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

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#291

Post by AsyncAwait » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #246

AsyncAwait wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have some valid complaints, but "if we use Apple's payment infrastructure, we have to pay them a cut for doing so" isn't one of them. But Spotify doesn't want to use Apple's infrastructure and is compelled to do so regardless. Spotify is saying that if using Apple payment infrastructure was free, then not allowing other options would not be a problem, but since it's not free, not allowing anything else is a pr…

They are not compelled to use Apple as their payment processor. They are absolutely free to handle billing their customers on their own website and to turn off the ability to pay through their iOS app altogether. This is, in fact, exactly what Netflix has chosen to do with new users. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a... Nothing is stopping Spotify from doing the same thing with new and/or e…

Oh come on, why play dumb at the behest of a corporation? They ARE compelled to use Apple's payment platform on Apple devices, which is the problem and you know it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#292

Post by UpperBodyEimi » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

alex_duf wrote: post #284

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.

Is this in their ToS or is this just hearsay?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#293

Post by ilikehurdles » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

ppeetteerr wrote: post #198

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.

If we make this about phone sales, sure. If the market is mobile app purchases, Apple’s platform and store is absolutely the dominant player.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#294

Post by AlwaysRock » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

As Apple hardware sales decline they are desperately trying to build other services to make up for that lost revenue.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#295

Post by ringaroll » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

I really hope Apple dies and burns. They have good PR but thats it. They lie and deceit developers just like Google. Bait and Switch. There should be government regulation of Apple, Facebook and Google. These corps are just too big and control our democracy.

Apple is starving innovation by deliberately not supporting many thing on the Safari iOS browser and prevents competition illegally by restricting 3rd party browser engines.

Taking a 30% rent on purchases is blatant theft. More people need to speak out. #AppleRentSeeker

Because Apple is unable to increase revenues, it's now trying to increase by using uncompetitive tactics and illegal restriction of competition.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#296

Post by sirmike_ » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

Its been a super long time since I have looked into developing on the iOS side -- are there restrictions on Safari which would prevent Spotify from going to an all PWA type deployment for iOS and peacing out from the App Store? What would the API for Safari restrictions be to overcome? Thanks in advance.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#297

Post by dabernathy89 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

calcifer wrote: post #236

jackson1372 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Their timeline is a bit unclear. They claim that in 2015 and 2016, they were denied outright. In 2017 they say that "Apple continues to make it challenging for us to deliver a workable streaming solution for the Apple Watch". Then in 2018 they say that "Apple finally allows enhanced functionality for the Spotify app on the Apple Watch".

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#298

Post by tmsh » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:45 PM UTC

What will be the real innovation if the platforms are more open?

I'm looking forward to the Chrome dev tools and v8 that comes out of this.

Microsoft/IE antitrust led to a retraction in unhealthy Microsoft dominance (see IE6) and a rise in Firefox and eventually Chrome. Rise in Chrome led v8, node and better dev tooling (and by extension a richer JS ecosystem and maybe things like ClojureScript tangentially).

When the platforms monopolist/duopolists get retracted that will pave the way probably for more open source apps in the app stores and maybe a few other large corporations (like Google did for Chrome) dominating. Maybe better cross-platform tooling will come out of this? It's fun to think of what this will allow.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#299

Post by nevir » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:48 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…

Also: there were multiple ebook readers on the store at the time that were already selling books in-app. Several stopped development, others removed their in-app store.

I suspect we (Kindle) we're either the trigger for the in-app purchasing store, or really accelerated plans around it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#300

Post by matwood » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

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…

> - It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies

Interesting one since it is Spotify that is trying to close the currently open podcasting universe.

Let's not pretend that Spotify is either the white knight or the underdog here. This is two big companies negotiating over pricing.