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

631–640 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#631

Post by nacs »

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…

1) The Apple statement that the royalty drops to 15% after the first year (so Spotify is not paying 30%)

2) Also from that statement -- the majority of Spotify customers are either free (ad-supported) customers or don't pay for Spotify through the in-app purchase

I'm actually a Spotify customer and am also one of the people who subscribed through the Spotify site instead of the in-app purchase (of which Apple gets no cut).

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#632

Post by eridius »

B0btheBuilder wrote: post #51
eridius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a word for what you’re describing here: middleman.

I'm struggling to see a distinctive difference between a middleman and a platform...

A car dealership is a middleman. A auto manufacturer is a platform. The car dealership sits between you and the manufacturer, making it easier for you to buy the car, but taking a cut. But you don't need the dealership in order to use your car. Spotify makes it easier for you to find music, but once you've found music, you don't need Spotify anymore (not a perfect analogy since you need to pay to purchase the music from a real store if you're ditching Spotify, but close enough). The auto manufacturer actually builds the car, supplies the replacement parts and manuals for repair, provides software updates for the car's computerized systems, manages any kind of in-car network GPS systems, etc. This is Apple. They develop the whole OS, including all the frameworks that developers actually use to build their apps (and the developer tools too, for that matter), they keep it updated, adding new features and fixing bugs. Apple provides ongoing value to both the user and the developer over the entire lifetime of the app.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#633

Post by dzhiurgis »

supernova87a wrote: post #482
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…

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…

Does Apple Music has to go thru app review process, is forbiden from private api use and overall started with 30% handicap?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#634

Post by laumars »

rbrtl wrote: post #582
laumars wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's certainly unfair competition but still not a monopoly I agree - which is why I specifically did NOT call it a monopoly. > When you paid for the iPhone you also paid for the services bundle that you bought as a package.... You're still missing my point: > And even Spotify has a choice. They can shaft Apple and become Android only, since Android has 85% of the market. The reason they're not doing it right now I…

There does seem to be a conflation of “unfair competition” and “monopoly” going on. Generally speaking of this debate, that is. The App Store is a service rendered to its customers, the likes of Spotify. In the form of the hosting of the app, and all the backend behind that like in-app storage (iCloud). The code review and ‘security guarantee’ that Apple holds over Google and other rivals is also a cost. IMHO this bo…

What free stuff are you referring to?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#635

Post by ahmedalsudani »

simonh wrote: post #344
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.

The thing is there have been loads of other alternatives over the years. Blackberry, WebOS, Windows Mobile, Tizen. Actual customers said no, these are what they want.

Apple and Google's duopoly is natural, no question about it. That doesn't mean we should ignore how they use it.

Google is rightfully scolded for requiring that users sign away their information and following their every move (often using dark patterns).

Apple should be put on hot coals too for how they are abusing their position. Spotify is an excellent illustration because Apple is both the platform and a competitor. I don't understand why an Apple consumer would support their anticompetitive stance.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#636

Post by Jyaif »

shroom wrote: post #624
s3r3nity wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

> I think they've helped Spotify grow a lot

Well no, Apple's even admit that Spotify didn't get their subscriptions through them: "only a tiny fraction of their subscriptions fall under Apple’s revenue-sharing model"

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#637

Post by Jyaif »

Benjammer wrote: post #513
ppeetteerr wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing this but it doesn't make it true: Apple does not have dominance in the smartphone market. It barely reaches 20% of the smartphone market in the EU.

Spotify is obviously going to try and define the relevant market as something that frames Apple as dominant, but I'm struggling to figure out how they're going to do that. You have to define the market as some set of products that are "interchangeable" to consumers. Apple is under 20% of "smartphones," globally, and somewhere around 25% of the EU. I don't think you can say that the App Store is itself a relevant mark…

If multiple companies are selling the same product, and one company is making more profit from this product than all the other companies combined, wouldn't you say that this company is dominant?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#638

Post by Benjammer »

Jyaif wrote: post #637
Benjammer wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is obviously going to try and define the relevant market as something that frames Apple as dominant, but I'm struggling to figure out how they're going to do that. You have to define the market as some set of products that are "interchangeable" to consumers. Apple is under 20% of "smartphones," globally, and somewhere around 25% of the EU. I don't think you can say that the App Store is itself a relevant mark…

If multiple companies are selling the same product, and one company is making more profit from this product than all the other companies combined, wouldn't you say that this company is dominant?

It's not about what I would say, it's about how a dominant undertaking is defined under EU law. Which isn't just "ah that makes sense" as it's basis. There are legal statutes and court precedent that must be argued to prove the definition of the relevant market, and then to prove that Apple is a dominant undertaking within said market. None of this has to do with my feelings about Apple or how "fair" they are being. I have zero knowledge of EU case law, so it's hard for me to make a definitive, sourced argument here to answer your question. I just don't think it's such an open and shut case of market definition NOR Apple's dominance.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#639

Post by Benjammer »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #580
teddyfrozevelt wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They choose not to promote premium services whose payments are executed outside the Apple ecosystem, using (free) advertising channels within the Apple ecosystem.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#640

Post by close04 »

laumars wrote: post #578
close04 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, I'm saying that what Apple is doing to Spotify is exactly what Spotify is doing to their artists, and it's business as usual for both. It may be immoral but I don't see it as illegal (a court may very well see it differently). After putting Spotify's "call for justice" in context it lost all credibility in my eyes. It's like a robber complaining they've been robbed.

And it's not a kneejerk reaction. I plan on using both Apple and Spotify in the future. But anything Spotify want to get they should also give. Doe it look like they are to you?

Post reply on HN