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

771–780 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#771

Post by mcphage »

fnordsensei wrote: post #377
mcphage wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They did indeed have "the service" in question, it was just limited to Apple's own offering. Again, there's a difference between "Siri can talk to our music service" and "We have a stable public API that 3rd party vendors can hook into to connect up to a music service". They're not the same thing, and one is a lot easier than the other.

None of the above was an argument about how easy or hard it is to build a service (though Apple has enough resources to build anything they want within the scope that they operate). Given that they are a platform provider, maybe doing the bare minimum to get their own stuff working, but not enough to get any alternatives to work, is a strategic choice on their part. "If Homepod only works with Apple Music, more peopl…

> I look forward to roads that only support Fords, water pipes that only support Nestlé water, and stairs that only support Nike shoes.

Thankfully, America is not (yet) stupid enough to let private companies build our critical infrastructure, and thankfully "voice controlled speaker" is as critical as chewing gum.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#772

Post by Dylan16807 »

oneplane wrote: post #640
judge2020 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

While I agree that the percentage that Apple takes per sale is too high, I completely disagree with the term 'vendor Tax'. While it's fine as a fun synonym, it's problematic as soon as people start to think about it as an actual Tax. It's not a Tax, it's the amount of money the vendor/platform owner wants to make for every sale. You can opt-out (by not being on the platform, still a choice!) if you want to. But becau…

> It's not a Tax, it's the amount of money the vendor/platform owner wants to make for every sale. You can opt-out (by not being on the platform, still a choice!) if you want to.

And I can opt out of selling things in Idaho if I don't want to pay their sales tax. I don't understand the distinction you're making at all.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#773

Post by Dylan16807 »

asdffdsa wrote: post #680
mertd wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your choice of phone brand does not tie you to a specific grocery where you can buy rice crispies. You can simply cross the street and shop at a competing grocery.

Yeah, theres different smart phones just like theres different grocery stores

If I go to a different grocery store, I can get products that are compatible with everything else I own.

If we go with the store=phone analogy, then somehow my brand A flour and my brand B milk are magnetically repulsed and I can't make pancakes. It's not good for consumers.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#774

Post by supernova87a »

ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #766
supernova87a wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, that's not a correct analogy, and you're framing it like someone with deep feelings of entitlement to do what you want in the software world. That's creating a flawed argument in your logic and you're turning your desire into what you believe is legal. Or thinking that because you put work into something, someone else has to give you a forum to get paid for that work. Actually your bridge analogy is apt, but i…

What argument do you have to support not letting users run whatever software they'd like on hardware they own? And in extension to that, paying other people for software that they'd like to run and don't mind paying for, which is not sold through e.g. the App Store. I'm legitimately interested in this, because I cannot see any reason why a user shouldn't be able to run any software they'd like on their own hardware,…

If you can't see any reason why a user isn't able to run any software they'd like on hardware they've purchased, then you need to educate yourself. Because the reason is that the contract you have with the hardware manufacturer and the terms of use do not allow you to. And there is no contradictory law or regulation that trumps that agreement.

Just because you might disagree with that contract, it doesn't change the rules. Your ability and expectation to run software of your choosing on your computer doesn't mean you have the same ability on a phone.

I could ask you, why don't you complain that even on an Android phone, you're not allowed to tinker with the baseband chip and broadcast whatever you want over the air. "Why can't I be allowed to do that? It's my right." Nope. It is not.

This is just an extension of that principle. In some other state or country the rules may be set up differently that consumer rights (however those are defined) take precedence over commercial regulations. But not here. Public opinion and law might someday change. Until then, don't confuse what you think should be with what is. It will not do you credit.

You're expressing wishes. I'm expressing facts.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#775

Post by Dylan16807 »

latexr wrote: post #540
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…

> And then every PAID app will switch to FREE and charge for PRO, to circumvent the 30%.

Then make it 30% of the first 20 or 30 dollars, and 5% or less after. That more than pays for Apple's verification work without letting them gouge repeat payments.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#776

Post by appstorelottery »

I think if you own the platform you shouldn’t be allowed to compete. E.g. You can’t write apps for your OS. You can’t sell your own products through your own market. Etc. I’m surprised this hasn’t been legislated by now... we all remember Novell & WordPerfect... it never gets better.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#777

Post by Dylan16807 »

CraneWorm wrote: post #567
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…

> Kindle for iPhone You put a walled garden... in another walled garden. On a more serious note: I get it; among Apple users are the most happily paying people that you can find on this planet and if you have a product you want to make it available to them. No wonder they think it their right to take a massive 30% cut.

An important thing is that the Kindle walled garden is an abstract free program that can be installed into most devices. It doesn't try to push the customer around. There are very different types of garden out there.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#778

Post by Dylan16807 »

yellowapple wrote: post #762
gnicholas wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that would be insufficient to transform the purchase into that of a physical good. Might have a chance if it were a physical widget (USB key?) that you plug into your computer or phone to validate your subscription. Even that is walking the line, since you're arguably still buying a digital good, albeit one that is activated/confirmed via a hardware key.

So if I were to buy a sheet of paper from Amazon every month, that wouldn't be a physical good? Or is the rule that the physical good can't be accompanied by anything beyond the physical object itself? If that's the case, then is Amazon not allowed to sell items via its iOS app if those items come with warranties? Or what about video games? If Amazon is allowed to sell physical copies of them, then can Spotify go ful…

Apple is not a robot. And they're already interpreting vague text against spotify wherever they can.

If you want a better answer, if a large percent of amazon app purchases became physical objects tied to upgrades you can use on your iPhone, then they would also get the hammer.

Precedent doesn't matter here, the rules will adapt to whatever is needed to require that 30% cut. (Unless Apple changes their mind first.)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#779

Post by judge2020 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #772
oneplane wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that the percentage that Apple takes per sale is too high, I completely disagree with the term 'vendor Tax'. While it's fine as a fun synonym, it's problematic as soon as people start to think about it as an actual Tax. It's not a Tax, it's the amount of money the vendor/platform owner wants to make for every sale. You can opt-out (by not being on the platform, still a choice!) if you want to. But becau…

> It's not a Tax, it's the amount of money the vendor/platform owner wants to make for every sale. You can opt-out (by not being on the platform, still a choice!) if you want to. And I can opt out of selling things in Idaho if I don't want to pay their sales tax. I don't understand the distinction you're making at all.

If you don't sell in Idaho, you lose that market. If you don't sell on Apple's platform, you lose that market. The issue is a combination of the "tax" and the market dominance of these two companies.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#780

Post by Dylan16807 »

judge2020 wrote: post #779
Dylan16807 wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a Tax, it's the amount of money the vendor/platform owner wants to make for every sale. You can opt-out (by not being on the platform, still a choice!) if you want to. And I can opt out of selling things in Idaho if I don't want to pay their sales tax. I don't understand the distinction you're making at all.

If you don't sell in Idaho, you lose that market. If you don't sell on Apple's platform, you lose that market. The issue is a combination of the "tax" and the market dominance of these two companies.

...okay? I'm asking why oneplane completely disagrees with using the word "tax" here.
Post reply on HN