Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Addressing Spotify’s Claims

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#11

Post by zaidf »

exwiki wrote: post #4

> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs. We think that’s wrong. I think that's a very hypothetical claim. > Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update…

> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem,

Apple makes Microsoft look like an angel. Using this argument, Microsoft could claim they could have made hundreds of billions if they got a cut out of every Windows app sale. Oh, and that those companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Windows.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#12

Post by chrischen »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8
zaidf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple is going to find itself standing alone by the time the dust settles on this issue. Their 30% tax is a disservice to its own customers, not just app publishers. Apple tries to counter that the problem is Spotify . It's Spotify that is money-hungry, Apple claims: Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. The only problem with this argument is that Spotify is just one e…

Apple won't find itself standing alone. Other major distributors like Google and Valve are both happy to take 30% off the top of app sales too, and if the chance comes to speak up in support, they will. But the difference is both of them can be circumvented by competitors, for instance Epic Games, who is challenging both. (Epic is launching an Android store soon.) Apple can't be, and that's likely to be the crux of a…

I currently subscribe to Spotify, use the iOS Spotify App, and do not make payments through in-app payments nor do I pay the 30% Apple tax. So it is circumventable, and Spotify is just "optimizing" their revenues here. So at least compared to Steam, Apple's platform is actually more open since you aren't required to pay through Apple's platform. Though I'm not sure on the current requirements for in-app purchases, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#13

Post by ocdtrekkie »

chrischen wrote: post #10
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

This is a surprisingly open response to what is likely to be a legal matter, particularly given Apple's usual silence on... most everything. I definitely take issue with it's avoidance of the core issues though: That the services they provide aren't optional on the iPhone. They make it sound like connecting Spotify to users, and allowing them to use their in-app purchase mechanism is a service they offer that they sh…

From my understanding, Spotify is arguing that it should be void of platform/processing fees for in-app payments, potentially zeroing fees for everyone... That's a hard argument to make, because if they win that, then Stripe wouldn't be able to charge processing fees either. You'd get into an argument of what fees would be fair, and in-app payments are not a requirement for the app store so it's hard to argue it. I t…

Yes, currently Apple prohibits developers from linking to their websites subscription signup. I agree if Apple provides payment processing, they should get some cut (though not 30%). The issue is that Apple prohibits signing people up from anything but their IAP feature.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#14

Post by zaidf »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8
zaidf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple is going to find itself standing alone by the time the dust settles on this issue. Their 30% tax is a disservice to its own customers, not just app publishers. Apple tries to counter that the problem is Spotify . It's Spotify that is money-hungry, Apple claims: Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. The only problem with this argument is that Spotify is just one e…

Apple won't find itself standing alone. Other major distributors like Google and Valve are both happy to take 30% off the top of app sales too, and if the chance comes to speak up in support, they will. But the difference is both of them can be circumvented by competitors, for instance Epic Games, who is challenging both. (Epic is launching an Android store soon.) Apple can't be, and that's likely to be the crux of a…

But the difference is both of them can be circumvented by competitors

If the App Store could be circumvented as easily, Spotify probably wouldn't be raising this issue to begin with.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#15

Post by infinity0 »

> What Spotify is demanding is something very different. After using the App Store for years to dramatically grow their business, Spotify seeks to keep all the benefits of the App Store ecosystem — including the substantial revenue that they draw from the App Store’s customers — without making any contributions to that marketplace.

Please Apple, pay all the open source projects that you use, a fair share of the revenue you generate on top of them.

Hypocrites.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#16

Post by chrischen »

segphault wrote: post #7

> Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. And it’s not just the App Store that they’re trying to squeeze — it’s also artists, musicians and songwriters. Uh, I seem to recall Apple being forced to reverse some brazenly greedy policies for their music service when a high-profile artist called them out and withheld content in protest. For Apple to characterize itself as a champion…

I think they may be specifically referring to the most recent royalties hike that was opposed by Amazon, Spotify, but supported by Apple. Was most likely a PR move to make Apple look like a supporter of artists.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#17

Post by cialowicz »

segphault wrote: post #7

> Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. And it’s not just the App Store that they’re trying to squeeze — it’s also artists, musicians and songwriters. Uh, I seem to recall Apple being forced to reverse some brazenly greedy policies for their music service when a high-profile artist called them out and withheld content in protest. For Apple to characterize itself as a champion…

> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work

Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#18

Post by chrischen »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #13
chrischen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, Spotify is arguing that it should be void of platform/processing fees for in-app payments, potentially zeroing fees for everyone... That's a hard argument to make, because if they win that, then Stripe wouldn't be able to charge processing fees either. You'd get into an argument of what fees would be fair, and in-app payments are not a requirement for the app store so it's hard to argue it. I t…

Yes, currently Apple prohibits developers from linking to their websites subscription signup. I agree if Apple provides payment processing, they should get some cut (though not 30%). The issue is that Apple prohibits signing people up from anything but their IAP feature.

I think the % for processing/platform is justifiable and hard to argue against setting that % for them. The most likely outcome is that they will either remove the restriction from advertising alternative payment methods on signup, and in exchange Apple can do what it wants with in-app payments.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#19

Post by HeyZuess »

chrischen wrote: post #5
zaidf wrote: post #3

Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. Wow. It is astonishing to read this from a company being widely accused of an unfair 30% tax. Correction: the revenue share is 15%, it was originally 30%

To be fair Apple capitulated and reduced it to 15% for after the first year, and leave a lot of money on the table from freemium/ad-supported apps. I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is. You can subscribe outside of the App store (by not using in-app payments) and not pay that extra $$, and Apple doesn't get that extra $$.

> I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is. You can subscribe outside of the App store (by not using in-app payments) and not pay that extra $$, and Apple doesn't get that extra $$.

It seems that Spotify claims that even making that information known on the app gets their app rejected. They have mentioned that Apple rejected their app because of the word 'Free' being used, as well as 'promotions' being used inside the app, and there is no way to link to external payment options.

Enabling payments via the App Store is helpful, denying other forms of payments seems leaning towards being anti-competitve.

Link for reference: https://www.timetoplayfair.com/

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#20

Post by segphault »

zaidf wrote: post #6
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

This is a surprisingly open response to what is likely to be a legal matter, particularly given Apple's usual silence on... most everything. I definitely take issue with it's avoidance of the core issues though: That the services they provide aren't optional on the iPhone. They make it sound like connecting Spotify to users, and allowing them to use their in-app purchase mechanism is a service they offer that they sh…

I think Apple is going to find itself standing alone by the time the dust settles on this issue. Their 30% tax is a disservice to its own customers, not just app publishers. Apple tries to counter that the problem is Spotify . It's Spotify that is money-hungry, Apple claims: Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. The only problem with this argument is that Spotify is just one e…

Yup. Another prominent example is Amazon’s inability to sell books in the Kindle application on iOS, which has the same anticompetitive undertones given that Apple sells ebooks to users of its platform.
Post reply on HN