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

411–420 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#411

Post by devit »

filleokus wrote: post #362
devit wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we accept this definition of a monopoly, then the term becomes worthless. Every single device where the user can add third party software but it has to be approved by the manufacturer becomes a monopoly. Stuff like Garmin watches, "smart" fridges and other appliances, "apps" on car's dashboards (like Spotify on Tesla etc). And why should this only apply to hardware, is it not comparable to Facebook having a monopo…

The same reasoning does indeed apply to Garmin watches, smart fridges and car dashboards since people are only going to wear one watch and own one fridge and one car.

I don't see the downside of requiring everyone in your examples that already allows third party apps to do so for free (other than passing through payment processing fees) and without delay and censorship: the costs are minor or insignificant and can be included in the purchase price of the device.

The advantage is that it leads to a fair playing field for app makers, lower prices for consumers (since the money that goes to the platform maker is all visible upfront in the device price and thus easier to compete on) and doesn't stifle niches that the platform owner doesn't like for whatever reason.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#412

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

efdee wrote: post #393
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the clearest way to say it. Spotify has utterly no argument in this case. Their claims make no sense, it’s just a lot of noise for Spotify to drum up an angry mob of people who vaguely misunderstand “monopoly” and hate Apple for whatever unrelated reasons. If you want to put your product into the distribution channel that Apple spent shitloads of money to create and operate, then you have to pay their fees an…

Nobody is talking about the price of app distribution though. It's about the cost of a Spotify subscription. This subscription has nothing to do in the slightest with Apple. Apple doesn't have to promote it, distribute it, host it, pay for its bandwidth, nothing. Spotify already has their own distribution channel (sign up on their website), and Apple is prohibiting them from mentioning it on iPhones and instead force…

The only thing anyone is talking about is the price of app distribution. That price includes obeying the terms of Apple’s distribution channel.

> “Spotify already has their own distribution channel (sign up on their website)”

Yes, and if they don’t like the prices for oveying the rules of Apple’s distribution channel, they are free to remove the app from Apple’s app store, and notify customers that they cannot use the service on iOS devices.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#413

Post by emsy »

voqv wrote: post #387
tempodox wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to publish your stuff in the AppStore, or just install it on your own iDevice , you have to pay a yearly subscription fee.

> install it on your own iDevice, you have to pay a yearly subscription fee. Not true anymore [1] [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43932076/how-to-build-ap...

Not only do you still have to hassle with Apple's clunky provisioning profiles, it only lasts for a week and you're almost guaranteed to get an error message because you reached the device limit with as much as one device.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#414

Post by Orphis »

sjwright wrote: post #335
kelnos wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple: $ to build the app, $ to maintain the music label relationships, $ to manage paying royalties, $ to manage server infra, $ for bandwidth. Spotify: $ to build the app, $ to maintain the music label relationships, $ to manage paying royalties, $ to manage server infra, $ for bandwidth, $ to Apple for the "privilege" of being listed on the App Store and using Apple's payments system (which they have no choice ove…

From what you're saying it sounds like Spotify should have built a smartphone platform. It's not free for Apple to build and maintain the App Store and everything that entails—from API documentation to the rock solid software platform that is being kept up to date and is astonishingly robust compared to any internet-connected consumer platform that came before it. Some apps pay for that effort with a cut of the app's…

It's not free to build a platform, but I believe the cost has already been paid by the users when they buy their device.

No reason to have users pay twice, when they buy their device and when they try to use services on the device they already have.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#415

Post by [deleted] »

simonh wrote: post #389
revel wrote: post #361

I love how brazen this letter is. > Apple’s approach has always been to grow the pie. Apple's approach has always been to grow it's own pie. They have never been even remotely interested in playing nicely with other companies. I don't fault them for it, but let's not kid ourselves here; the app store is largely an extremely profitable exercise in rent seeking. It's not like this is new for Apple; they've had propriet…

There’s a thread of truth in what you’re saying, but it unravels on close inspection. Proprietary cables are hardly new, and to be fair those cables and connectors are usually way better than the standard stuff. Firewire and thunderbolt were actually released as open standards and saw decent adoption. Lightning is far superior to Micro-USB. Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Macbook owners having to…

[deleted]

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#416

Post by Orphis »

andromeduck wrote: post #192
headmelted wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still missing the point. Apple owns a mall (iOS). In that mall, Apple owns a book store (iTunes). Amazon also has a book store in the mall (Kindle). Apple does not want to sell Amazon's books (Kindle format ebooks) in it's store (iTunes). Ok. Apple decrees that no store in the mall shall sell any books but iTunes books, which only they may sell. Not Ok.

Amazon is free to sell books in their app, they just need to pay a portion of their revenue for the privilege of doing so much like in the mall.

Are you really free to do something if it comes with highly unfavorable conditions then?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#417

Post by robert_foss »

simonh wrote: post #389
revel wrote: post #361

I love how brazen this letter is. > Apple’s approach has always been to grow the pie. Apple's approach has always been to grow it's own pie. They have never been even remotely interested in playing nicely with other companies. I don't fault them for it, but let's not kid ourselves here; the app store is largely an extremely profitable exercise in rent seeking. It's not like this is new for Apple; they've had propriet…

There’s a thread of truth in what you’re saying, but it unravels on close inspection. Proprietary cables are hardly new, and to be fair those cables and connectors are usually way better than the standard stuff. Firewire and thunderbolt were actually released as open standards and saw decent adoption. Lightning is far superior to Micro-USB. Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Macbook owners having to…

XCode may cost you 0$, but you have to buy a Mac to use it. And those things are >0$ in most cases.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#419

Post by asdff »

madeofpalk wrote: post #373
revel wrote: post #361

I love how brazen this letter is. > Apple’s approach has always been to grow the pie. Apple's approach has always been to grow it's own pie. They have never been even remotely interested in playing nicely with other companies. I don't fault them for it, but let's not kid ourselves here; the app store is largely an extremely profitable exercise in rent seeking. It's not like this is new for Apple; they've had propriet…

> they've had proprietary cables and adapters for as long as I can remember. Apart from Lightning, which was created when no better alternative existed, I cannot remember a proprietary Apple connector in at least the past 10 years.

Any apple laptop video out for the past 15 years?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#420

Post by have_faith »

shrimpx wrote: post #305
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 l…

The 'our users' bit is actually one of the most annoying bits. As if anyone that uses iOS is under Apple's control as to what they are or aren't allowed to do or be exposed to. It reveals a lot about how they view their position in the relationship. Between them and users. As if when I download an app or game, Apple is bestowing me to the app developer.
Post reply on HN