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

591–600 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#591

Post by herf »

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…

>What does Apple have a monopoly on?

This argument is so prevalent, but it needs to be unpacked: would most iPhone customers buy a totally different phone only to run an app that Apple doesn't allow? Whether or not someone can switch phones isn't really the issue, but whether or not the phone has replaced general-purpose computing and access to the entire software industry is the issue.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#592

Post by rubicon33 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #396
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…

Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade to a premium account inside their iOS app last year. You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple getting any cut at all. https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip... Netflix has done the same thing. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-... In my book, the problem is that…

> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app.

This is especially damaging to small companies. Most people have heard of Spotify, Netflix, Pandora, etc. So it's somewhat natural for them (if not a bit akward) to go to the website if they can't get premium in the app.

But for small companies that connection isn't immediately obvious. In my company for instance, we aren't allowed to put ANY reference to our website in the app (as it relates to purchasing premium). As a result when a user signs up, my only option is IAP. I cannot just assume they will naturally go to the website.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#593

Post by sixstringtheory »

ac29 wrote: post #578
treis wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is like saying I’d like to have a Dodge Viper engine dropped into my Subaru Outback to get more HP, but that’s not the way things work. If I want Viper HP, I need to buy a Viper (or do the mods myself and accept the outcomes, ie jailbreaking)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#594

Post by badatshipping »

Apple owns their platform. It cost a fortune to develop, and it's theirs.

Imagine it's the 1800s and you wanted to develop technology to let anyone listen to music anytime. You'd have to invent the computer, an operating system, and the internet (some means of distribution), then invent Spotify. (Or maybe not all those things in their entirety, but just enough to support the Spotify's functionality.)

Since it's 2019, there are platforms that provide the operating system and means of distribution, and Spotify merely has to deliver an app that floats in high-level-land. They then complain that that platform, who did all the work Spotify didn't have to, isn't being "fair." What does that mean? What are they rightfully owed?

Why doesn't Spotify create their own OS and App Store, and develop/distribute Spotify there? Because it's inconceivably hard? Surely that's why the people who did it get to set the rules.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#595

Post by duhi88 »

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…

Making micro-transactions more profitable would be an unfortunate course of action. There are enough of those apps in the store, and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime.

Subscriptions for apps should be different, but I see a challenge in drawing the line between Spotify/Netflix and a scam app like "awesome culculator" that charges $5/mo to people who don'didn't realize it was a subscription (there was an article on HN this week about apps like that, targeting kids and the elderly, of course).

If Apple has a stipulation about requiring a website, then maybe subscription-based apps can get a discount on the 30% fee if they also have a web or desktop-based version of their application that provides comparable functionality and takes payments.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#596

Post by peruvian »

jorvi wrote: post #178
ubermonkey wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. >They should be FORCED to have an open platform, Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly conten…

> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. That's Apple's magic trick. They only own the top 20% of the market (evading monopoly attention) but they extract almost 100% of all profit in the smartphone market. No idea how you'd legislate against that though..

There's no trick - just Apple being better at this than the competition.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#597

Post by dragonwriter »

ac29 wrote: post #578
treis wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

But...so could the cost of buying a iPhone quality iPhone (without trade in or other discount the XS Max seems to be $999 to $1499.)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#598

Post by tareqak »

I'm 100% behind Spotify on this issue even though I don't use the service.

BUT

If you're going to ask someone else to play fair, then maybe you should do the same i.e. have a revenue-sharing model that is fair to all of big labels, indie labels, and independent music producers.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#599

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bilbo0s wrote: post #525
sinnoh wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

> The law will not see a company as having a monopoly just because they have a monopoly on their product.

Having a monopoly on Clorox bleach doesn't mean you have a monopoly on bleach. You have to define what the market is.

The issue is that iOS app distribution and Android app distribution are two separate markets, in a way that Clorox bleach and Great Value bleach are not. The apps being distributed are not the same (they have to be written specifically for each platform), the customers for each are almost entirely disjoint, etc. You can't substitute one for the other. You can't distribute your iOS app to iOS devices via Amazon or Google Play.

It's like operating a school. You don't have a monopoly on schools, but you control what kind of books and equipment your students have to buy. If you specify commodities (e.g. any laptop with a minimum spec and a web browser), you don't have a monopoly there either. But if you require the students to buy a specific thing that only you provide, now you have a monopoly. You've created a market with no viable substitutes and no other competitors -- that's what a monopoly is. And that's what the App Store is.

> They can't be compelled to provide app store and ecommerce services at no cost.

Nor is that what's needed. What's needed is competing app stores for iOS apps.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#600

Post by sugarpile »

jdietrich wrote: post #132
tumetab1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue of the 30% cut alone is enough for further investigation, Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify.

Unless "everyone" also includes Apple Music, then it's anti-competitive.

Don’t worry, Apple takes a 100% cut of Apple Music’s revenue
Post reply on HN