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

71–80 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#71

Post by hoffs »

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 $$, and Apple doesn't get that extra $$.

But you can't even redirect users or even mention about being able to subscribe to premium using a method that isn't apple pay within the app.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#73

Post by hoffs »

Axsuul wrote: post #48
lozenge wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'having exclusive artists' yeah, nobody wants that and that encourages bad competition.

'stronger presence on other platforms' doesn't help with presence on iOS market

'a better product' they arguable already have it

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#74

Post by abalone »

Apple’s essential claims:

1. 15-30% is a fair “contribution to maintaining the App Store ecosystem” which has led to Spotify’s “dramatic growth.”

2. Spotify is greedy and bad, just look at how they squeeze artists, unlike us.

The second point is really weak considering that paying such a high fee to Apple, which Apple Music itself doesn’t have to pay, might force Spotify to take it out of the artists’ end to stay afloat.

And as to the first point, Apple makes it sound like the App Store was the reason for Spotify’s success, so it’s only fair they take a healthy cut. But there’s no other choice on iOS. It’s not clear if discovery in the App Store was essential to Spotify’s growth or if it was just the only way to install software on iPhones.

One need only look at macOS to determine how important the App Store is to discovery and growth. Many, perhaps most developers bypass it.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#75

Post by espressomachiat »

flocial wrote: post #46

I can only imagine how Steve Jobs would have written this, the way he famously addressed Adobe pushing for flash on the iPhone [1]. 1. https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

>We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#76

Post by pfortuny »

cialowicz wrote: post #17
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.

That is the definition of work-for-hire, is it not? Is it immoral now?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#77

Post by WA »

baxtr wrote: post #47
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

No, only if Google offered the shelf for the shampoo bottle to stand on.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#78

Post by weego »

pfortuny wrote: post #76
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.

That is the definition of work-for-hire, is it not? Is it immoral now?

It's not a case of morals, but 30% at apples scale is fairly egregious.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#79

Post by fanpuns »

Though I think there are parts of this letter that are obviously self serving and hypocritical the point I find more problematic actually has nothing to do with Spotify.

Apple says most apps contribute nothing to the app store. This is false. To list an app on the app store developers must pay, yearly, for the privilege. This is important because a reasonable person could make the argument that _this_ is a more fair model and one more in line with providing the actual service of the app store.

Apple,rightly IMO, has accused Spotify if wanting to have it's cake and eat it too, but charging a fee to list and taking a percentage of revenue could easily be seen as the same.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#80

Post by thegayngler »

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 literally sued artists and musicians because they didnt agree with a court ordered fee increase...but Apples hypocritical on this issue somehow.

Spotify also uses Apples infrastructure and marketing tools for its app. I dont think Ive seen any app creator up on stage at Apple events more than Spotify. Its not like Spotify will use Apples tools and ecosystem one time then stop. Its ongoing and 15% is reasonable. Apple literally changed the app store rules to accomodate Spotify and everyone knows it.

I will say that I think Spotify should be able to advertise payment outside the app.

Post reply on HN