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

301–310 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#301

Post by coldtea »

ThomPete wrote: post #274
coldtea wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yes, but on mobile Spotify doesn't even provide the Marketplace -- only part of it (their own app), the other (the mobile OS, platform, payment processing, consumer trust, marketing, etc) is built by Apple and Google.

Because that's the only way you can do it.

They can always create their own mobile platform, if they think Apple providing them with one is not worth much to them...

After all Google and Apple did.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#302

Post by kelnos »

bunnycorn wrote: post #92
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…

Open Source, pay for Apple's WebKit and Apple's contributions to FreeBSD and other open source projects. Every Linux box that is connected to a printer (specially networked printers) runs CUPS in part by Apple. Also, FreeBSD is a small part of macOS, contrary to what some people want other people to believe, and FreeBSD is not in that camp of GPLv3, so no, FreeBSD is not on that disgusting echo chamber leaded by Stal…

> Every Linux box that is connected to a printer (specially networked printers) runs CUPS in part by Apple.

CUPS was an independent project before Apple bought it, and we haven't exactly seen major improvements since the sale.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#303

Post by syshum »

Someone wrote: post #226
aaomidi wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If so, McDonalds is abusing its power even more. They don’t even let me sell my burgers in their stores. Similarly, it wouldn’t surprise me if music festivals or cinemas charge suppliers selling on their grounds more than 30% of revenues. I know app stores feel different, but as far as I know, that legally still is a reasonably apt comparison. That may eventually change, but if so, someone will have to specify what e…

App stores feel different because they are different. You seem to have an incorrect definition of what a market is

McDonalds is not a market, McDonalds is a vendor in a Market.

Apples has a created a market on is the platform by virtue of the App Store, a case can be made for Anti-Trust due to to this, but it would be a hard one.

Defining what is and is not a market is always one of the largest challenges for Anti-Trust, take for example the Merger of Sirus and XM, there was a debate over if Sat Radio was a market separate and independent of Traditional Radio, in the end Sirus / XM won and was able to establish that Sat Radio was not an independent market because consumer could easily switch between Sat Radio and Traditional Radio

Given the Lockin, and increasing Costs associated with Changing Mobile Platforms it becomes more of a question on if iOS and Andriod should be separate markets or be considered a single market. I can see cases for both

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#304

Post by benjaminsuch »

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.

You are free to buy a smartphone from other manufacturers. No one is forcing you to use an Apple product.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#305

Post by shrimpx »

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…

> Apple connects Spotify to our users.

This is a bit of a ridiculous claim. From another perspective, an iPhone is just another way to access your favorite apps and content. Taken to more of an extreme, imagine Comcast or T-Mobile claiming that they provide users to Spotify... Apple is easily just a middle man here but they make themselves sound like the entity that owns the users and plugs them into apps. It's not like people buy iPhones just because they're shiny pieces of aluminum and glass, and using apps is secondary to that.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#306

Post by kelnos »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #146
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.

This is a very good point. The simple act of having a popular app on the App Store is a significant contribution to that marketplace.

I imagine losing Spotify wouldn't cause every Spotify user to ditch the iPhone, but I'm sure there are others like you. And many people likely have some other app that they'd consider ditching the iPhone for if it was pulled.

A healthy app ecosystem is a big part of what drives iPhone sales.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#307

Post by matwood »

jbverschoor wrote: post #228
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…

Have you ever tried getting a subscription with Spotify on an account linked to facebook, where the facebook account was disconnected? It is impossible to stop the subscription. No thank you, I will trust my payments with Apple.. Esp. subscriptions.

This is something I think people miss. Almost every other company I have subscriptions with make them a pain to cancel. Subs through the App Store are easy to find and cancel. It's very consumer friendly. Plus as you said, I'm not a fan of giving every service I want to use my CC.

Is that worth 30%/15%? I don't know. The fact that 15% exists shows that Apple is thinking about the pricing and adjusting. Apple just doesn't do anything quickly.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#308

Post by marmada »

mrunkel wrote: post #266
abalone wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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:…

Sure Apple makes money off their share of the payment system. Why shouldn't they? They built the whole thing from scratch, including the phones it runs on. Also Apple doesn't just support the secure payment system, they also handle distributing the money and providing customer support to the end user and the developer. That isn't free either. If you don't like the Apple model, there are alternatives. Apple's argument…

>If you don't like the Apple model, there are alternatives.

What alternatives? Without allowing developers to create 3rd-party payment systems, all payments must be routed through Apple.

>Apple's argument (which seems compelling if we judge it on the result) is that their model is the best solution for customers and developers.

Apple's model does not seem to be compelling for developers/content creators. Developers need to pay a large (for some) amount of money and give Apple a large cut of their profits.

It's also unclear why Apple's model is best for consumers. While it seems good because it protects consumers from scams on third party sites, for reputable companies like Spotify or Netflix, there doesn't seem to be a risk, except for increased prices to the end user because companies need to compensate for losing a third of their earnings.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#309

Post by laumars »

mohamedattahri wrote: post #287
laumars wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's certainly unfair competition but still not a monopoly I agree - which is why I specifically did NOT call it a monopoly. > When you paid for the iPhone you also paid for the services bundle that you bought as a package.... You're still missing my point: > And even Spotify has a choice. They can shaft Apple and become Android only, since Android has 85% of the market. The reason they're not doing it right now I…

> Since you like car metaphors: it's like a taxi driver buying a car and the the dealer expecting to take a cut from all the taxi fairs even though the dealer's involvement ended the moment the car rolled off their forecourt. I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had ac…

> I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them:

Would the app developers "never have access" to those consumers though? Because if the iPhone didn't exist then consumers would just use another handset. Just like we did before the iPhone and just like a significant amount of people do currently.

There's definitely a blurred line somewhere though. I agree to Apple having a fee for app sales though I think 30% is a bit steep but I agree Apple ultimately get to decide how much they want to charge. I agree that some apps might try to circumvent that fee by offering in app sales instead so Apple are trying to close off that particular loophole. However I don't agree that Spotify fall into that same category because their "in app sales" is actually a subscription service to a much larger product. However where do you draw the line?

> I think this is an incorrect analogy.

Obviously I wouldn't agree but I can completely understand why you'd say that given how open to interpretation analogies can be.

To be honest I hate posting them in debates because if you agree with the point then you'll agree with the analogy but if you don't agree with the point then you'll naturally find a reason the analogy doesn't fit. And given analogies aren't meant to be 100% representative, it means there's always plenty of ways to disprove it. Thus analogies are never persuasive in a debate. Worse still, sometimes you end up going down a rabbit hole of arguing analogies rather than discussing the actual point at hand.

For this reason, I usually try to avoid them.

Post reply on HN