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

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#231

Post by hokumguru » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

This opens up a wide host of negative side-effects including the extreme ease of malware. I'd say the #1 value proposition for the App Store, and why most iOS users prefer it, is the guarantee of virus-free programs.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#232

Post by Aissen » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

Aissen wrote: post #216

zimpenfish wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch / HomePad But they've blocked every streaming music thing, right? It wasn't a vindictive campaign targetted at Spotify as this timeline is suggesting - no-one got to build streaming music apps for the Watch or HomePod IIRC.

Yes, every streaming music thing but Apple Music. Available in watchOS 4.1 (vs 5.0 a year later for spotify). And for HomePod since release AFAIK.

It's also funny because Spotify won't let other people integrate their streaming service on a device (even only for premium subscribers) if you don't follow a huge list of restrictions.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#233

Post by mediocrejoker » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #41

darklion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…

Is it really a platform if it doesn't support 3rd party businesses?

Who gets to define the term platform? I think this is just arguing semantics.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#234

Post by alkibiades » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

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 it’s 30bn vs apples almost trillion in market cap

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#235

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

abelsson wrote: post #49

darklion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…

> Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? Yes. > An app store? A payment provider? A cloud provider? A health data store? An update mechanism? Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. To do…

For comparison, Android keeps a very clear line between the 'Platform', and the 'Apps'.

Every API on the platform is available to all apps which have the necessary permissions.

Sure, it might look like Google has taken over key low level features of the device like updates and wifi location, but in fact from the platform perspective, all those components have an open API and can be replaced.

The only fly in the ointment here is some of the API's require powerful permissions which aren't allowed in store apps, but you can still sideload them, or use an alternate store.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#236

Post by calcifer » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

jackson1372 wrote: post #225

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.

There is a fine line between reading between the lines and fabricating things. Can you point to what exactly in that website substantiates your implication?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#237

Post by talkingtab » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

I don't think this is about Spotify versus Apple - its about Apple versus its customers. I want to be able to choose what music service I want, and I want the price to be competitive. And not just music.

You just have to wonder what's up with Apple.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#238

Post by nevir » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

Apple did the same thing to Kindle for iPhone back when it launched.

We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple announces their intent to build in-app purchasing.

The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MUST sell all books at a 30% margin on ALL stores if they want to sell their books via Apple's own ebook store.

Aka we couldn't sell books at an increased cost, even if we wanted to. We would have had to take a loss on every purchase.

In the end, we had to remove all of the store functionality from the app, and weren't even allowed to link people directly to the web store for purchasing (or even instructions for purchasing).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#239

Post by mrkstu » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

thomascgalvin wrote: post #200

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.

They did for e-books, which they got sued for and lost.

I believe they also used to have it for subscriptions to things like video services (i.e. if you offered a web price and a 'through the store' price, the store price couldn't be higher), but dropped it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#240

Post by ppeetteerr » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #212

ppeetteerr wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Antitrust would not apply here as Apple's share of the smartphone market is less than monopolistic. Having had to take antitrust training at my company in the past few weeks, I can say that you are very mistaken if you think antitrust only kicks in when the company is a monopoly.

Can you elaborate on why I am mistaken?