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

351–360 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#351

Post by simonh »

josephg wrote: post #168
oAlbe wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't carry neither your TV nor your desktop on the go with you like you can with your smartphone.

But just like my TV and my desktop computer, I've paid for my phone with cash. Its mine. Just like my PC, I don't owe Apple Computers any extra money in exchange for the privilege to install apps like spotify on my device. The benefit of having access to the app store is already factored into the (quite high) price I paid for my phone.

And if you can find a way to defeat it's security, you are free to do so. However being incredibly locked down and secure is one the the product's features. It's up to you if you still want the product, but that's how it comes.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#352

Post by badwolf »

ndnxhs wrote: post #61
chrischen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In this case users should also be able to install from outside sources and not be forced to use the app store.

Perhaps one reason people buy iphones, is because you can't install from outside sources. It's part of the feeling of trust in iPhone. If you get a subscription in-app, you can easily cancel it on your phone, without having to worry about going through some kind of retention hell (call to cancel, dark ux patterns to prevent cancellation, etc...) As well as level of security in that it's one less company with my credit card to worry about being leaked/hacked/whatever.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#353

Post by bergie »

hyperbovine wrote: post #223
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)

Apple’s market share is 15%. Not quite monopoly territory.

Their market share on iOS devices is a bit higher than that

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#354

Post by apandhi »

As an app developer, I wouldn't care about the 30% cut if apple's In-App Purchase SDK was up to par with other payment processors.

For example - as a developer I can't cancel subscriptions on a user's behalf, even if they've requested us to cancel it multiple times, nor can I refund a user's subscription, give them discounts/free months for their troubles/etc. The thing is, when a user reaches out to Apple to request a refund (since we can't do it on their behalf), and Apple denies the refund, we get the bad review.

On top of all of that, Apple does not pay out their developers until 30 days after the end of the month. That means that we can be waiting for 60(!) days before we receive revenue from an active, paid, subscription. They don't even let us know how much we will get paid for the month until a week before payments are dispatched.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#355

Post by simonh »

vanderZwan wrote: post #173
hjk05 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, that is not the same story. Physical stores can be swapped out on a whim. Phones are something you change at most every couple of years (and hopefully last even longer, if you give a damn about the environment). Actually, the "Walmart is a choice" claim also only holds up if there actually are multiple stores nearby, because who is going to drive fifty miles to the next store? Food deserts are a thing. This is a…

OK, but there are no iPhone deserts where only iPhones work and Androids get no signal. I don't see any false choice here. There are plenty of other phones on plenty of networks, with plenty of Apps. If there are more or better Apps on the iPhone, arguably that's at least in part because of their careful policies on curation of the platform rather than despite them.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#356

Post by simonh »

hyperbovine wrote: post #218
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.

Err who forced this guy to buy an iPhone?

I think I can safely say absolutely nobody.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#357

Post by pnongrata »

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?

I think is more due to the fact that they see themselves as 'too Big', with lots of leverage.

Anyhow, they have so much money that even when regulation comes, their business will still be secured.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#358

Post by JadoJodo »

simonh wrote: post #350
spiderfarmer wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I suspect spiderfarmer meant that Apple is trying to prevent "[Using] spotify and netflix without going through apple", at least on iOS.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#359

Post by dadoge »

Lot of comments here refer to the 30% fee in isolation.

Where Apple is especially unfair in allowing others to compete is that it too has a music service and in the past was able to charge users lower than what any competitor would charge for a music streaming subscription.

So it’s the combination of 30% fee and making apps where it itself doesn’t “charge itself” 30%

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#360

Post by dhimes »

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.

This is more like I'm not allowed to keep whole foods milk in my sears refrigerator- I'm only allowed to shop at Walmart stores.
Post reply on HN