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

551–560 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#551

Post by 8f7tjdsk9o8 »

demuch wrote: post #456

I just don't understand why most people think Apple don't have a monopoly market position. Of course Apple is the monopoly on the App Service market ([1] App store generated 93 more revenue than google play in Q3). We are talking about app service rather than the phone units sold. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/11/app-store-generated-93-mor...

It's one things to compare app sales from one market to another, but the broader issue is that Apple maintains a monopoly on the store itself. There is no Google Play store on iPhone.

And... listening to SCOTUS oral arguments recently, that sounds like it will be changing soon.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#552

Post by chairmanmow »

Spotify is a shady company that doesn't pay artists as well as Apple, it doesn't have a sustainable business model and now that they're public they're hiring PR firms to make timetoplayfair.com and spam HN because they're accountable to investors.

Spotify doesn't play fair with intellectual property, they were founded by a guy than ran an ad supported torrent company and got enough early market share to go public, but it's not sustainable. Now they expect less of a cut to gain market share because they didn't build something sustainable, unique or based upon a higher standard of ethics. No tears to be shed for this company's standard of fairness. Plus the product has other issues which I noted when I was a customer but were ignored as this company is simply interested in the bottom line; so I cancelled my account, which was not easy.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#553

Post by sinnoh »

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…

boy, that kind of "deep regulation" into UX design from a single arbitrary company should be illegal regardless.

people bought apple hardware and the operating system, not voted them the unilateral governing body on consumer choice in that platform. one should not be taken to imply the other.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#554

Post by GeekyBear »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #470
GeekyBear wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 possi…

>Spotify doesn't want to use Apple's infrastructure and is compelled to do so regardless

I believe I mentioned that not being allowed to provide a link to their payment website within their app was anticompetitive in my initial post?

However your assertion that Spotify is forced to use Apple's in app payment system is simply not true. Especially given the fact that they no longer use it at all for new users.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#555

Post by treis »

jdietrich wrote: post #515
treis wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's nothing wrong with providing an app store as long as that store offers fair and non-discriminatory terms to all vendors Setting aside the store issue for a moment, what you suggest is impossible if Apple is also making apps.

>Setting aside the store issue for a moment, what you suggest is impossible if Apple is also making apps. No, it's very easy to implement and commonplace in all sorts of businesses. Apple need to treat their in-house app development teams in exactly the same way as they would treat a third-party developer - they get the same APIs, they get the same documentation, they go through the same approvals process and they pa…

>No, it's very easy to implement and commonplace in all sorts of businesses.

Can you provide a software example?

> Apple need to treat their in-house app development teams in exactly the same way as they would treat a third-party developer - they get the same APIs, they get the same documentation, they go through the same approvals process and they pay the same fees.

Nobody should believe that a company paying fees to itself will change its behavior. The app development team would still act in Apple's overall best interest and not seek to maximize its own profits.

Even if we somehow accept that there is a real divide, it's still not equal footing. Say that Apple Music and Spotify both have $0.75 in expenses for every $1 they charge on app store. After the 30% cut, both would have loses of $0.05 per dollar of revenue. For Apple, that's a fictitious loss and their actual cash flow is a positive $0.25. For Spotify, that $0.05 represents an actual nickle they have to give someone else. Apple can continue on doing that indefinitely while Spotify can't.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#556

Post by mortenjorck »

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…

This has very little to do with monopolies and much more to do with enforcement.

The most persistent misconception about antitrust regulation in the US, and one repeated over and over on HN and in this thread, is that it only applies to businesses in a monopoly position. While the original Sherman Act of 1890 explicitly targeted monopolies, the 1914 Clayton Act expanded its scope to encompass a range of anticompetitive practices, including predatory pricing. [1]

A market actor need not be a monopoly to engage in these behaviors, only a dominant position that they are abusing.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.a...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#557

Post by judge2020 »

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…

While the Apple Tax is a problem of its own, I would hate for Apple to allow downloading apps through websites. A large part of iOS security is that everything has to be co-signed by Apple unless it's an Enterprise distribution app [1], so even if there is an exploit that breaks out of the app sandbox you don't have to worry about malicious websites drive-by downloading it.

1: they're likely refining the process of obtaining one of these certs after the recent news reports on business fraud

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#558

Post by frosted-flakes »

PunksATawnyFill wrote: post #547
bilbo0s wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I don't even see why Apple needs a reason. As has been noted, they don't have a monopoly, and it IS their app store. I don't see why they can't just openly reject competing apps. If I'm running a doughnut shop where I sell my own doughnuts, I can let another vendor come in and sell coffee but turn away a competing doughnut maker. Now... that doesn't mean that Apple aren't jagoffs in this matter. I'm sure they have bu…

But Apple also sells phones, and selling music is just a side job. A better analogy is if you own the fairgrounds and an unlimited amount of booths that you to rent to food vendors, and you also sell doughnuts alongside the other vendors. But you don't let a competing doughnut vendor rent one of your booths. Is that anti-competitive? I don't know.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#560

Post by will_brown »

rifung wrote: post #548
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...

I work for Google, opinions are my own. I believe this is because previously antitrust law was used when things were bad for competition but nowadays the thinking is more that antitrust laws should be used when things cause higher prices. https://qz.com/work/1460402/google-facebook-and-amazon-benef... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/lina-kh...

>nowadays the thinking is more that antitrust laws should be used when things cause higher prices.

That’s exactly what is happening...Spotify can offer price $x to their customers but Apple’s rules are forcing the price to be $x + 30% Apple Tax. Spotify has articulated numerous acts Apple has taken to ensure Spotify can’t circumvent the Apple Tax...Apple coming out with a competing App and being able to charge $x sans their own tax is just the icing on the anticompetitive cake.

This is one of the biggest issues with Google as well...where company was advertising on Google for $x, once google uses its position to determine they want to compete Google starts competing with their own customers for the same ads jacking up the ad pricing.

This basically ensures both Apple and Google can use their dominate market position and platforms to determine markets, market prices, and then unfairly compete with the market incumbents by offering the original $x price without the google/Apple Tax. There is no leaving the Apple/Google platforms at that point or you are basically waiving the white flag and telling your customers to go over to the Apple/Google product.

Post reply on HN