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

221–230 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#221

Post by emdowling »

fmo91 wrote: post #39
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.

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?

The App Store gives you discoverability and could be argued as being one of the reasons for a 30% cut.

If your app can be distributed as a PWA, then the question becomes: is the App Store (which gives you discoverability) worth the 30% revenue cut? For some PWAs the answer will be no.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#222

Post by ppeetteerr »

aclimatt wrote: post #210
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…

Well, that's not entirely true, Apple can't exactly do what it wants. As other comments point out regarding Microsoft, Microsoft were forced to allow IE to be debundled and other competing browsers installed, because having a monopoly on a platform and using that platform to enforce anti-competitive practices is illegal under anti-trust law. So given Apple's marketshare (not a monopoly per se though pretty substantia…

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, it's less than 30% of the European phone market

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#223

Post by bunderbunder »

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.

There's an interesting philosophical question there. Can a vendor who has 15% marketshare really be called a monopoly?

Sure, they have complete control over who publishes on their own platform, but that sort of thing happens all the time without anyone batting an eyelash at it: The major console vendors do this, as did all cell phone vendors in the pre-smartphone era. My digital camera does this.

That leaves me thinking there's no real ground for invoking antitrust laws on this issue. Though there's still plenty of room to say that these policies are consumer-hostile and not in the public interest, and therefore there ought to be a law against it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#225

Post by jackson1372 »

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…

If you read between the lines, it's clear that Spotify was able to make a normal watch app. But they wanted to make one that had special functionality not yet allowed by Apple, for any app, not just Spotify.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#226

Post by filleokus »

Nextgrid wrote: post #128
saagarjha wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why other watchOS apps cannot store music on the watch itself. Don't apps get some local storage space? Why can't they use that?

See https://marco.org/2017/09/24/what-watch-podcast-apps-need .

Also see https://marco.org/2018/09/17/overcast5

> That’s why I nearly jumped for joy during the watchOS 5 announcement in June, when Apple unveiled most of my list of watchOS changes needed to make good podcast apps.

In my understanding, an Apple Watch Spotify app would surely be technically feasible as of watchOS 5 (but I might be in the wrong here, I haven't tried myself more than read the available API docs).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#227

Post by lisperforlife »

I think we should break the monopoly of app store and play store. Platforms should enable other stores to play well along with their stores. It is ridiculous at this day and age to go through a process like app store / play store approval after you've spent so much money building an app. The web works fine without a single party deciding what should or should not be on it. We should treat app store as a service for distributing apps and providing services to update and charge people for those services. It should be distinct from the platform itself. The platform should stick with publishing a spec for how an executable should be and standards to verify the veracity of the distribution with certificates and digital signatures. I think if there is a region that can enforce this change, it will be the EU and the rest of the world will follow.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#228

Post by baxtr »

colde wrote: post #144
baxtr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think Spotify complains about customer acquisition costs. They complain about having to give away 30% of their revenue forever. That's not the case on the PC, or anywhere else.

As I said: These are the costs of the channel. You don't need to use the channel.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#229

Post by mcrae »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #214

It's hard to have much sympathy when you know that this was written by the marketing department of a company with a $30bn market cap. This looks to me like a blatant attempt to latch on to a perceived popular sentiment that Spotify thinks they can use to to have the government give them a big advantage that they didn't have before. Call me cynical but it's hard to see this as anything but self serving.

Sure, but if another company with a $1T mkt cap is abusing it's market position to the detriment of a $30B company, wouldn't you want to hear about it?

After all, if they treat Spotify this way, how do you think they'll treat your app in the future if it happens to compete with them in someway?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#230

Post by elagost »

nubela wrote: post #141

Upvote the fuck out of this. Google does exactly the same thing with Chrome Extensions or Android Apps.

I'm no great fan of Google, but it's a little harder to point the finger at them.

F-droid works perfectly well on any Android device, and is a viable alternative to Google Play (for some users). Android .apk files can be installed on any Android device with one switch flipped - and the first time you attempt to install an .apk file, it points you to the setting. Chrome extensions can similarly be packaged and distributed from another source (i.e. GitHub) and are treated as first-class chrome extensions alongside their store-installed counterparts. Apps installed on an iPhone via Xcode (only available for macOS, which is only available on Apple hardware) expire after 7 days and refuse to open unless they are re-deployed. They last for a year if the user pays Apple $99/year for a developer certificate.

Google's platforms don't have people spending money as much as iPhone users do, but they are not nearly as locked down or restrictive.

Post reply on HN