Side note but talking about their users/customers as "our fans" is super strange.
Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
521–530 of 865 posts
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just looking for this in the App Store review guidelines and I couldn't find it. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
How can they insist anything at all about pricing on another platforms? Even if somehow it was possible, what a about discounts; are you saying app sellers cannot have platform specific discounts? What about region sensitive pricing (I know about it on Steam where the same item is much cheaper in Bangladesh than it is in the USA, no reson why Play Store can't do it).
Seriously, I thought I had a handle on the worst apple's done and this surprised me.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple? Apple shrugs and bans Spotify. Next move?
Then more users switch to Android. iPhone marketshare is flat. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-2...
incorrect.
phone choices are inelastic. users do not drop phones and switch to a competing platform because they cannot install an app, it's the other way around. besides, with that logic you have no guarantee against ALL platforms becoming locked down (as they more or less have) to compete.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Well the fact is that they can’t so long as Apple is manipulating their platform but they can encourage people to leave the Apple platform which is far more devastating to Apple than losing music subscribers
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#525Earlier 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…
"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 vertica…
The law will not see a company as having a monopoly just because they have a monopoly on their product. (Especially when that product has a minority market position.)
Now there is a completely separate question of unfair competition, but this has to be answered on an App by App basis. Does Apple have an app that provides the service in question? Does Apple disallow competing apps which provide that same service? Is there a compelling reason for the prohibition (Security, physical safety, etc.)?
There's an awful lot that goes into those questions. That said, it seems to me that if Apple is prohibiting spotify from being on its devices, this could be unfair competition. I don't really see any issue of safety with spotify. (I don't use it though, so if there is some safety or security issue with it, I'll freely admit I'm wrong.)
Then, of course, the issue of the tax. That's a non-starter. Apple, actually any company, is allowed to charge for services rendered. They can't be compelled to provide app store and ecommerce services at no cost.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify. As they mention on the website. That's not true. It's not 30% for Uber or Deliveroo. And most importantly, it's not 30% for Apple Music.
And most importantly, it's not 30% for Apple Music. What do you mean it isn't? Apple Store could trivially take a 30% cut of the Apple Music revenue, and the only thing that would change would be the distribution of revenue between Apple Music and Apple Store in Apple's revenue reports. The total revenue would be the same.
Exactly, but Apple can run their streaming service as a loss leader because they still get to book the 30% revenue on the store side. Spotify can't recoup that 30%.
This effectively gives Apple an extra 30% margin for their streaming music service.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
no one is arguing it has a monopoly on mobile phones, the argument is and has always been that they have a monopoly on the ios software ecosystem they've built.
Yes, but from an anti-trust perspective, 'a monopoly on this thing I built' isn't an issue - arguably every company has a monopoly on that. It becomes an issue if 'this thing I built' captures an overwhelming economic sector, to the extent that consumers have no choice. Currently consumers do have a choice - and more chose Android than Apple.
At what point would the already multi-billion dollar iPhone market become an "overwhelming economic sector" on its own in your opinion?
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple? Apple shrugs and bans Spotify. Next move?
They won't. Not only will this cut into Apple's take, but it will send a very negative message to all other service publishers.
it has been "this will" and not "this does" for the better part of a decade, I think it's time for people to realize that theory and practice are two very different things and the first does not vindicate the second.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then more users switch to Android. iPhone marketshare is flat. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-2...
incorrect. phone choices are inelastic. users do not drop phones and switch to a competing platform because they cannot install an app, it's the other way around. besides, with that logic you have no guarantee against ALL platforms becoming locked down (as they more or less have) to compete.
> users do not drop phones and switch to a competing platform because they cannot install an app
Well, it wasn't just an app, but that was a pretty big reason (though not the only one) for my dropping iOS.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#530I 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…
Legislating consumer right to root and sideload is even better solution.
they'll argue that they already have this while blissfully ignoring the fact that they've made its barrier to entry on their platform artificially high.