post by thomascgalvin » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

ppeetteerr wrote: post #165

I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight. Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained. The only…

> Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple?

I believe this is also against Apple's Terms of Service. IIRC, they have a "most favored nation" clause which prohibits you from offering a lower price on a competing platform.