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

571–580 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#571

Post by brmgb »

freehunter wrote: post #436
brmgb wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? They've made the hardware. Why should they have to let Spotify run on it in the exact way Spotify wants? (You can Airplay Spotify to Homepod.) I perfectly understand why Apple would be as anti-competitive as they can away with on their plateform. It benefits them tremendously. What I don't understand is why some comsumers, who are definitely loosing from the situation - even if you prefer the Apple solution co…

>who are definitely losing from the situation Maybe you haven't considered that some consumers don't feel like they're losing from the situation. Maybe some consumers feel like they are winning because Apple's interests align with their own, and the interests of Apple's competitors are not aligned with their own? I like having an app store I can trust to not have malware, I like knowing the apps I download have had a…

> I like having an app store I can trust to not have malware, I like knowing the apps I download have had a human review them for quality. I like having hardware with an OS where the developer of the OS controls when I get updates, not a carrier or manufacturer who are not affiliated with the developer. I like getting security and feature updates for my OS for 5 years. I like paying the developer of my software so the developer has a profit structure that doesn't necessitate spying on me. I like knowing that every piece of software pre-packaged on my device was put there by the developer of the OS with their explicit approval, and not sold to the highest bidder. I like knowing that the software on my phone is exactly how the developer planned it, and not modified by an unaffiliated device manufacturer to the point where multiple websites exist for the sole purpose of creating ROMs that mimic the developer's intended software, necessitating that I now either trust the unaffiliated hardware manufacturer or trust some random person on the Internet to deliver me a clean ROM.

And none of that has anything to do with what we are discussing. Apple could still do all this thing while allowing more competition on the plateform. For example could you explain to me how allowing apps competing with the system ones or allowing other streaming service to cast and use the watch would prevent any of what you listed ?

It is not an either/or situation between two opposite situations. There are plenty of inbetween possibilities.

> feel like they are winning because Apple's interests align with their own

Apple interests is selling you phone and apps so they can make money. Unless you are a stockholder, I don't see how their interests can align with yours. Unless you take pleasure in paying more, you are clearly losing from the situation.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#572

Post by tokyodude »

RandallBrown wrote: post #402
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…

The Kindle iPhone app still doesn't even link you to the website so you can buy books does it? It only looks like I can add it to a "list" that I assume I can view in the browser and then purchase.

Apps are not allowed to link the website for purchasing. That's one of Apple's rules.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...

> Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#573

Post by nikofeyn »

ErikHuisman wrote: post #506
nikofeyn wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

i thought it was clear what i considered dangerous thinking, that is the assumption that apple doesn't have a monopoly in the strict sense of controlling a certain commodity or market and thus no one needs to worry about their behavior with regards to competitive or anti-competitive practices. the implication in the comment i replied to was that apple doesn't have a monopoly according to its definition and thus there's no need to worry or consider anti-trust things. that is dangerous thinking because there is more to worry about with today's mega-companies than the strict definition of a monopoly. it is this dangerous thinking that has allowed them and these other larger companies to exert major influence on markets, economies, competitors, suppliers, policies, and governments.

> But you can't say it is "dangerous thinking" when someone simply applies the definition.

yes i can.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#575

Post by CraneWorm »

RandallBrown wrote: post #402
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…

The Kindle iPhone app still doesn't even link you to the website so you can buy books does it? It only looks like I can add it to a "list" that I assume I can view in the browser and then purchase.

Now I have this wild supposition that every time I see an

button it is so that Apple won't fall on you like a ton of bricks for suggesting I can buy things outside their store.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#576

Post by nikofeyn »

bilbo0s wrote: post #499
nikofeyn wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> but their influence on businesses, markets, policies, etc. is massive and is basically indistinguishable from a market monopoly... That won't hold up well in a court of law. That's the problem, we need to change the law. Because the law as it is currently written, just doesn't see something like Apple as anything close to a monopoly.

i wasn't necessarily making a legal argument, but i agree with you. our government has stopped caring about corporate influence because they benefit from it while it hurts society as a whole.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#577

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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…

MS also had a monopoly position on notepad.exe by bundling it without any choice. No enforcement there.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#578

Post by ac29 »

treis wrote: post #534
Architect0126 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

This is a good point -- the friction in switching from shopping at Walmart to shopping at Target, for example is pretty low (provided both exist in you local area).

The friction of switching from iPhone to Android is high for most people: purchasing an iPhone quality Android device and repurchasing apps could easily exceed $1000.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#579

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

mschuster91 wrote: post #427
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is not dominant in the hardware market in the same way IE was. Nowhere near.

For those who have significant sums invested in the App Store, they are effectively dominant as there is no way to switch app licenses to a different app store.

Sure, but the rules are _reasonably_ unambiguous and unchanging. The 30% cut has been in place since day one. If Spotify didn't like it, they had the choice to focus their attentions exclusively on other platforms. That wasn't the case with Windows+IE, when effectively there were no other platforms of any size.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#580

Post by dalore »

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…

What they need to do is split off the new competing services into a walled corporation (even new entity). And they play fair by the rules, so 30% tax even to them.
Post reply on HN