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

391–400 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#391

Post by ajscanlan »

matwood wrote: post #300
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.

Well Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world, Spotify may not be a white knight but they're definitely an underdog.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#392

Post by jhasse »

supermatt wrote: post #389
jhasse wrote: post #359

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. Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple doesn't. It's as simple as that.

Apple has an absolute monopoly on its own platform. They are certainly complying with the laws in this regard, but the reality is that anti-competition laws need to change to deal with companies of this scale and reach.

> Apple has an absolute monopoly on its own platform.

It doesn't work that way. Otherwise I could also say that any company has a monopoly on "products with the company's name on it".

> the reality is that anti-competition laws need to change to deal with companies of this scale and reach.

Hm ... I really think that Facebook and Google are the bigger problems today. And a lot is happening there already (not so much in the US though).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#393

Post by ihuman »

mrkstu wrote: post #239
thomascgalvin wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They dropped it for video, but not audio?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#394

Post by dehrmann »

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.

Ex-spotifier here. It's most likely that they wanted to use functionality available to Apple Music, but not any other app.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#395

Post by Angostura »

volandovengo wrote: post #370
headmelted wrote: post #339

Utterly disagree. The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this arbitrarily in a way that at least appears to favour your own products over your rivals is an abuse of your position. If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely, given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously),…

For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that the US threatened heavily to break up the company. Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...

At that time Microsoft completely dominated desktop operating systems to the extent that it was an effective monopoly. It them attempted to leverage that position to try and squash other browser makers.

I agree that Apple is trying to squash Spotify, but I don't believe it doesn't have an effective monopoly on mobile phones.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#396

Post by GeekyBear »

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…

Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade to a premium account inside their iOS app last year.

You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple getting any cut at all.

https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip...

Netflix has done the same thing.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-...

In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#397

Post by briandear »

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.

It’s important to define exactly what is “anti-competitive.” If Apple banned Spotify or Deezer, that could be considered anti-competitive. But they aren’t. Netflix has original programming, is that anti-competitive? Don’t Netflix originals compete against non-Netflix shows for streaming revenue? Are there alternatives to Netflix? Yes. Are there alternatives to the App Store? Yes: Spotify could, for example be web-only if they wanted to. Spotify also could sell on macOS, Windows, Chrome, Android, and Linux. “Having an app” isn’t a particular right, but even a requirement for reaching users. Also, they don’t have to sell their subscriptions via in-app purchase; that can be done via web without paying Apple’s commission.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#398

Post by Jorge1o1 »

coldacid wrote: post #276
Architect0126 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Except that if I don't like one store, I can always go to another. That's the case with Android, and at least to an extent with Windows (even store apps can be distributed and installed by package if you don't want to use their store, plus classic Windows apps are still a thing). With iOS, it's Apple's way or no way at all. There's no competition.

>having to go and install by package

That’s the same as Microsoft saying you can go to Best Buy and pick up a copy of Netscape Navigator

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#399

Post by selectodude »

volandovengo wrote: post #370
headmelted wrote: post #339

Utterly disagree. The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this arbitrarily in a way that at least appears to favour your own products over your rivals is an abuse of your position. If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely, given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously),…

For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that the US threatened heavily to break up the company. Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...

Microsoft bundled IE for the express purpose of putting Netscape out of business and used their market power to kill netscape. It’s not illegal to be a monopoly, it’s illegal to abuse that monopoly position. Google can make Maps and chrome and whatever, but they can’t force Samsung to not bundle a competeing maps app.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#400

Post by supermatt »

ubermonkey wrote: post #133
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…

>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…

> Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly content with a single, curated-by-Apple app store for iOS. I like the stability it affords the platform.

And you should be able to choose that. But should you change your mind, you should be able to take your purchases with you and go elsewhere. Although apple is in the spotlight here, all of these vendor-locked app-stores are the problem.

Post reply on HN