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

591–600 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#591

Post by Axsuul »

hoffs wrote: post #73
Axsuul wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many other ways to compete on rather than just pricing. That 30% less can be recovered by having exclusive artists, a better product, and a stronger presence on other platforms.

'having exclusive artists' yeah, nobody wants that and that encourages bad competition. 'stronger presence on other platforms' doesn't help with presence on iOS market 'a better product' they arguable already have it

I don't see how having exclusive artists (or even content) encourages bad competition. These are artists/content that potentially wouldn't have existed without Spotify's investment.

A stronger presence on other platforms would enable Spotify to make more revenue from those users vs. what Apple could siphon. Apple's main focus is on iOS. Furthermore, Apple Music's association with Apple probably hurts its image on other platforms like Android, giving Spotify an edge.

What I'm inferring is that Spotify can easily make up that 30% loss to Apple with other tactics just by differentiating.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#592

Post by pritambaral »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #566
weavejester wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" There's no public right to have a music app be charged a certain amount that's called "fair". Spotify could charge nothing to consumers, and be charged nothing by Apple. It's their choice. It's Apple's choice." Competition laws place limitations on what a business can do. They're not free to sell or price entirely as they please. In this case Spotify are arguing that Apple is using its dominance of the smartphone m…

Apple isn't doing anything to Spotify that they don't do to all apps - both the app store rejections and the fees. It seems wrong to call that anti-competitive in favor of Apple Music.

But they are doing something to Spotify (and all other music streaming apps) that they don't do to their own app.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#593

Post by mychael »

> avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs

This is an insult to anyone with a brain. Calling fees "contributions" as if they "maintain" anything beyond increasing shareholder value.

Don't be fooled by Apple's warm and fuzzy messaging.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#594

Post by exergy »

dpwm wrote: post #533
_mghw wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers get perma-shafted.

Counterargument: consumers are free to switch their entire phone to enjoy the rent-seeking behavior of another party on another platform.

Definitely no counter-arguments from me. Because of Apple's pricing insanity, I've made sure I own zero of their devices, and I think every person capable of independent thought should do the same.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#595

Post by hjk05 »

felipelemos wrote: post #198
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.

And I am free to use Google Music, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Deezer and even Tidal. Nobody is forcing me to use Spotify. But, if I have an iPhone, the only application store I can use is controlled by Apple. In other words: if I am an artist and I want to offer my music via streaming I have plenty of options. If one of them does have a deal that I find unfair, I can choose others. If I am a developer and I want to…

True, and if I’m a dairy farm that wants to sell my products to Walmart’s customers there’s only one distributor of shelf space to go to. You can’t cut through an arbitrary point in the business and just demand they change their model. The iPhone might not even be a viable platform today if they had been forced to carry malware from the start because they had “a monopoly on their own product”

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#596

Post by Benjammer »

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.”

Right, because Apple does not want them using the App Store platform to promote, sell, and execute payment on a premium service without paying a cut of the premium price to Apple, as per their explicit platform rules.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#597

Post by ahmedalsudani »

criddell wrote: post #383
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.

As soon as you install some apps, your iPhone is tracking you as well. The recent stories about FourSquare have made me realize that things are much worse than I previously thought.

That's one reason I only keep essential apps ;) also use DNS blocking for trackers.

It's much better than Android even without that though. Especially since Google became more aggressive with tricking users to sign away their privacy.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#598

Post by mikelward »

C4stor wrote: post #265

It's nice to see Apple admitting that they have for a long time, and for the detriment of everyone, fused two very distincts roles. The first is distributing software, and the second is processing payments. Incredibly, the first is free for everyone, even if you distribute billions of copies of your app, which doesn't make any sense in a vacuum. But they allowed themselves to become the only payment processor availab…

It's not technically free: you have to buy a Mac and pay the annual Apple Developer Program fee.

This alone irks me. Why do I need to pay Apple, even if I develop my app in Flutter or some other cross-platform SDK?

But sure, there is no additional per-unit cost.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#599

Post by mrep »

throwawaymath wrote: post #484
aqme28 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify wants a lower $ charge. Apple owns the platform and controls that access and $ charge. That's it. I think that's an oversimplification. When you control the platform and then use that control to favor your own products on that platform, that's anti-competitive.

It's anticompetitive, but is it illegal? Is it unethical? Does Apple's favoritism of its own products on its platform mean competing products cannot exist on the platform, or that they're less capable/visible? There are many platforms which rigidly control what's allowed on it. For example, is Netflix comparable? Netflix can control which providers are represented on its platform.

Apple is most likely using predatory pricing against Spotify which is illegal [0]. I highly doubt Apple music is profitable at a price point of $10 once the 30% cut is taken into account. But since they also get the 30% cut back, they can subsidize their product while Spotify has to charge $10 at a loss or price it at $14 which is more than Apples price and makes the un-competitive.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#600

Post by mdorazio »

mcphage wrote: post #584
EthanV2 wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the point is you might already own a PC, and you could use that for developing Android apps, for example. But if you also want to use Xcode and develop iOS apps as well then you have to buy a Mac.

> you might already own a PC [...] if you also want to use Xcode and develop iOS apps as well then you have to buy a Mac. You might already own a Mac.

And if you own a Mac it costs $0 to develop for any other platform. See the imbalance here?
Post reply on HN