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

341–350 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#341

Post by BlueToth »

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…

That greedy policy was not paying artist for the free period, like Spotify is doing!

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#342

Post by devit »

bradleyjg wrote: post #294
rkangel wrote: post #283

This is an interesting result of the collision of device sales, and a digital distribution channel. The normal free market economic push back against Apple on this would go something like: * Apple charges too much * It's not worth it for apps to be in the App Store * App Store selection drops * Consumers stop buying iPhones In practice though, Apple has such a foothold, and device purchase is so separate from App pur…

I think iOS app distribution is a bit too narrowly drawn a market. What if Apple had 5% of the smartphone market, they'd still have 100% of the iOS app distribution market. No, I'd say the right word here isn't monopoly, but rather duopoly. That doesn't mean that antitrust law shouldn't apply, duopoly is definitely not the same thing as a fully competitive market.

Apple has a monopoly on selling phone apps to the percentage of smartphone users that have an iPhone in their pocket.

It should thus be regarded as a monopoly regardless of how many people are affected, and forbidden.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#343

Post by m-p-3 »

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

And taking 30% of each transactions is exactly what you're accusing Spotify from doing, Apple.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#344

Post by simonh »

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #314
benjaminsuch wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's either Android or iOS really. I'd love for a decent alternative to exist but if you don't want Google tracking everything you do, Apple is the only option.

The thing is there have been loads of other alternatives over the years. Blackberry, WebOS, Windows Mobile, Tizen. Actual customers said no, these are what they want.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#345

Post by epanchin »

bunnycorn wrote: post #105
ac29 wrote: post #81

This argument is super thin -- they seem to think that Spotify enjoys a huge advantage to being available on their platform (they do), without acknowledging that they also enjoy a huge advantage from the most popular music streaming app being available on their platform (which is also true). Apple still makes most of its money on hardware, and having popular apps is absolutely vital to selling hardware.

Why? Apple has Apple Music, has more music than Spotify and even if there is a track on Spotify and not in Apple Music, you can upload your own MP3s and stream them. I have a gigantic collection of Soundtracks and indie music there.

Like many people, I use spotify for music discovery. I don’t feel Apple Music can offer the same quality of recommended tracks for me/moods.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#346

Post by BlueToth »

rdsubhas wrote: post #208
cialowicz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Spotify pays artists a fraction of what Apple pays.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#347

Post by m-p-3 »

testvox wrote: post #331
ahmedalsudani wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's either Android or iOS really. I'd love for a decent alternative to exist but if you don't want Google tracking everything you do, Apple is the only option.

There are lots of Android versions with all Google tracking code excised.

Are they sold like this directly from the manufacturer?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#348

Post by ihuman »

chrischen wrote: post #35
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the best case is that Apple sets the price it does business at, but that there are reasonable ways for the app to use a different payment provider, even if just by linking to the web. This keeps Apple's price in check naturally... As they'll need to keep the price competitive enough that the convenience of using their service is worth it.

I can also see the argument that for users that discover an app through the App store, they must pay the platform/acquisition costs. But I agree a lifetime 15% is unfair. Best case scenario is 1) Apple switches their platform monetization to a more direct model where you pay to advertise your app in the App store. This will get tricky because their "Top apps" list still serve as advertising but you can't just remove…

They already have a way to pay for ads when searching.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#349

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

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…

> The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them

What about the rationale that nobody would have bought their iPhone in the first place if it wasn't for apps?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#350

Post by simonh »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #137
isostatic wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use spotify and netflix without going through apple, the former on my linux desktop, the latter additionally on my smart tv.

Problem is that Apple is actively trying to prevent that. They have no right to do that and are abusing the power they have in other areas to do it.

How are Apple trying to prevent people using Spotify or Netflix on smart TVs and Linux desktops?
Post reply on HN