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

571–580 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#571

Post by joshbackstein »

supernova87a wrote: post #473
unethical_ban wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point, but don't underestimate the power of public opinion, or the public wallet. I tend to think Apple is shitty in this instance, and I advocate all people use hardware-neutral services when possible. I stand with Spotify - that is, until they do something wildly anti-consumer or break their app.

I agree that public opinion is important, because it's usually what guides public policy. But I would just caution people to consider whether your stance is truly based on what you think should apply generally, or just because you like the person/party in the specific case. (applies to a lot of things in life) The power of platform providers versus app providers ebbs and flows back and forth with new technology, depe…

I mostly agree with you, but I think your examples might miss the mark a little.

Craigslist charging employers to post job listings doesn't seem like it would have much of an impact on the consumer market. I'd guess that the business-to-business expense in this instance probably isn't significant enough for it to be passed on to the (employer's) customers or impact their experience.

Restaurants probably don't take as large of a chunk of their revenue or have as many restrictions placed upon them by Grubhub as Spotify does by Apple.

Amazon, on the other hand, is probably the closest comparison. However, I suspect Amazon's services to their sellers involve greater capital and operating expenses than the services Apple provides to their sellers. Both companies need to spend money on tech infrastructure, development, and support. In addition to this, Apple needs to employ reviewers to act as the gatekeepers of the App Store and possibly buy hardware for those reviewers to use. In contrast, Amazon needs to build/purchase/rent warehouses, employ warehouse workers, and purchase warehouse equipment (forklifts, etc.).

Amazon also doesn't take a cut of, for example, Microsoft's subscription fees if someone orders an Xbox and subscribes to Xbox Live. This might be different for Amazon's app store for their Fire OS devices, but I'm guessing you were referring to their general marketplace.

To be fair, I probably don't know enough about any of these markets for my opinions to hold much weight, but I'm not sure if the examples you gave really line up with the situation between Apple and Spotify. But I definitely agree that it's important for people to try to remember to stay unbiased with these things.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#572

Post by simonh »

vel0city wrote: post #422
simonh wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To go to one grocery instead of another in suburban America means driving a few more minutes with a cost of some time, a bit of gas, and a minute amount of wear and tear on a car. To change app stores, it requires spending several hundred dollars on replacement hardware, not including having to repurchase applications, accessories, etc.

That applies as much to Android, or any other phone, as it does to Apple though. It’s just the nature of the market, not some perfidious Apple plot. There’s just nothing substantive here.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#574

Post by parthdesai »

sbuk wrote: post #569
parthdesai wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apart from Lightning, which was created when no better alternative existed Gotcha, then why does new iPhone not have USB-C while new MacBooks only have USB-C?

Apart from Lightning...

>Apart from Lightning, which was created when no better alternative existed...

There is a better universal alternative out there today and yet they continue to use Lightning port in iPhones.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#575

Post by djanogo »

XCode is not free, the price is included in the Mac purchase. I can't do ANY iOS development without first paying for Apple hardware.

iPhone is owned by user. If App Store is a profit center for Apple, then all their claims of "for the good of platform" are invalid. If it's not a profit center then I guess they can come up with whatever revenue model to socialize the cost.

Apple Pay is different product, that discussion should be separate.

I am a conservative, but agree with Sen Warren, >$25B companies need to be severely restricted on how they spread into other products. It might lead to over valuing smaller companies as investors would have to constantly look for new opportunities.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#576

Post by zedkrevas »

I'm quite interested in all this, because I feel they have significant impact on the future of these tech giants. Just as Google has been battling anti-trust suits for some time, it seems like it's time for Apple to face the music.

From Apple's reply to Spotify, I notice that they haven't made a single valid counterpoint to Spotify's primary claim, which is that Apple is favouring their own Apple Music service on the App Store and the Apple Watch, while applying different rules for their competitors. In fact, it's quite disconcerting to see Apple engage in this petty whataboutery, when they mentioned that Spotify don't pay the musicians well: this point has nothing whatsoever to do with this anti-trust case. It's quite okay for Spotify to be horrible to the musicians and still want to be treated fairly by Apple.

I personally am on Spotify's side in this case and I hope cases like these prevent these tech giants from brazenly stomping over rivals as and when they see fit.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#577

Post by School-Cotton »

larkost wrote: post #549
School-Cotton wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple publishes an iOS simulator, not an emulator, which is a totally different thing.

Yes, it is different. But how is that important in this conversation. Here the important bit is: have a tool that enables you to test your iOS code on your development machine. Emulation vs. simulation is not generally important in that. Side note undercutting my point: there are places, like OpenGL where the underlying hardware is significantly better/different and the iOS simulation is not representative of the rea…

You’re absolutely right that it’s not important to the conversation; I’m just being pedantic and going on a tangent :) But I have seen enough real bugs due to people not understanding the limitations of iOS simulator realism that I would really like it if more people understood the issue.

It also matters in more than high-performance GPU rendering. It’s easy to miss bog-standard CPU performance or memory leak bugs when you’re running software designed for a 1GB Ram, dual core CPU machine on a 32GB, 8 core machine

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#578

Post by laumars »

close04 wrote: post #522
laumars wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I want my music in the Spotify catalog who decides what's my cut and what's Spotify's cut of the money my music is generating? They have 100% control there so if I want to list my music there what are my choices? Pay up or not have a presence. Indeed. This same argument has been ranging on for years about music streaming services and ebooks via Amazon too. So it's not just Apple who get put under the spotlight.…

> I think that's a little disingenuous. It's not really. Crying wolf is a bit hypocritical seeing how both engage in the exact same practices but only one is coming up with the sob story. > I don't think Spotify has mislead anyone any more than Apple are misleading people They came in the court of public opinion asking for fair treatment while misleading and giving half the story in their very loud complaint. They lo…

Your argument is weird. You acknowledge both are up to the same tricks yet it’s ok for one party and not the other because the first party annoyed you with a press release?

I agree it’s hard to argue who’s right and wrong but your opinion seems to be based purely on a knee jerk emotional reaction - which isn’t a compelling stance to take.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#579

Post by fauigerzigerk »

askmike wrote: post #532
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I really don't think it would be sufficient to run a payment service that includes billing, international VAT processing, chargebacks, customer support, fighting fraud, plus providing an entire software development, distribution and vetting platform. Mobile platforms are dysfunctional markets. That's why they can charge 30% and that's why regulators will step in sooner or later. But take a look around and you wil…

Software development is completely unrelated: of course Apple needs to provide software so developers can build apps so consumers have a reason to buy an iPhone in the first place. That has little to do with a marketplace. They can charge 30% because the marketplace (Apple's App Store & Google's playstore) are monopolies and they have complete control over the complete supply chain. If you want your app to be availab…

>They can charge 30% because the marketplace (Apple's App Store & Google's playstore) are monopolies and they have complete control over the complete supply chain.

I agree with that. 30% is not a plausible rate in a well functioning market. But it's not 1% either, I can guarantee you that. So what is the right revenue share?

Paddle charges 5% to act as a merchant of record for you (i.e as a reseller). That's what Apple does as well and I haven't seen that service offered for much less.

On top of that, Apple provides all the software distribution and discovery functionality. I'm not sure what the cost of that is, but it's not nothing.

So by my estimate, a realistic revenue share for Apple in a well functioning market could be in a range between 8% and 15%. But on the lower end that might mean higher fixed fees for free apps and worse support.

What they should do first of all is change the pricing structure to charge a fixed fee plus a percentage. That would allow them to cover their per transaction cost and take a far more realistic revenue cut on top of that.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#580

Post by PascLeRasc »

teddyfrozevelt wrote: post #555
sbuk wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "In this case Spotify are arguing that Apple is using its dominance of the smartphone market to give an unfair advantage to its own music store." You forgot to add context; by charging 30% on IAPs . The fact is Spotify don't need to use IAPs for subscriptions. Apple even mentioned this in TFA.

But Spotify can’t even tell users how to upgrade to premium according to Apple’s rules. The best they can say is “You can’t upgrade to Premium in the app. We know, it’s not ideal.”

How do Netflix and Hulu get around this?
Post reply on HN