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

791–800 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#791

Post by yellowapple »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #778
yellowapple wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

My point is that we can get to a point where the only way Apple can actually enforce such a rule consistently is by forcing itself into the process of purchasing physical goods and dictating what physical goods can and cannot be sold.

More importantly: the more Apple tries to react to these tactics, the more evidence in favor of Spotify's case. It's a classic case of squeezing sand so hard that it slips through your fingers.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#792

Post by Arn_Thor »

paavoova wrote: post #693
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…

> I would hate for Apple to allow downloading apps through websites This is such an extreme stance compared to what you're allowed to do on the desktop. Regardless of what Apple allows or not, shouldn't the user, the owner of the device, be allowed to install applications as they see fit, and choose to bypass any centralized app store? A smarthphone is a computer, and it's arguably many peoples primary computing devi…

There are plenty of devices that allow you the freedom to do whatever you want to the software. If that is a priority, get one of those. Apple's walled garden is in fact much more secure. (and they also benefit financially. But correlation does not equal causation, necessarily)

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#793

Post by jdietrich »

treis wrote: post #555
jdietrich wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

>Can you provide a software example?

Amazon are already very, very close to that state of play - developers within Amazon are required to design their infrastructure based on standard APIs, to facilitate the commercialisation of those systems via AWS. Chinese walls are commonplace in any kind of reverse-engineering as a protection against claims of copyright infringement.

>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.

That would constitute predatory pricing, which is illegal under EU competition law.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#794

Post by spiderfarmer »

lancesells wrote: post #742
dkonofalski wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on whether you prioritize the ability for developers to profit or the security of customers making the purchase. Apple is guaranteeing its users that purchases made within apps are secure and that only Apple has access to their payment info. In the alternate scenario, customers have no way of verifying the security or veracity of some random app developer collecting their payment info.

I feel for Spotify and other companies on the 30% tax but I also love knowing that any purchase by my family or myself is protected, private and easily refunded if there's a mistake. There are already a lot of apps preying on kids but it would be at another level without the in-house payment system. I think something like 30% on the first purchase and then 5-6% for any recurring purchases would make more sense. I kno…

> Maybe there's an App Association that challenges all of these stores on their rather high recurring fees.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for governments to update their terms and agreements.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#795

Post by Dylan16807 »

yellowapple wrote: post #791
Dylan16807 wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

My point is that we can get to a point where the only way Apple can actually enforce such a rule consistently is by forcing itself into the process of purchasing physical goods and dictating what physical goods can and cannot be sold. More importantly: the more Apple tries to react to these tactics, the more evidence in favor of Spotify's case. It's a classic case of squeezing sand so hard that it slips through your…

> My point is that we can get to a point where the only way Apple can actually enforce such a rule consistently is by forcing itself into the process of purchasing physical goods and dictating what physical goods can and cannot be sold.

Okay, you forced them into having a rule about an exceptionally niche category of physical goods. They already ban the sale of firearms, so this isn't even new. It causes them no problems.

> More importantly: the more Apple tries to react to these tactics, the more evidence in favor of Spotify's case. It's a classic case of squeezing sand so hard that it slips through your fingers.

Not when they're so obviously looking for a loophole. It would hurt Spotify's reputation more than Apple.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#796

Post by Angostura »

ac29 wrote: post #527
Angostura wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but from an anti-trust perspective, 'a monopoly on this thing I built' isn't an issue - arguably every company has a monopoly on that. It becomes an issue if 'this thing I built' captures an overwhelming economic sector, to the extent that consumers have no choice. Currently consumers do have a choice - and more chose Android than Apple.

At what point would the already multi-billion dollar iPhone market become an "overwhelming economic sector" on its own in your opinion?

At the point where there is a threat to the Android ecosystem, with the possibility that app writers, consumers and handset manufacturers are forced to quit the platform because it isn't viable.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#797

Post by Jommi »

bilbo0s wrote: post #707
ethbro wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying these businesses should be illegal, simply that there are additional responsibilities on them once they scale. Post-monopoly, maybe "significant market participant" would be better terminology. There are two considerations that contribute to the ultimate consumer ills: (1) Do I, as a user, have robust choice of alternatives with equivalent functionality? (Absolute market share * , coupled with self-sus…

> In the case of the Android / iOS duopoly, I do not... ??? Why's that? Serious question. And > But a single choice should not allow a company to passively leverage your demand ever after... That's how things have always worked though. And I'm not only talking about the tech industry now. I'm talking about nearly everything. Literally everything from Automobile manufacturers obliging you to buy accessories which fit…

>Why's that? >Serious question.

It stems from the second bundling problem about iOS: They bundled the OS and the device. If switching OSs were easier, it wouldn't be such a problem.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#798

Post by Jommi »

bduerst wrote: post #658
oarsinsync wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

However, this argument falls apart when you look deeper into the fray of competition and examine barrier to entry.

Because so far search seems to be a self-perpetuating machine, it can be unfair to compare google and other searches as the amount of data Google already has could pose as an unfair advantage.

What if some other company had the same amount of data? Could they be doing a lot better job? Would the favor for google products dissapear?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#799

Post by thirdsun »

vkou wrote: post #732
p2t2p wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Apple Music is for free? Should be Apple be punished then, like MS for IE being free?

Then Apple is using its success in one market (Selling phones) to price-dump in another market (music). It would be the poster child of an anti-trust case.

Does this view still apply if Apple considers the music subscription as part of the product/device?

Consider the countless users that, perhaps rightfully, argue that Apple should include more than 5 GB of iCloud storage for backups, user data, etc. That could be considered part of the product while it still competes in a different market with Dropbox and similar services.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#800

Post by ChrisRR »

tomphoolery wrote: post #31
dmitriid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify not playing fair with artists Spotify is paying as much as music industry extorts from it. Where does the money go? Ask the big labels that are the ones paying artists.

The big labels aren't important, they're going to get their money anyway. This hurts the smaller labels, like my label, and countless others who never see a god damn dime from Spotify streaming. Meanwhile, Bandcamp streams the songs for free but they allow you to pay what you want. I've made at least 10x the profit from selling tracks on Bandcamp than I ever did in the streaming world. If Spotify wants to play fair,…

Can I ask, what does a record label actually do nowadays? I understand that in the past they would've handled physical manufacturing and promotion, but now that anyone has access to bandcamp and spotify, what do they offer? (Asking as a non-musician)
Post reply on HN