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

501–510 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#501

Post by sinnoh »

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.

it theoretically would be fine to dev for apple, if they added proper progressive web app support (or gave users the tools to build this out themselves) but of course that would hurt their interests by introducing competing (even if inferior) software distribution methods to the native effectively walled garden monopoly they have now.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#502

Post by lifekaizen »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #463
JangoSteve wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Spotify is saying they had to increase the price to $13 to sell on the store. This price was not popular so they left the store to maintain the $10 price across the board. This was back in 2016, not what is offered now.

> 2014 June > So, we give IAP a try. That means we are now charged Apple's 30% tax and sadly have to increase our price for our fans... to €12.99 a month.

> 2015 June > 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

> 2016 May > We opt out of Apple's payment system and the artificially uncompetitive price we had to charge for using it

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#503

Post by berbec »

I hate to say this, but one of my main gripes against Apple - the unfair advantage they have in pricing by not having to "pay themselves" 30% - has lost some strength in my mind.

Every grocery store takes a cut of every item sold on the store. The store owner determines the percentage. Just like Apple. Grocery stores make similar/nearly identical products to the third-party merchandise they sell. Just like Apple. Grocery stores can routinely undercut the pricing of third-parties due to not needing to "pay themselves". Just like Apple.

Damn. I really wanted to hate EvilBigTech for this.

The rest of Spotify's points I have no issue, but this one doesn't hold as much water for me anymore.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#504

Post by cbhl »

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...

The problem is that Apple isn't the leader, by market share, in cell phones. That would be Android.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#505

Post by sinnoh »

freehunter wrote: post #413
coldacid wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you run a business and then complain about where your customers prefer to buy your products... you're literally complaining about the fact that you have paying customers. You're free to not support the people who keep you in business but they're then also free to not keep you in business anymore. You might be in the wrong business.

as long as apple gets their 100/dev/year + 30%, that is.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#506

Post by ErikHuisman »

nikofeyn wrote: post #474
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…

> 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…

The term monopoly should be well defined. If you apply that definition to the real world situation and ask yourself the question "What does Apple have a monopoly on?". How is that "dangerous thinking"?

You can argue the term isn't well defined or you can disagree with the definition. But you can't say it is "dangerous thinking" when someone simply applies the definition.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#507

Post by coldacid »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #500
coldacid wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a developer, you should be listening to your users, not telling them what to use. Also, iOS is a treat to build on. Not sure what your source on that is, but they don't have the device and OS fragmentation of Android, to say the least.

My source is me, having to develop and manage a cross-platform mobile app (Android and iOS). Doing anything with the latter platform is an uphill struggle, from the platform itself to publishing the app. On the other hand, working with Android is pretty smooth despite the fragmentation; most issues with it are purely visual and easily fixed.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#508

Post by y7 »

I'm glad that Spotify is taking this stance. Apple and Google Play together have an effective monopoly on the mobile device app market, which is worth about 70 bln USD per year. Cost of entry and network effects make it essentially impossible to have new competing app stores, so barring new regulations the market will remain as un-free as it is. It's therefore about time for regulators to step in if we want to promote innovation in the app market that doesn't necessary align with the self-interests of Apple and Google, so I'm glad a relatively well-known company such as Spotify is pushing for this.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#509

Post by hbosch »

mastercheif wrote: post #81
hbosch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which streaming service plays the most fair?

Napster, Tidal, then Apple Music. Source: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming-music-...

I remember a (deleted) tweet from the rapper Nipsey Hussle where he posted his payout breakdown. It's been reblogged since deletion and is preserved:

>ATTENTION EVERYONE: > >1 Million Streams on YouTube = $690 > >1 Million Streams on Spotify = $4,370 > >1 Million Streams on Apple Music = $7,350 > >1 Million Streams on @Tidal = $12,500 > >1 Million Streams on Amazon Music = $4,020 > >Don’t shoot the messenger. >Jus Sign up 4 @tidal > >— THA GREAT (@NipseyHussle) January 15, 2018

The only thing about payout $ is that you have to take into account how many streams you actually get on each service. Are we to believe that Tidal's payouts would stay they same if they had Spotify's much greater listenership? Or Apple for that matter? Streaming services pay the rates charged to them by the record companies based on myriad listenership demographics.

I believe the labels are charging the services, and those labels pay the artist. Am I wrong on that? The labels set the price to be paid, don't they?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#510

Post by sinnoh »

bunderbunder wrote: post #223
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.

There's an interesting philosophical question there. Can a vendor who has 15% marketshare really be called a monopoly? Sure, they have complete control over who publishes on their own platform, but that sort of thing happens all the time without anyone batting an eyelash at it: The major console vendors do this, as did all cell phone vendors in the pre-smartphone era. My digital camera does this. That leaves me think…

you're comparing different markets. that's like saying Earth has 1/8th the marketshare on planets therefore nothing that happens here can be called monopolistic.
Post reply on HN