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

261–270 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#261

Post by fb03 »

Let's be fair then:

Phones now have the same level of processing power as portable computers. We shouldn't be obligated to only run applications that are siphoned thru a third party "trusted clearinghouse", be it the smartphone or the operating system vendor.

If I want more safety or I am not a Power User, I can flick a switch on the device to allow that binding behavior to happen. Heck, they are giving me the 'free service' of taking care of app security for me, I could even pay for that if I am serious about having my apps checked and stuff.

Phones are computers. You own the hardware, you should be able to install whatever you want. Always.

Is the argument about protecting the masses of non-tech people? Great, make it an opt-out. And still: There ought to be someone keeping tabs on that big brother (gov regulations? agencies) or else shady behavior can ensue as well.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#262

Post by gnud »

mastercheif wrote: post #81
hbosch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which streaming service plays the most fair?

Napster, Tidal, then Apple Music. Source: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming-music-...

Tidal apparently inflated the play numbers of their owners - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17028313.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#263

Post by 0x262d »

hard to feel bad for spotify, another publicly traded company maximizing profit and posing as a person, but it does highlight the downsides of rent-seeking behavior.

it's almost like private markets are bad and always lead to this sort of bs in every single real world case.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#264

Post by Architect0126 »

shams93 wrote: post #244
ppeetteerr wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They have a monopoly over their own app store. It's not like Spotify can just choose to distribute their iOS app directly or through a 3rd party app store

Isn't that like saying a store has a monopoly over their shelves?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#266

Post by jdietrich »

bunderbunder wrote: post #223
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 think…

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

Philosophically interesting perhaps, but legally irrelevant. EU competition law is primarily concerned with dominant market positions and the abuse of that dominance. As the junior partner in a duopoly, Apple are inarguably powerful enough to substantially manipulate the market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#268

Post by coldacid »

talkingtab wrote: post #237

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.

It's about Apple and anyone they consider a (potential or active) competitor. As far as customers come into it, Apple wants to be able to milk them dry and keep them from using anyone who might provide a similar or better service than their own, as well as take over any profitable channels they don't already have support for.

It's 1990s Microsoft on a mobile phone.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#269

Post by paulgb »

talkingtab wrote: post #237

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.

This is why I think the "if you're not the customer you're the product" mantra is overly simplistic. In this case, you can still pay $1000 for a phone, and it only makes you a more valuable product for Apple to sell to its (developer) customers.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#270

Post by arendtio »

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 could solve the whole problem by letting users choose which default apps they want to install in the beginning. In order to make it simple, they could offer bundles. >95% of the users would choose the 'Apple Apps' bundle on iOS and the 'Google Apps' bundle on Android and the 'Microsoft Apps' bundle on Windows. And the few people choosing the 'Privacy-First' bundle with Firefox and Ad-Blocker are those people who would install an alternative browser anyway.

But instead, they are greedy and want 100% of the users of their platform to use their apps.

Post reply on HN