641–650 of 688 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's walled garden is _A_ store. One of several.
I think you need to go back and reread what I posted: > Apple's walled garden is _A_ store. Well obviously. Please quote me where I said otherwise. > One of several. Feel free to list all the other app stores on the iPhone.
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?
Is Porsche more dominant than Toyota?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did apple music price below spotify/ not familiar with the pricing history.
They used shady tactics to force them to bill through the Apple's marketplace so they could get the 30% cut, forcing Spotify to raise prices by 30% so they could maintain their revenue position. Then they released Apple Music at the $9.99 price point that Spotify was at previously. The shady tactics resumed when Spotify stopped using the App Store to bill and reduced the price to compete with Apple Music. Apple isn't…
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…
> Spotify seeks to keep all the benefits of the App Store ecosystem — including the substantial revenue that they draw from the App Store’s customers — without making any contributions to that marketplace Wow, Apple's response is rather arrogant. Apple seems to forget that without apps like Spotify, and those it said "contribute nothing to the app store", app store won't grow to what it is today. I am pretty sure tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 usi…
So I really wouldn't take Apples rebuttal at face value either. It doesn't line up with what any other the other streaming services (both current nor the ones that closed shop because they simply couldn't afford the exorbitant rights being demanded) have claimed over the years, and it certainly doesn't line up with what I experienced back when I was involved in the music scene myself (which was some years ago now - but sadly it's an industry that showed no sign of adapting even then)
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?
As with so many matters that involve money, arguments fly around left and right that claim to be on principle, but really aren't. When you see ESPN and Comcast argue over showing the World Series, don't buy the argument that one of them is "trying to prevent loyal customers from being able to see their favorite game", or when your local hospital group withdraws from your employer health plan that "the other side is t…
> 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.