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

191–200 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#191

Post by mythz »

aaomidi wrote: post #148
mythz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't matter in this case because iOS isn't a Market and the iOS App Store doesn't have a monopoly on App Stores. They can appeal to the public about the unfairness of it all (which is likely what their open letter was designed for) but they don't have a legal case against Apple nor an inalienable right to be able to participate in their platform on their own terms.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#192

Post by andromeduck »

headmelted wrote: post #162
pjmlp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can import books via iTunes.

You're still missing the point. Apple owns a mall (iOS). In that mall, Apple owns a book store (iTunes). Amazon also has a book store in the mall (Kindle). Apple does not want to sell Amazon's books (Kindle format ebooks) in it's store (iTunes). Ok. Apple decrees that no store in the mall shall sell any books but iTunes books, which only they may sell. Not Ok.

Amazon is free to sell books in their app, they just need to pay a portion of their revenue for the privilege of doing so much like in the mall.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#193

Post by isostatic »

ninedays wrote: post #175
askmike wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apple Store has 100% market share on all iPhones, iPads and iWatches. I really don't see this being that much different from the famous United States v. Microsoft Corp. case[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor... . EDIT: comments have made clear that Windows had a monopoly on the personal computer space, whereas Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone or tablet space.

Although I don't disagree, the difference was that Microsoft had a monopoly on computing. Not just on PC but take computing as a whole and microsoft was hugely dominant. From a legal standpoint there is a huge difference.

Desktop computing -- in the 90s in the server area there was more competition, primarily from Netware.

It wasn't until the end of the 90s when macs started making an impression on peoples desktops, with the imac, but oddly enough if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operati... is to be believed, windows still has a 95% share of the desktop/laptop market.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#194

Post by josephg »

infinity0 wrote: post #151
thegayngler wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! Thats a new one. Pay the open source world who Apple have been heavy contributors to themselves. Apple are such hypocrites indeed.

They contribute to specific open source projects with a long-term view to undercutting other open source projects that are more independent of Apple. That is far from being "nice" or "contributing back". Have you heard of "dumping"? What Apple does in its FOSS contributions is a similar thing - pour a ton of developer resources into critical FOSS projects so that they eventually control the development process and cl…

Huh? I totally agree that the app store is a monopoly and leveraging the iOS app store to pressure spotify (a competitor to apple music) is anticompetitive.

But I'm very confused how you're twisting Apple's huge contribution toward LLVM and Webkit over the years into some evil act. Even if all you want is for GCC to be the best compiler it can be, work on LLVM has contributed to that goal by raising the bar. Predictably, GCC has gotten a lot better in the past decade or so. And I'm sure competition from LLVM has helped, just like how browser performance improved remarkably across the board when Chrome first came out. And Android's UI got way better after the iPhone was first released. (It used to be awful). Competition raises all boats; and consumers benefit when that happens.

Who exactly do you imagine is hurt by Apple's open source contributions to LLVM? If clang dethrones gcc it will be because llvm gives developers what we want - a faster compiler, faster executables, better IDE support or something else. My life is made measurably better by these things. Getting all that for free? Hallelujah.

If you don't like the direction Apple (and others) set for an opensource project you care about, you're free to build your own community around a fork. Thats what you would have to do anyway if you want a project to succeed without Apple's support.

What do you want? Great, free software? You've got it. The freedom to change that software however you want? Fork away, brave coder. The ability to sell software based on your changes? Go right ahead.

So where does that anger come from? How is anyone worse off?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#195

Post by dgregd »

> Spotify seeks to keep all the benefits of the App Store ecosystem

How about ISPs? Maybe they also should get 30% commission from all music downloaded through their networks?

After reading Steve Job biography I read now the Jony Ive book. And I must say that the current Apple has no taste. Taste in terms of whole product function and coolness. It looks like industrial product designers and greedy people took over the company. Do they really have to squeeze each dollar from customers and app developers and destroy their magic brand? How they are now different from Exxon Mobil or Louis Vuitton?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#196

Post by Khanhanhan »

abalone wrote: post #170
jhanschoo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 and scams. Give me a break. It doesn’t take 15-30% to implement a secure payment system. This is proven by Apple itself:…

Nothing stops you from implementing a secure payment system, installing it on devices bought by millions of wealthy consumers, making them trust you with their credit cards and... charging less.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#197

Post by philo23 »

wodenokoto wrote: post #190

Why can I buy train tickets on iOS apps using any payment provider, but not spotify-subscription? It can't be that it is a subscription service, because I can also buy commuter-tickets as a subscription service using CC. Is it that you can't sell competing services on app-store without paying apple tax or is there an arbitrary list of services that requires apple tax?

Not that I completely agree with it, but I think the difference they go off is a purchase of something physical (e.g. a book from Amazon) vs something digital (e.g. an audiobook from Audible)

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#198

Post by felipelemos »

hjk05 wrote: post #160
ahmedalsudani wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not exactly. You're free to buy from other stores, and suppliers can sell to them. A very important distinction.

Same story with phones. You are free to buy from other suppliers. But you can’t walk into a Walmart and buy milk from whole foods on their shelf’s, even if you feel that would be great for you personally because Walmart is closer but you prefer Whole Foods.

And I am free to use Google Music, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Deezer and even Tidal. Nobody is forcing me to use Spotify.

But, if I have an iPhone, the only application store I can use is controlled by Apple.

In other words: if I am an artist and I want to offer my music via streaming I have plenty of options. If one of them does have a deal that I find unfair, I can choose others.

If I am a developer and I want to offer my app to iPhone users, I have only one option. And if I am banned from this store for any policy infringement (which sometimes is ridiculous and totally arbitrary) I have no other option to offer my app to iPhone users.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#199

Post by fauigerzigerk »

askmike wrote: post #163
threeseed wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty cheap actually for distribution channels. If Spotify were selling their products through retail they would probably lose about 50% of their margins.

It's not fair to compare a digital marketplace with retail channels.. I'm quite sure technically (at the size of the Apple Store) a digital marketplace could charge 1% and still make a profit after the operational costs.

I agree that 30% is egregious oligopoly pricing, but 1% is definitely insufficient to run a payment service and a software distribution platform that includes any sort of fraud prevention and support.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#200

Post by laumars »

andromeduck wrote: post #182
laumars wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple's walled garden is _A_ store. One of several.

I think you need to go back and reread what I posted:

> Apple's walled garden is _A_ store.

Well obviously. Please quote me where I said otherwise.

> One of several.

Feel free to list all the other app stores on the iPhone.

Post reply on HN