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

141–150 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#141

Post by emsy »

pjmlp wrote: post #29
segphault wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not a good comparison. An iOS device is not like a book shop. The iBooks application is. Nobody's asking that you can buy Kindle books in iBooks, but you can't even buy Kindle books in the Kindle app because Apple would demand 30% of the book. If you open the Kindle app on Windows you can buy books in there and Microsoft doesn't take a cut of the sale. People would lose their mind over this. Why is Apple different?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#142

Post by close04 »

laumars wrote: post #127
isostatic wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what my local store does. They pay the wholesaler 10 and sell to me for 15.

That’s also why high street stores are now struggling while consumers are buying direct from the source or online where margins are tighter. However I’m not suggesting that local stores are in the wrong either but it does illustrate how consumers have choice there is no such competition inside Apples walled garden. And that is the real crux of why their margins are high: it’s because developers and iPhone owners are…

> no such competition inside Apples walled garden

There is massive competition to the garden itself.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#143

Post by spiderfarmer »

jhanschoo wrote: post #136
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…

> And Spotify isn't asking to keep 100% of the revenue. Spotify is asking for a choice of letting users pay how they wish. But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling…

> as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams

And, just coincidentally, that 'protection' is very lucrative for Apple.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#145

Post by threeseed »

weego wrote: post #78
pfortuny wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty cheap actually for distribution channels.

If Spotify were selling their products through retail they would probably lose about 50% of their margins.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#146

Post by spiderfarmer »

infinity0 wrote: post #15

> 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 reven…

> without making any contributions to that marketplace.

If Spotify was not available on the iPhone, because Apple wants to push Apple Music, I would ditch the iPhone, not Spotify.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#147

Post by threeseed »

winter_blue wrote: post #122
pfortuny wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The lack of choice is a problem. I’d support a law that mandated that all Turing-complete machines allow its owner to execute whatever code he wants on it, and therefore that iOS devices allow third-party apps (and third-party app stores) to be installed.

You can signup for a Developer account and then execute whatever code you like on the device.

You just don't have a right to distribute that code to others. And that's one of the reasons why many of us like iOS since I can almost guarantee I won't have malware, viruses etc.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#148

Post by aaomidi »

mythz wrote: post #68
aaomidi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is what spotify is arguing is happening with Apple Music

iOS isn't considered to be a market so they don't have one to abuse. Unless the courts declare that iOS is a market then the App Store would be considered to have a monopoly on App Stores in iOS, but you can't have a monopoly on your own product/platform (then everyone would be a monopolist). A monopoly is measured against the overall market. If Android didn't have an App Store or it was the size of Windows App Store…

The fraction doesn't matter at all in this case. Spotify is saying they're abusing the 30% to be able to push their own music application for cheaper.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#149

Post by kodablah »

> The only time we have requested adjustments is when Spotify has tried to sidestep the same rules that every other app follows.

So Spotify complains that the rules are draconian and the response is that everyone has to follow them? If anything, it requires getting to a certain size to have your complaints addressed like this, even if they are hand waved away as consistently applied.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#150

Post by blowski »

threeseed wrote: post #121
jraedisch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the problem was, that their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own, if they choose to.

There is zero evidence that Apple does not pay the 30%. We don't see the internal accounting but it's quite likely they do. Internal revenue distribution is standard practice in almost all enterprises.

There’s clearly a difference between moving money from one internal balance sheet to another, and moving it to an entirely different company’s balance sheet.
Post reply on HN