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

651–660 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#651

Post by threeseed »

herf wrote: post #591
jonhohle wrote: post #429

Earlier 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…

>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.

If Apple blocked Instagram I guarentee you hordes of users would switch to Android.

Buy Spotify is just another music app.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#652

Post by berbec »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #636
berbec wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Spotify has the customers to force Apple to change because of the number of people who switch to Android for their service? Or does Apple have the customers to kill Spotify by cutting them off?

Whether they have the numbers or not this war was inevitable from the moment Apple announced their music subscription service. Ultimately it's going to come down to who does it better and by better, I mean which one helps people find new songs the best. But I will say one thing, I have had the iPhone since the very first model and I have never been closer to abandoning IOS because its price to value ratio is quickly…

Not a fan of your iPhone being more expensive than your MacBook, are we?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#653

Post by theandrewbailey »

rchaud wrote: post #407

It would be nice if the platform-independent music sites (Spotify, Tidal, Beatport, Bandcamp, etc) joined together to fund a web framework for music streaming that didn't require the same level of system access as a native app. That would allow them to escape the App Store tax, and the headaches related to Apple's review process, deployment issues, etc. Right now, Apple owns the moat. The fairness Spotify is asking f…

I'm pretty sure that such a web framework exists. There's element and web audio JS API.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/au...

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_A...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#654

Post by bhl »

toasterlovin wrote: post #589

Whenever Apple's 30% take on the App Store comes up, people on this website get all up in arms about it. Let me provide some perspective, which I think is sorely lacking: I sell physical goods on Amazon. They charge me 15% for this privilege. The only reason they don't charge more is because physical goods have lower margins than digital goods (my margins after it's all said and done are somewhere between 10-15%). An…

You’re missing the point: Apple seems to be abusing its power as a platform to unfairly charge content based providers with 30% tax while not applying it to themself. On Amazon, it would be comparable to charging you 15% while not charging themselves the same on their Amazon Basic products.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#655

Post by AnthonyMouse »

threeseed wrote: post #643
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sam…

That doesn’t make sense. Who cares if the Spotify apps for Android/iOS are coded differently ? It’s irrelevant. Users have access to the same app on both platforms with the same functionality. And Apple is not stopping these users from moving to Android. And yes Apple has a monopoly on their products. So does every company.

> Who cares if the Spotify apps for Android/iOS are coded differently ?

It's a different product. It's like saying who cares if you can't sell shoes, go sell boots. Different products, different markets.

> Users have access to the same app on both platforms with the same functionality.

Not if Apple doesn't accept it in their app store.

> And Apple is not stopping these users from moving to Android.

Charter isn't stopping a homeowner from buying a house in Comcast's service area either. Having to replace a $1000 phone in order to get a $1 app is a prohibitively high barrier.

Moreover, in the market for app distribution the customer is the developer. Saying "you can sell to Android customers" is like a company with a regional monopoly in California saying "you can sell to customers in Texas" as an argument that they don't have a monopoly in California.

> And yes Apple has a monopoly on their products. So does every company.

Clorox has a monopoly on Clorox bleach, not on bleach, and other bleach is a perfect substitute. Apple has a monopoly on their App Store, which is the sole app store for iOS and there are no viable substitutes.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#657

Post by justfor1comment »

A recent law passed in India seems like the kind of regulation that is needed to prevent this kind of behaviour https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/amazon-how-india-ecommerce-l... Essentially what the law says is that if you own a platform you can't create and sell products on it. This law targets Amazon and Flipkart since Amazon also uses their own website to sell Amazon basics products. Amazon also uses internal metrics to determine which new product categories to launch which other sellers on the platform won't have access to. Apple and Google app stores should also have similar restrictions.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#658

Post by bduerst »

oarsinsync wrote: post #488
bduerst wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. Having a popular or high-quality product is not the same as having no competition. You can run an ecommerce business online entirely through instagram if you wanted to. Amazon theoretically is abusing it's market power by being selective about which products it sells in it's stores. When they removed competing AppleTV/Chromecast products from their own and seller lines, to pr…

Google search has a 92% market share[0] Microsoft desktop market share in 2009 was still over 90%[1] Google search has no significant competition, much like Microsoft Windows had no significant competition. [0] http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/...

Again, having a popular product is not a monopoly.

Monopoly is tied to access to competition. Monopolies have market dominance, but not all market dominant companies are monopolies. Windows was more of a monopoly in the 1990's because you went into a computer store and could typically only buy windows machines. This limits consumer options.

You can type https://www.bing.com into your browser right now, or any other number of accessible competitors, meaning that while popular, Google is not a monopoly. Consumers have a myriad of options and choose one because of it's quality, which is how competition on open markets work.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#659

Post by spiderfarmer »

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.

Why on earth is Apple allowed to do that? I get that it is their marketplace and their rules, but they are directly hurting competition and consumers this way. There's simply no real argument to prohibit developers like this. Seems like something the EU should combat against.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#660

Post by [deleted] »

jhasse wrote: post #465
supermatt wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am talking about the actual definition of a monopoly, not that defined by antitrust laws, hence my second sentence about how the law (consumer law, anti-trust, or both) needs to change to prevent these walled gardens. I agree Facebook and google are also problems. Amazon too, likely others. They all have their walled gardens - and whats worse is when they "go to war" with each other, affecting the users tied to the…

> I am talking about the actual definition of a monopoly, not that defined by antitrust laws, hence my second sentence about how the law (consumer law, anti-trust, or both) needs to change to prevent these walled gardens. I didn't mean that your definition of a monopoly is incorrect, but that you can't just narrow down the market until you find a monopoly. Because if you could, every company has a monopoly (which wou…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN