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

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#281

Post by supernova87a » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:37 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…

What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says?

Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing.

Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation? What makes your 30% price the right call? If you're an app developer, are you equally ok with someone else determining what you get to charge for your app when you're done with it? Isn't that the same (lack of) logic?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#282

Post by elagost » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

nevir wrote: post #238

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 MU…

My dad has had iPads since the first one, and it is still jarring for him to not be able to just click a "store" button in the Kindle app. (I believe it used to have a webview for the store built-in; I do not use the Kindle app)

He was very confused when it disappeared. I imagine most users feel this way. I had to coach my mom to sign up for Pandora on the website so she saved a couple bucks a month, and it was baffling to her why it costed more in the app.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#283

Post by shiven » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

It’s thanks to crap like this & the total lack of original innovation on the iPhone platform, that I am seriously considering the Samsung S10, after 8 years of exclusive iPhone use.

Post-Jobs Apple is over & done for. They are in “rent collection” mode now.

So long & thanks for all the fun. It was good while it lasted.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#284

Post by alex_duf » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

UpperBodyEimi wrote: post #259

What am I missing here? Why can Spotify not redirect users to subscribe on their own website? I'm pretty sure I signed up on Spotifys website, then logged into my iPhone. Apple definitely don't get 30% of that subscription fee.

>Why can Spotify not redirect users to subscribe on their own website?

Because it's forbidden by apple to inform your user that it's cheaper on the website.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#285

Post by nevir » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

elagost wrote: post #282

nevir wrote: post #238

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 MU…

My dad has had iPads since the first one, and it is still jarring for him to not be able to just click a "store" button in the Kindle app. (I believe it used to have a webview for the store built-in; I do not use the Kindle app) He was very confused when it disappeared. I imagine most users feel this way. I had to coach my mom to sign up for Pandora on the website so she saved a couple bucks a month, and it was baffl…

Yeah, it was supremely frustrating for us. The original store experience was fully native, and still a far better experience than what the app has today :(

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#286

Post by madeofpalk » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

dublo7 wrote: post #145

pedroaraujo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are significant costs associated with the app store, no? Part of the reason users gravitate towards the iPhone is because you can download high quality apps without malware, viruses, etc. That should be covered by the one time fee that developers pay to Apple in order to publish apps into the App Store. I am not sure if a simple binary needs a 30% cut of the entire Spotify profit to keep up with the costs of…

I would be upset because I bought the hardware and they arbitrarily won't let my music from Spotify play on it while their own music does. Remember it's my device, but theirs. Not apples. If they are going to allow third party apps then do so, but there's no technical reason to not allow the service. Imagine Ford says you can only use a certain brand of tires on your new car, or can only buy tires through the dealers…

Wha? You buy an Amazon Alexa and it only supports certain music services. Certain Bose speakers have Spotify integration https://www.spotify.com/uk/bose/ - how is this not the same?

It's your device that you bought, which quite clearly doesn't support the things you want, so why did you buy it?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#287

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

jorvi wrote: post #178

ubermonkey wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. >They should be FORCED to have an open platform, Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly conten…

> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. That's Apple's magic trick. They only own the top 20% of the market (evading monopoly attention) but they extract almost 100% of all profit in the smartphone market. No idea how you'd legislate against that though..

Their magic trick is creating products and services that people want to buy.

No one told Google to skimp on customer service and make 18 chat programs that don’t work. No one told Microsoft to drag their feet on preventing malware from destroying the usability of their system. It was Microsoft’s choice to profit from letting manufacturers sell computers riddled with malware that you had to spend hours to remove after buying. It’s google’s choice to not offer product support such that you can’t use their “flagship” devices for 5 years.

Apple invested in setting up their retail stores, training employees well, making their devices easy to use, and now they are reaping the rewards.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#288

Post by jdietrich » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

mediocrejoker wrote: post #253

jdietrich wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. Market share is not the only criteria for determining whether a company has a dominant market position under EU competition law. Apple have a substantial share of the mobile phone market and they have a total monopoly on iOS app distribution. If you want to sell apps to ~…

Why can't developers sell apps in the Android play store?

They can, but that doesn't stop Apple's behaviour from being anti-competitive and illegal under EU law. Apple only control a minority of the smartphone market, but they exert a stranglehold over that share and use that stranglehold to artificially disadvantage competitors.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#289

Post by nojvek » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #245

aclimatt wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You've misremembered the Microsoft ruling. It wasn't about Microsoft having control over computers running Windows - that alone does not a monopoly make. What made Microsoft a monopoly was that over 95% (can't remember the exact number) of all computers were running Windows. Apple's marketshare is nowhere close to that.

Also that was the 90s. Way more corporate money runs in the govt now so things like this are unlikely to ever happen.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#290

Post by usefulcat » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

ppeetteerr wrote: post #204

pjc50 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

They won't. Not only will this cut into Apple's take, but it will send a very negative message to all other service publishers.

Doesn't Spotify compete directly with Apple Music? In which case, wouldn't the message be "don't compete with us"?

Potential antitrust issues notwithstanding, it seems like such a message would be very much aligned with Apple's interests.