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

621–630 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#621

Post by sbuk »

teddyfrozevelt wrote: post #561
sbuk wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is their argument, then it's pretty weak IMO.

They’ve listed all their arguments on their site www.timetoplayfair.com, although I wish some where more technically in-depth.

www.timetoplayfair.com?! I have no sympathy for Spotify WRT "playing fair". Match Apple, or even better Google when it comes to paying artists, then we'll talk. They even discuss, as market leader, offering predatory pricing! The rest, as evidenced by Apple's response is seemingly misrepresenting the facts. To be fair, Spotify's marketing team have taken this straight out of the Steven P. Jobs play book; pick a fight.

Personally, I use Amazon Music because I get it as part of Amazon Prime. It has most of the music I want to listen to, but not all. I was considering Spotify, but with nonsense like this, this is one potential customer that they have lost.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#622

Post by Spivak »

teddyfrozevelt wrote: post #610
Benjammer wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question. Internally, do you know if the Apple Music division of the business still tracks a 30% payment to the App Store division of the business? If this was the case, does that change your opinion here? I honestly cannot see the legal footing in this whole thing to claim that Apple has any sort of obligation to be "fair" here.

I don’t know if Apple Music has to pay 30% to Apple, but either way It wouldn’t change my opinion and I don’t think it would make a difference to the EU. It’s illegal in most places to use your dominance in one market to your advantage in another. Google got fined by the EU for doing that with Android and Chrome/other GApps. I personally think Apple should allow developers to link to an external payment system for su…

It seems like you've set up an opinion where Apple Music is not allowed to exist in any form because Apple obeying the App Store rules like any other app is not considered enough.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#623

Post by Spivak »

pritambaral wrote: post #592
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ethically I think you might have a point but having a different set of rules for 1st and 3rd party applications isn't a super new idea.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#624

Post by shroom »

s3r3nity wrote: post #562
supernova87a wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU. As I said in a comment far below here, it's a funny thing, how to define anticompetitive and monopoly practices, depending on how you frame the scope of the market. See Peter Thiel's book for a chapter on this. You could say that Apple has a monopoly over developers building apps and providing their services to…

I am very hard-pressed to believe iOS has a monopoly by most arguments. Market share argument: Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%. [1] Ease of customer switching argument: If Apple pressed too much in a way that harmed consumers, there are many other cheaper alternative Android phones vs. iOS to which they can easily port their number over (say what you want about ISPs…

Part of the point Apple is trying to make is that the AppStore helped Spotify grow their business and prove the business model. Spotify really took of when they started the beta of the iOS App. In Sweden, and then rolling out to the countries in EU, where iPhones (at least at the time) had a dominant market share.

I still find it true that a lot of the early iOS users still have their premium subscription. And I wouldn't be surprised if iOS is dominant in the premium users of Spotify today.

I found the response by Apple good and I think they've helped Spotify grow a lot. Suing Apple feels a bit like they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#625

Post by Spivak »

mrep wrote: post #599
throwawaymath wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But since they also get the 30% cut back.

That's not how that works. If you charge $50/hr as a freelance software developer and you work on your own stuff for a day you didn't "get $400 back", you paid $400 in opportunity cost.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#626

Post by teddyfrozevelt »

Spivak wrote: post #622
teddyfrozevelt wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if Apple Music has to pay 30% to Apple, but either way It wouldn’t change my opinion and I don’t think it would make a difference to the EU. It’s illegal in most places to use your dominance in one market to your advantage in another. Google got fined by the EU for doing that with Android and Chrome/other GApps. I personally think Apple should allow developers to link to an external payment system for su…

It seems like you've set up an opinion where Apple Music is not allowed to exist in any form because Apple obeying the App Store rules like any other app is not considered enough.

I have no problem with Google Play Music/YouTube Music because those are treated like equal citizens with Spotify on Android. I think it’s better for everyone if Apple Music’s competitors weren’t at a disadvantage just because Apple makes the platform, and I say this as someone who owns many Apple products.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#627

Post by spiderfarmer »

kelnos wrote: post #306
spiderfarmer wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without making any contributions to that marketplace. If Spotify was not available on the iPhone, because Apple wants to push Apple Music, I would ditch the iPhone, not Spotify.

This is a very good point. The simple act of having a popular app on the App Store is a significant contribution to that marketplace. I imagine losing Spotify wouldn't cause every Spotify user to ditch the iPhone, but I'm sure there are others like you. And many people likely have some other app that they'd consider ditching the iPhone for if it was pulled. A healthy app ecosystem is a big part of what drives iPhone…

Just ask Microsoft, they were/are paying developers to port their apps to Microsofts platform, just to get traction. They even made an unofficial Youtube app to fill the gap, which Google blocked.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#628

Post by graeme »

I think part of the problem here is that Apple's 30% fee is clearly aimed at digital goods for which the marginal sale has approximately no costs. Most digital goods are quite scaleable, and have enormous marginal per unit.

However, Spotify is not at all like that. Neither is Kindle, neither is Netflix. So a system that is somewhat justifiable for software is simply insane for digital goods which do have marginal costs to sell.

This is not necessarily simply to resolve. Witness, for example, the troubles with corporate taxation, and EU proposals for a digital tax on gross revenues rather than net revenues. This is basically aimed at the same sort of problem. E.g. Spotify might actually be very happy to hand over 30% of profit per user to apple, as opposed to revenue per user. But, how the devil do you calculate that simply, for all companies in this category?

I don't know exactly how to address it, but Apple should in some way address the fact that not all digital goods have zero marginal costs to sell.

This is far from the only issue at play, but I haven't seen it addressed, and I think it's fairly central.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#629

Post by teilo »

graeme wrote: post #628

I think part of the problem here is that Apple's 30% fee is clearly aimed at digital goods for which the marginal sale has approximately no costs . Most digital goods are quite scaleable, and have enormous marginal per unit. However, Spotify is not at all like that. Neither is Kindle, neither is Netflix. So a system that is somewhat justifiable for software is simply insane for digital goods which do have marginal co…

That may be true for bedroom developers, but it's just not true for the great majority of people or companies making money on app sales. Consider how many of them rely on cloud infrastructure. Those are not sunk costs. Consider also how necessary it is to market your apps, pay your staff, etc. Also not sunk costs.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#630

Post by coryfklein »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #605
coryfklein wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your personal accusation of disingenuousness distracts from what would otherwise have been a good point. Let's see what a barebones setup costs for developing with a solid IDE on each platform: macOS: $800 Mac Mini (Apple's most affordable offering that runs macOS) $90 Acer SB220Q Monitor $FREE Xcode Total: $890 Windows: $200 Dell Inspiron 11 3000 (Most affordable Dell PC I could find being sold new) $1200 One time p…

Visual Studio Community is free. It doesn't have the fancy cloud/devops enterprise-y stuff, but it's not like Xcode does either.

Ah! I didn't know Visual Studio Community was even a thing. Figures though, since I've never used either.
Post reply on HN