Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

Post by Kesty » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

blackflame7000 wrote: post #354

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…

"Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple?" - That is exactly what Spotify should do. They need to use the fact that Apple is married to its platform against them. Charge Apple users 12.99 and Android users 9.99 and then beat them by offering superior content. If Apple users want to sign up online then they can get the 9.99 price.

Post by freehunter » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

coldacid wrote: post #365

ppeetteerr wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then use an Android device. No one is holding you down

As a developer, tell that to the users. Speaking of which, even just developing for iOS is a painful chore compared to Android. Unfortunately when the client and the users want iPhones, folks like us have to develop for them. In this world, it's fuck or walk.

Post by kolbe » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

5trokerac3 wrote: post #64

georgespencer wrote: post #44

Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here? Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies). Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow i…

The difference comes in when Apple introduced Apple Music, a direct competitor to Spotify. So now, they're not only offering an essentially identical service, they're extracting a toll from their competition through their other holdings. To put this in 19th century anti-trust terms, the manufacturing company owns the railways and charges the competition a toll to transport their goods. It's a clear cut case for Spoti…

Post by wool_gather » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #361

shams93 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But you needn't pay through the App Store to use that app (I have Spotify Premium and pay directly, and use the iOS app just fine)

Post by jetti » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

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...