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

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#461

Post by berbec » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #397

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-onl…

Microsoft got busted for undercutting Netscape with their own product in a way Netscape is incapable of competing with.

On the other hand, you say Apple is free and clear for undercutting Spotify with their own product in a way that Spotify is incapable of competing with.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#462

Post by dman » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

Someone - please commoditize mobile phone hardware. I want to be able to get a phone and assemble my on stack on it. Without any playstores / subscription services / location tracking / snooping built in.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#463

Post by chipotle_coyote » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

JangoSteve wrote: post #430

jetti wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Netscape Navigator was a paid application. Microsoft was bundling their product, which was free, with their OS. They OS was dominating the market, which meant that majority of people didn't have to buy from Netscape. They were forcing out the competition. When Apple, Google and Amazon are releasing unrelated services into their platforms it isn't to starve out competitors but just expand their…

> They aren't, as far as I know, drastically undercutting the prices of their services to levels that aren't sustainable for other companies to compete. The linked Spotify page says exactly the opposite. > Because Apple Music doesn’t have to pay the 30% IAP charge, they are able to hugely undercut us and charge €9.99. To our fans, this just looked like we were ripping you off

This particular part of the argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me, at least looking at the US pricing. Apple Music is $9.99 a month; Spotify Premium is $9.99 a month and includes Hulu. If not paying the IAP charge means Apple could "hugely undercut" Spotify, then shouldn't Apple Music be, well, cheaper? By at least 30%?

(N.B.: I'm not defending the specific 30% cut that Apple takes or any of their other demands, just going "hmm" at the bit you've quoted.)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#464

Post by rahoulb » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

opencl wrote: post #84

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.

Spotify did not squash the random guy that made that app, they asked him to change the name and then hired him to work on the official app.

That was "Spotty". There was another in November called Apollo that Spotify squashed.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#465

Post by jhasse » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

supermatt wrote: post #426

jhasse wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

I am talking about the actual definition of a monopoly, not that defined by antitrust laws, hence my second sentence about how the law (consumer law, anti-trust, or both) needs to change to prevent these walled gardens. I agree Facebook and google are also problems. Amazon too, likely others. They all have their walled gardens - and whats worse is when they "go to war" with each other, affecting the users tied to the…

> I am talking about the actual definition of a monopoly, not that defined by antitrust laws, hence my second sentence about how the law (consumer law, anti-trust, or both) needs to change to prevent these walled gardens.

I didn't mean that your definition of a monopoly is incorrect, but that you can't just narrow down the market until you find a monopoly. Because if you could, every company has a monopoly (which wouldn't make any sense).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#466

Post by joshstrange » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

dwighttk wrote: post #332

hokumguru wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something not mentioned anywhere in this thread either is the fact that, after 1 year, any subscription made through the app store goes from a 30% cut to 15% - what I would call much more manageable.

yeah... not mentioned on Spotify's timeline either. 2016

That's because they twisted the facts like crazy. They might have had a good argument before they got greedy.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#467

Post by monsieurdoc » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

Meanwhile, Spotify is still a rip-off for artists http://www.timetoplayfair.art

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#468

Post by writepub » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #457

Wow... Spotify had an opportunity to make a good case and then threw it all away because they got greedy. A company not providing you and API you want does not equate to them blocking you. FULL STOP. Spotify had some decent arguments (re: 30%, IAP, payment) but it fell 100% flat when they started giving equal importance to things that were not targeted at them. The lack of music API's on homepod, watch, iPhone are no…

The complaint is that Apple is withholding certain APIs from public access, though nothing technical prevents it from doing so, other than anti-trust issues. There is certainly truth to that! When Apple is both an app publisher, and API publisher, these anti trust issues are bound to pop up

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#469

Post by number_six » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #438

jonhohle wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bundled _while_ having a monopoly. They could have bundled or they could have had a monopoly, but doing both is where it crosses the anti-trust line since your customers are effectively captive. What does Apple have a monopoly on? What does Amazon have a monopoly on? Google arguably has a monopoly on search which could put them in an unfavorable position should an antitrust case be brought against them (maybe wh…

Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. Having a popular or high-quality product is not the same as having no competition. You can run an ecommerce business online entirely through instagram if you wanted to. Amazon theoretically is abusing it's market power by being selective about which products it sells in it's stores. When they removed competing AppleTV/Chromecast products from their own and seller lines, to pr…

Isn't that what Apple is doing in this case with Apple Music vs. Spotify?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#470

Post by AsyncAwait » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #334

AsyncAwait wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you notice the citation showing that Netflix is already doing the thing that you claim is impossible? Would you believe it after a citation showing that Spotify itself has already ditched Apple's payment system? >Spotify & Netflix Are Bypassing Apple's App Store Billing Charges Both companies are now driving new subscribers to pay directly, avoiding iTunes' 30% cut. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/847…

Nobody's claiming it's impossible. That's a strawman.

What Spotify is complaining about is that it is possible, but at a massive inconvenience to users, (having to manually type the payment url into safari etc that they need to find manually first), which makes it so that most just decide the burden is not worth the hassle. That's how anti competitive behavior manifests itself, usually. Technically, anything is possible, Spotify can develop an iPhone competitor and then ship the app there, but come on, we both know that's unrealistic.