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

21–30 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#21

Post by ocdtrekkie »

chrischen wrote: post #18
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that the best case is that Apple sets the price it does business at, but that there are reasonable ways for the app to use a different payment provider, even if just by linking to the web. This keeps Apple's price in check naturally... As they'll need to keep the price competitive enough that the convenience of using their service is worth it.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#22

Post by mcast »

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%

This entire letter sounded condescending and immature, to be honest. It reminded me of the cheesy Mac vs. PC days from Apple.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#23

Post by epai »

chrischen wrote: post #16
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.

According to this infographic (linked below), it seems like Apple Music does give more average revenue per play than Spotify, $0.0060 for vs $0.0044. But in general, Apple Music isn’t _that_ much better than the rest where paying artists goes. It lags far below tidal, for example, which doles out $0.0125 per play on average.

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/spotify-ap...

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#24

Post by est »

Can anyone explain why Wechat, the app that can do everything, streaming paid music, read paid ebooks, order food and goods, play games, are allowed to charge directly without IAP?

Heck wechat even had its own mini app store.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#25

Post by social_quotient »

chrischen wrote: post #12
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Discussion or capture of money must go through apple. The hinting of circumventing has to be really vague And creates a weird ux. IMO you have to follow the rules and pay the toll

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#26

Post by chrischen »

HeyZuess wrote: post #19
chrischen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, it's hard to tell because both sides are over-extending and exaggerating the issues.

Asking Apple to change the 30% fee to 0, or some other arbitrary number is untenable.

Blocking Apps from advertising that you can subscribe on their website outside of the Apple platform is weakly tenable. I can see the argument and reasoning that Apps should pay for "advertising" for the service through the Apple platform, but in reality "discovery" through the Apple platform is limited and in Spotify's case most people probably do not discover it through the platform. That being said, I can see the argument that

1) If Spotify users discover them through the App store, they would not know about subscribing directly through Spotify for a lower rate. Therefore Spotify should pay the 30% as user acquisition cost.

2) If Spotify users come to the App store from Spotify, they should already have signed up outside or know about the lower rate outside of the Apple platform.

It seems to me the main reason why Spotify is against the 30% tax (aside from generally wanting to not pay), is that

1) Spotify wants to be able to upgrade free users to paid users in-app with the least amount of friction. They can do this by email, or through the App, but obviously it's much easier to do so through an in-app popup. I've had countless friends that have accidentally subscribed to in-app subscriptions so I know how easy it is to subscribe.

2) Spotify does not want to pay the lifetime 30%/15% tax on customers acquired through the App store.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#27

Post by lozenge »

est wrote: post #24

Can anyone explain why Wechat, the app that can do everything, streaming paid music, read paid ebooks, order food and goods, play games, are allowed to charge directly without IAP? Heck wechat even had its own mini app store.

Because apple needs wechat and not the other way around. WeChat being an essential feature for any Chinese customer.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#28

Post by mythz »

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…

Apple does not have a monopoly on Smart Phones or App Stores. They're able to as much as anyone to control how their platform is used - there's no law against maintaining a closed and curated platform and your product or platform is not considered a Market in by itself.

There's also no law against having a monopoly, only for abusing your monopoly in one market to gain an unfair advantage in a different one.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#29

Post by pjmlp »

segphault wrote: post #20
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…

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.

Just like other online book shops don't sell their books on the Kindle device store app.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#30

Post by baxtr »

Apple has created a massive platform with a large number of users over the last years. This has cost them a substantial amount of money and hard work. Why is not ok to monetize this Why is it ok to collect so many users on a platform that you end up as "unicorn" like Spotify without paying money for this acquisition channel? I don't get why Apple is viewed here as the "bad boy". You could argue the same with Google. Why do they take money for ads? Because they have the users. Same with the app store. Nobody forced Spotify to create an Apple app. It was THEIR strategy to grow on the Apple store.
Post reply on HN