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

211–220 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#211

Post by ulfw »

Sholmesy wrote: post #177
ulfw wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's a too simple way to look at it. I am not trying to defend the 30%, but just saying 'their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own' doesn't go far enough. They got two options: a) make a 30% on $10/month from Spotify -> $3 in Apple's bag for no work or effort at all. Almost pure profit. b) sell their own music solution for $10/month (INSTEAD of that customer going…

$3 in Apple's bag for no work or effort at all I agree with most of what you said, but come on. Running (one of?) the biggest software distribution and payment processing systems on the planet is hardly "no work or effort at all". This is the same sort of rhetoric that calls dropbox a weekend project.

True that. I agree with you. I overstated.

There's credit card costs etc associated with that as well. Doubt it's $3/user per month though and the distribution costs are minimal (only downloads of app updates) compared to the streaming costs (which could be multiple GBs every month).

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#213

Post by rocqua »

mythz wrote: post #109
rocqua wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's also no law against having a monopoly, Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. It's also illegal to use your monopoly in a market to get advantages in that market. Most notably, you can't use your monopoly to keep your monopoly. (I.e. intel making a deal with dell where dell cannot use AMD processors)

> Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. That's not a law against having one, only abusing one.

Mergers get blocked simply because the resulting company would have too much market share. That is a straight up ban on monopoly.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#214

Post by rocqua »

threeseed wrote: post #132
rocqua wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's also no law against having a monopoly, Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. It's also illegal to use your monopoly in a market to get advantages in that market. Most notably, you can't use your monopoly to keep your monopoly. (I.e. intel making a deal with dell where dell cannot use AMD processors)

It's legal to have a monopoly. It's legal to have a monopoly and get advantages in the market. It's illegal to have a monopoly and then try and extinguish your competition in the current or any adjacent markets.

Mergers get blocked simply because the resulting company would have too much market share. That is a straight up ban on monopoly.

My given example of dell and Intel actually happened and was prosecuted. How does that fit your claims?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#215

Post by pvinis »

Why is this public and they don't handle it directly between the two companies? Not with posts, not with AppStore review feedback. Send some people that can talk and solve this?

This kind of thing is so weird for me when companies do that

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#216

Post by askmike »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #199
askmike wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In 2018 (edit: 2017) they made roughly $11.5 billion[1] with their 30% cut.

1% instead would be $383 million a year. You think that wouldn't be sufficient to run a digital store (including the things mentioned)? Pretty sure you can do it with far less than that.

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-ap...

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#217

Post by laumars »

close04 wrote: post #142
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…

> no such competition inside Apples walled garden There is massive competition to the garden itself.

> There is massive competition to the garden itself.

I did already acknowledge that and pointing out why it doesn't work in practice.

In a normal high street setting manufacturers and distributors set their prices and the shops then add their mark up on time. If the prices are too high then consumers will shop in another local store. Which means those stores either have to negotiate a lower selling price or reduce their own margins (or offer an alternative incentive to shop there in spite of the high prices - like free coffee)

With iOS consumers don't have the option of going to another App Store, which then flips the order of control. It means Apple can dictate their markup and app developers are then forced to lower their own margins if they want to appear attractive to other shoppers.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#218

Post by hyperbovine »

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #112
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.

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

Err who forced this guy to buy an iPhone?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#219

Post by askmike »

close04 wrote: post #179
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.

MS had a monopoly in the personal computer industry. Apple does not have one in the mobile industry. By this logic Mercedes has a monopoly on all Mercedes cars but they're clearly not one in the auto industry. If Mercedes ever decides to ban or squeeze a supplier, monopoly will not be the argument to nail them. I'm not saying Apple is right to do this. I'm saying the monopoly on their own product is not the correct a…

Fair point.
Post reply on HN