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

41–50 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#41

Post by bad_user »

eridius wrote: post #33
cialowicz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Spotify is essentially a middleman. Apple is much more, they’re building the entire platform.

I pay for Spotify due to their app.

It runs on all the platforms I want it to run, including on Linux or on my Playstation, you can easily switch devices, picking up where you left off, you can remotely control devices, etc. The suggestions engine isn't spectacular, but works. I also like to see what my friends listen to. They also have the best integrations with other apps.

The music selection could use some improvement but it's much better than Apple's Music and getting better every month.

In other words your claim is very disingenuous.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#43

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

baxtr wrote: post #30

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.…

> You could argue the same with Google. Why do they take money for ads? Because they have the users.

That's a bizarre analogy. The analogy would be that Google not only takes money from PnG for showing you an ad for Head and Shoulders, but then charges forces PnG to sell you the shampoo through Google AND takes a 30% cut on the revenue.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#44

Post by bad_user »

zaidf wrote: post #11
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.

Apple popularized trusted computing. And yes, it's as bad as we feared it would be back in the '90s.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#45

Post by eridius »

justinjlynn wrote: post #37
eridius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is essentially a middleman. Apple is much more, they’re building the entire platform.

Spotify build distribution, recommendation infrastructure,and more. They are far more than a warehouse middleman which adds no additional value beyond providing a retail outlet.

There’s a word for what you’re describing here: middleman.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#47

Post by baxtr »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #43
baxtr wrote: post #30

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.…

> You could argue the same with Google. Why do they take money for ads? Because they have the users. That's a bizarre analogy. The analogy would be that Google not only takes money from PnG for showing you an ad for Head and Shoulders, but then charges forces PnG to sell you the shampoo through Google AND takes a 30% cut on the revenue.

Well, only if google made the shampoo bottles and PNG provided the shampoo inside

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#48

Post by Axsuul »

lozenge wrote: post #31
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 $$, and Apple doesn't get that extra $$.

What you are missing is that Apple is selling their own music streaming subscription for 30% less while making it impossible for Spotify to advertise their subscription in the app.

There are many other ways to compete on rather than just pricing. That 30% less can be recovered by having exclusive artists, a better product, and a stronger presence on other platforms.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#49

Post by eridius »

bad_user wrote: post #41
eridius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is essentially a middleman. Apple is much more, they’re building the entire platform.

I pay for Spotify due to their app. It runs on all the platforms I want it to run, including on Linux or on my Playstation, you can easily switch devices, picking up where you left off, you can remotely control devices, etc. The suggestions engine isn't spectacular, but works. I also like to see what my friends listen to. They also have the best integrations with other apps. The music selection could use some improve…

You’re saying you get value out of Spotify’s services. That’s good. Middlemen exist because they’re providing some value. Doesn’t make them not middlemen though.

Ultimately, if I use Spotify to discover an artist, I’m going to continue paying Spotify to listen to that artist and the artist themselves will be lucky to even make pennies off of that. I could move off Spotify and keep listening to that artist pretty easily, I just probably won’t. Spotify is a middleman focused on discovery but isn’t providing ongoing value to the artist once the viewer has discovered them.

Apple on the other hand is building and maintaining the platform that app creators use. This is a lot more tha discovery, the app wouldn’t even exist without the platform, and Apple keeps adding more value to the platform over time. Apple is not a middleman.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#50

Post by mythz »

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.

Apple is charging for the reach accessible by participating in their platform, it's effectively a distribution and marketing cost not a payment processing cost. The no linking requirement is so you don't use the accessibility enabled by their platform to bypass their fees. So if Spotify wants to bypass the App Store's subscription fees they'll need to find another way to notify and acquire new Customers, i.e. outside the App Store via their website or general advertising/marketing.
Post reply on HN