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

471–480 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#471

Post by sinnoh »

jonhohle wrote: post #429
volandovengo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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…

"their" platform. nominally you can install whatever you want using profiles, but effectively having to do so is an artificially high barrier to entry for competing app stores (not to mention you have to pay apple $100/year for the 'privilege' of installing whatever you want on your own device for a year. no way to do so permanently.)

the degree to which apple has singlemindedly anticompetitively abused their vertical integration frankly astonishes me. the breaking point for me was opening the music app on the at the time 'latest' ios to be presented with a full page ad for apple music.

utter garbage and I hope they get what's coming to them before they have a chance to worm out of it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#472

Post by rahoulb »

gerardnll wrote: post #130
0xCMP wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a random guy can make the app then Spotify could certainly have made an Apple Watch app. If anything it makes the case that if it were so simple for a single random dev that unless Apple itself were preventing it there is no reason the app wouldn't have been released.

For god sake, it's about policy not tech inability! You don't even need to read the website to know that. WatchOS has APIs like iOS, it's not a matter of being 'hard' to program. It's because if you're nobody, the spotlight is not on you every step you take. But Spotify being your competitor is being close watched.

But it was Spotify that asked the random guy to take the app down. If anything I would have thought it would be in Spotify's interests to keep it up - "look it's possible, but Apple isn't allowing us"

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#473

Post by number_six »

Angostura wrote: post #395
volandovengo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't their argument about the Apple Store and being able to put their product into the Apple Ecosystem? I didn't read any of it as saying they have a monopoly on phones.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#474

Post by nikofeyn »

jonhohle wrote: post #429
volandovengo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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…

> What does Apple have a monopoly on?

i feel this is dangerous thinking. maybe apple doesn't have a monopoly on a particular market in terms of market share, but their influence on businesses, markets, policies, etc. is massive and is basically indistinguishable from a market monopoly. with their amount of money and position in the market, they have near limitless influence on other companies and ways of abusing this influence to act in their favor. they've done it many, many times, and continue to do it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#475

Post by berbec »

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.

How does Spotify do this and remain competitive with Apple's $9.99 offering. The offering Apple can make because they don't have to pay themselves a 30% cut.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#476

Post by joshstrange »

writepub wrote: post #468
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

> The complaint is that Apple is withholding certain APIs from public access, though nothing technical prevents it from doing so

And once Spotify proves that then maybe we can have a discussion. There is no data to support that claim. I can think of a number of reasons why they weren't ready to provide audio API's like battery reasons. Also Apple has released audio API's both before Apple Music (iPhone) and after (Watch). Spotify is just mad they didn't get them sooner.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#477

Post by sinnoh »

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…

really the entire concept of a 'store' has been bastardized by these companies (another thing we can thank apple for) and is a misdirect.

the locked down software platforms wherein users can't install anything on their own devices without the owning company's say-so is the artificial monopoly. they're trying to get away with adding things like device management now to weasel out of it but in reality these are artificially high barriers to entry for any competing software distribution services or 'stores'.

when Amazon can barely even get a foothold in a competing ecosystem with its own 'app store' you know it's anticompetitive and it's working.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#478

Post by debt »

username3 wrote: post #459
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…

Apple doesn’t always get 30%. You can buy iTunes gift cards 20% off. Amazon can take 90% by selling iTunes gift cards used to buy through App Store.

I don't get this. Can you elaborate? So you're saying because I bought an iTunes gift card that was $100 for $80, Apple will only ever get $10 of my actual dollars if I spend all $100? This is an interesting hack.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#479

Post by Bud »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #390
bdcravens wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify seems to focus on IAP, but if you purchased Spotify Premium outside of IAP, it works just fine with that app.

But how would you know Spotify Premium even exists if Spotify is prohibited by Apple to make any mention of it?

Jesus. It's 2019. This isn't that hard. Is iOS the only way a user can discover facts about the universe?

Spotify can do this thing called "advertising". Look into it.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#480

Post by rahoulb »

mediocrejoker wrote: post #233
rorykoehler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a platform if it doesn't support 3rd party businesses?

Who gets to define the term platform? I think this is just arguing semantics.

I think that's precisely the point.

If the Apple Watch and WatchOS is a device then I expect it to only contain Apple software.

If the Apple Watch and WatchOS is a platform then I expect to be able to install 3rd party software on it.

The real question is how much feature-parity should 3rd parties expect when developing on another company's platform?

Post reply on HN