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

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#531

Post by sinnoh » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

berbec wrote: post #481

supernova87a wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says? Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing. Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to…

I was about to argue with this and rage against Apple, but then I remembered a very similar situation everyone deals with and no one complains about: Supermarket Generics. "How is it fair for Price Chopper to undercut Rice Crispies with a similar, cheaper product?" no on says this...

because people have had a longer amount of time to understand food. hang in there, my friend :)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#532

Post by ac29 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

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 Premium is $9.99 a month and includes Hulu

That's a very recent promotion (like, this week), and is the Hulu plan with ads [0], which has a marginal value of $0 or less in my opinion.

[0] https://www.spotify.com/us/hulu/

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#533

Post by gigatexal » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

Try telling the IRS you think their tax rates are too high. Apple owns the sandbox with the most valuable customers and if you want to play in it you gotta pay. Personally I love letting Apple handle my subscriptions and subscribing through iTunes is one of the things it does well.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#534

Post by treis » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

Architect0126 wrote: post #264

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

Isn't that like saying a store has a monopoly over their shelves?

A better way to put it is that Apple has a monopoly on selling apps to iOS owners. So yes, Walmart and Apple can both have a monopoly on their "shelves", but Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on their customers. Their customers also shop at grocery stores, Best Buy, online, etc. If I don't agree with Walmart's terms my potential customers can still buy my product at any of these other stores.

The other issue here is using dominance in one market to expand into another. Walmart may sell their own branded stuff, but even then they're still a retailer buying and selling things. Compare that with Apple where building phones and selling online music subscriptions are different markets.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#535

Post by miloignis » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

berbec wrote: post #503

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. Gro…

I think the fact that Apple prevented them from using payment methods that didn't go through them makes it significantly worse though - to carry the analogy (perhaps to far) the grocery store prevents the packaging of the products it carries from mentioning the website where you can order other products or something.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#536

Post by giovannibajo1 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

elagost wrote: post #282

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…

My dad has had iPads since the first one, and it is still jarring for him to not be able to just click a "store" button in the Kindle app. (I believe it used to have a webview for the store built-in; I do not use the Kindle app) He was very confused when it disappeared. I imagine most users feel this way. I had to coach my mom to sign up for Pandora on the website so she saved a couple bucks a month, and it was baffl…

Agreed. I am very aware of Apple policies on this regard and anything discussed in this thread, but still two weeks ago I wandered around in the Amazon app looking for 10 minutes on how to buy a book in Kindle version... then I realized I had to switch to Safari for that.

This is confusing for users.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#537

Post by Splendor » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

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…

I'll feel sorry for Kindle when their devices support EPUB files.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#538

Post by johnnycab » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

This is part of a bigger war to maximise the duopoly of music and video streaming, perhaps analogous to the triple/quad play in telecoms.

It seems that Spotify's latest salvo is timed to capitalise on the rumoured event[1] and maybe even influenced by previous decision by Netflix to breakaway[2] from the two main revenue generating platforms (Android & iOS). Whether or not it will be beneficial to their business model(s) long term - only time will tell.

Apple needs a new goose and a contender in the ring to keep institutional investors happy, at least until a new market strategy[3] is cemented and next round of R&D, technological advancements, tooling etc. take effect and come to fruition; especially considering the recent battery recalls[4] and lower than expected demand for flagship products, So, I would assume they have carried out some due diligence to avoid any punitive measures by the EU or invite excessive regulation.

Nonetheless, it might turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for Spotify, despite a ruling in favour of an app with some clout in a dominant ecosystem. For example, Amazon has decided to fight[5] Google/Apple on many occasions, with no obvious benefits. Microsoft has largely capitulated to Amazon & Google on some of their efforts e.g. Cortana v Alexa, Edge v Chrome..

[1]https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-streaming-servic...

[2]https://bgr.com/2018/08/23/netflix-subscription-payment-chan...

[3]https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-must-reverse-angela-ah...

[4]https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/2/18165866/apple-iphone-sale...

[5]https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16371292/google-youtube-a...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#539

Post by jdietrich » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #375

jdietrich wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's an interesting philosophical question there. Can a vendor who has 15% marketshare really be called a monopoly? Philosophically interesting perhaps, but legally irrelevant. EU competition law is primarily concerned with dominant market positions and the abuse of that dominance. As the junior partner in a duopoly, Apple are inarguably powerful enough to substantially manipulate the market. https://en.wikipedi…

The EU competition commission would be very unlikely to place restrictions on allowable behavior until you reach a 40% market share. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_102_en.... 40% share is certainly a much lower bar than in the US, but would still not apply to Apple's share of EU smartphones. Smart watches, on the other hand…

40% share is a general principle, but it isn't absolute. Apple have a ~27% market share for smartphone sales, but they have a considerably larger share of the overall mobile app market and the App Store obviously has a 100% monopoly on iOS apps. They're in an effective duopoly with Google, which considerably reduces the competitiveness of the market and therefore the threshold for market dominance. It's also worth bearing in mind the serious concerns within the EU about the hegemony of major tech companies.

From your source:

>The Commission also takes other factors into account in its assessment of dominance, including the ease with which other companies can enter the market – whether there are any barriers to this; the existence of countervailing buyer power; the overall size and strength of the company and its resources and the extent to which it is present at several levels of the supply chain (vertical integration).

Apple clearly score very highly on most of these points.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#540

Post by latexr » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

> I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%.

And then every PAID app will switch to FREE and charge for PRO, to circumvent the 30%. Oh, Apple complained it’s not technically a microtransaction? Fine, just separate every feature into a new purchase.

> If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure website from the vendor

If the vendor server is compromised or is down, a download from the App Store won’t work for a single app, leaving customers confused and complaining to Apple, who can’t fix the issue.