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

311–320 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#311

Post by code_sloth »

usaphp wrote: post #277
jdietrich wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple have a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps, so they are required to offer fair terms to all app vendors, including themselves. Apple could charge themselves the 30% App Store fee for Apple Music, demonstrating that the App Store is a fair marketplace that doesn't artificially advantage Apple's own services. It would then be incumbent on Apple to prove that Apple Music is priced fairly, rather than being de…

NYT Newspaper also has a monopoly on distribution of ads on NYT pages, so should they charge themselves to put their own ads?

Yes. So costs of putting up an ad are reflected in the relevant departments. Large corps do this all the time, transferring money from the left pocket to their right pocket.

It's somewhat similar to net neutrality proposals. AT&T doesn't have a monopoly as an ISP. However, if AT&T starts/acquires a video streaming service, they should not give unfair advantages to their own service because they want to compete with Netflix.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#312

Post by thekyle »

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.

According to the website, the debate is that Apple does not currently allow apps to do what you are describing.

A few quotes from the timeline:

> Apple now prohibits buttons or links to any other external ways to pay.

> While we haven’t been able to include any buttons or external links to pages containing product info, discounts, promotions, etc. (even if they don’t link directly to a payment system!) since Feb. 2011

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#313

Post by cujo »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #15
cujo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch I'm not sure this is 100% true. From browsing the spotify support forums many moons ago, some guy had built a spotify playing app for the apple watch, but spotify squashed it. Given that some random dev could do this, it doesn't seem like apple prevented anything.

Counterargument: Apple's review process is more likely to let "some guy's" app slip through the cracks and make it in the App Store than the official app of one of its huge competitors with an install base of many, many, many millions of devices.

Perhaps. No one has any evidence of this in this case though, so it sounds like you're just taking a side.

On the other hand Spotify did squash this guy's app. That's a thing that happened. So it's not like the APIs aren't there.

So now we're taking Spotify's word that Apple is keeping them off the app store, while ignoring the fact that said app is possible and they themselves have kept an app off the app store.

Sounds like PR bullshit all around.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#314

Post by mediocrejoker »

jdietrich wrote: post #288
mediocrejoker wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not a lawyer (and it seems the law may differ significantly between the US and Europe) but I think all companies want to disadvantage their competitors, so whether or not this is illegal really hinges on the definition of artificial.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#315

Post by ric2b »

usefulcat wrote: post #290
ppeetteerr wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since Apple Music only appeared years later the message would be closer to "Hope you never get enough success for us to compete with you".

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#316

Post by ovao »

jdietrich wrote: post #186
Grustaf wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like demanding newpapers pay full price for ad space on their own pages. Just absurd. What does it even mean, Apple owns Apple Music.

Apple have a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps, so they are required to offer fair terms to all app vendors, including themselves. Apple could charge themselves the 30% App Store fee for Apple Music, demonstrating that the App Store is a fair marketplace that doesn't artificially advantage Apple's own services. It would then be incumbent on Apple to prove that Apple Music is priced fairly, rather than being de…

What does it mean for one company to “charge oneself”? If Apple Music isn’t a separate legal entity, it means invoicing oneself without any monetary transfer. Which is frankly just ledger masturbation.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#317

Post by gumby »

mcrae wrote: post #242
gumby wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribes to Spotify through Apple devices. Can you even subscribe through the app? Spotify could simply yell you so go to your web browser to subscribe. That’s what Amazon does for its video etc and it doesn’t seem to cause them any problems. I subscribed to Spotify via their web site and it works fine on my phone. I’m sure they pay not…

In the article, it mentions several times that Apple has rejected apps for linking to the web page to upgrade, or for even mentioning it is possible to upgrade (when IAP is not enabled).

The article says so but I just tried to watch a video on iOS amazon video and it tells me to “Buy through the Amazon website or on your TV”. So I’m sure Spotify could say the same.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#320

Post by nradov »

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…

Microsoft only got in trouble because they originally sold Internet Explorer as a separate product in retail stores. Then when Netscape Navigator became popular, Microsoft responded by bundling IE into Windows for no additional charge. If MS had never released IE separately but instead just made it an OS feature from the start they would have had a more defensible position.
Post reply on HN