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

201–210 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#201

Post by life_of_sigh »

From apples blog "And developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules."

This is the key issue spotify has, Apple music is not playing by the same rules, in fact their monopoly on the app store its undermining Spotifies fair competition.

Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple tax which makes it hugely cheaper.

If Spotify dodge the tax to make it able to compete on price, then Apple then abuse the monopoly it has on the store to prevent Spotify from advertising a premium option, it prevents them from offering or completeing the upgrade, it prevents them from linking to a landing page to describe Spotify business model, it prevents them fron doing anything or Apple will pull the app off the store.

The only way Spotify could "compete" if it takes the 30% on the chin, dramatically reduce its profits and investment it can make compared to Apple Music and it will be bullied down.

There are other arguments here to with Apple slapping restrictions on Spotify, not allowing for years to release an Apple Watch app etc but they are grey.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#202

Post by hjk05 »

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…

> which is the definition of a monopoly.

Like Walmart has a monopoly on shelf space at walmart.

Apple does not have a monopoly on neither Phones nor on application markets for phones. They have a very attractive market, which they control, but not a monopoly.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#203

Post by westpfelia »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #183
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.

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion unless you seriously compare physical with digital distribution. Retail margins are famously low (very low single digits). The problem is that Apple and Google are exploiting their mobile content distribution oligopoly so aggressively that they are practically begging for a regulatory crackdown. I wonder why companies are getting carried away with this kind of profit des…

"I wonder why companies are getting carried away with this kind of profit destroying greed again and again. They are killing their own golden goose. "

Could simply be that they dont know what the world will look like in 5 years so they might as well cash out while they can. No use playing the long game when the next big game changer could be around the corner?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#204

Post by infinity0 »

millstone wrote: post #187
infinity0 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple has no grand plans to dominate open source, that's silly. All of Apple's OSS contributions can be easily understood as solving Apple's needs. Apple's LLVM involvement is not driven by spite towards the GPL; Apple simply needed a compiler that was compatible with their business model. Likewise they started WebKit so as not to be dependent on MS for a browser, and Swift because they wanted a successor to aging Ob…

That's very innocent and naive of you to believe, though of course it's easy to write off any corporate misbehaviour as "solving business needs".

Steve Jobs originally tried to keep the ObjC compiler frontend to GCC proprietary but was forced to open source it due to GPL requirements. Needless to say he hated the GPL ever since that episode and of course jumped on the opportunity to fund a competitor with a non-copyleft license.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#205

Post by justinjlynn »

eridius wrote: post #45
justinjlynn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a word for what more you're contributing to the debate here: nothing.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#206

Post by fauigerzigerk »

westpfelia wrote: post #203
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion unless you seriously compare physical with digital distribution. Retail margins are famously low (very low single digits). The problem is that Apple and Google are exploiting their mobile content distribution oligopoly so aggressively that they are practically begging for a regulatory crackdown. I wonder why companies are getting carried away with this kind of profit des…

"I wonder why companies are getting carried away with this kind of profit destroying greed again and again. They are killing their own golden goose. " Could simply be that they dont know what the world will look like in 5 years so they might as well cash out while they can. No use playing the long game when the next big game changer could be around the corner?

Could be, but I very much doubt they see it that way.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#207

Post by westpfelia »

eridius wrote: post #49
bad_user wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 easi…

I'm confused as to what it is that Apple Music does that Spotify doesnt? You say that Spotify is a middleman but never once comment that Apple Music is also by your own definition a middle man.

Also the title Middle Man has a sort of negative conotation to it. But Spotify/Apple Music is simply a platform that can connect a artist to a listener. But this doesnt make them any more of a middleman then Netflix or the guy at Mcdonalds who cooks your Cheeseburger.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#208

Post by rdsubhas »

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.

Yep.

> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work.

And Apple's aim is to make more money off that more money. It's such an obviously, laughably stupid argument they're doing there.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#209

Post by Khanhanhan »

Not taking sides with Apple or Spotify here. Both are interested in their margins far more than the benefits of their clients which is understandable.

However, it's strange how many devs are complaining about App Store considering that without it many/some of them wouldn't make a dime from their apps. Apple aggregated credit cards of people who don't shy away from using them and made sure that those people get value.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#210

Post by infinity0 »

josephg wrote: post #194
infinity0 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Predicta…

> But I'm very confused how you're twisting Apple's huge contribution toward LLVM and Webkit over the years into some evil act.

I'm not twisting anything into an evil act, read my words more closely.

Some of Apple's contributions to open source have been beneficial to the rest of us, because there are competitors to keep them in check in those areas they chose to do open source in.

You should have no doubt that, had those other competitors not existed, Apple's open source contributions would have been used to push a monopolistic advantage over other projects and organisations, and passed it off as "meeting their business needs".

They do not do open source out of any principle of generosity or co-operation with other projects, and much of their ecosystem is legally and technically hostile to supporting FOSS the "proper way". For example it is impossible to properly supply a GPL binary on an iPhone because in general you do not have the ability to install arbitrarily-modified versions of it, a very fundamental principle of the standard definition of Free Open Source Software.

Also I'm not sure why you cite Android vs iPhone since near-everything about an iPhone is proprietary.

Post reply on HN