Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

timetoplayfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#851

Post by ehaliewicz2 »

scarface74 wrote: post #829
ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you feel that console makers shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what runs on their devices? Yes physical discs still have to be approved by the console maker. It’s been that way for 30 years. Yes of course. Either allow the user full control of the hardware they apparently own, or call it what it really is, renting.

So is that also the case for my exercise equipment, my TV, my car, my car radio, my cable box, my printer, etc?

I'd say that the person in favor of restricting someone's use of their own hardware needs to come up with the argument in support of that, not the other way around.

You could have an argument in the case of a car, for safety. Cable box perhaps, but I'd say that should probably be considered a case of renting hardware for it to really make sense.

Car radio or printer, etc? Nothing comes to mind.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#852

Post by ksec »

gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

I believe it is not the problem of 30% cuts. It is the Problem of Anti-Competitive behaviour when you have a competing services without the cost of cuts.

This is not the same as Amazon offering their own label in their Store. Customers could shop in dozens of many other online retail or local retail. And Amazon does not charge other label 30% cut for stocking fees.

I believe Apple should charge a fair amount only when they have a competing product or services within its locked system. Had Apple Charge 15% for the first year on Spotify and 10% for all subsequent subscription it would have been much better. I don't believe the 5% would work, as I have seen many saying 5% should be enough. The cost of running microtransaction, processing, billing, legal, etc are just about break even at 5% even in the scale of Apple. I don't see charging 10% would seem unfair. ( In US at least, in EU the processing fees are much much lower )

Or Apple should never have made Apple Music in the first place. I still don't see any value in Apple offering it. iTunes was required for iPod. And it changes the whole music industry as a whole, along with iPod sold which ultimately saved Apple. No one will buy iPhone because of Apple Music, and Apple Music itself isn't even profitable.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#853

Post by supermatt »

jhasse wrote: post #684
supermatt wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't narrowing down markets until we find a monopoly. This is a trillion dollar company abusing access to their captive market. The only option for users is to leave their ecosystem and lose access to all of their purchases. If that isn't covered by current anti-trust law, then the law is outdated and should be changed.

> The only option for users is to leave their ecosystem and lose access to all of their purchases. The user signed up for that, so IMHO he gets what he deserves. The only I think I would change is to disallow the use of the word "purchase" when the user only buys the right to access some DRM-ed content.

So you believe that a purchasing decision that someone made a decade ago should haunt them forever. Nice!

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#854

Post by scarface74 »

stale2002 wrote: post #846
scarface74 wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing legally stopping you from doing the same thing for iOS and you can become an iOS developer much cheaper than a Gabe developer.

Legally, yes, you also have the right to do this in iOS. Unfortunately, Apple often disagrees. They have tried to make multiple frivolous lawsuits against people doing exactly this, over the years. Sometimes it doesn't matter what your rights are, if a company is willing to spend a bunch of money trying to submit illegal lawsuits to bankrupt you.

Citations?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#856

Post by pmart123 »

paxy wrote: post #716
lotu wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. The counter point is, if Apple allowed this, then every single App would use that method. Most people would not realize or care that they bought the XYZ in a web view vs through the AppStore payment system. Even apps that are currently paid only would switch to a "free" app with a "pay here" in-app purchas…

There is still a non-zero cost to implementing a checkout page, as well as associated vendor fees etc. In a fair market the fees for Apple checkout would be along the same lines as Stripe, PayPal etc., but they are using their position as the device and OS vendor to charge 10x as much and giving developers no other option.

I disagree they should be the same. Credit card fraud risk is much higher on the internet than in person for instance. Apple through iOS and the App Store I would guess, also has a significant edge in detecting and stopping fraud through name, location, etc. While 15/30% might be too high, it should be higher than a simple payment processor as the transaction is also safer for the merchant.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#857

Post by stale2002 »

scarface74 wrote: post #854
stale2002 wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally, yes, you also have the right to do this in iOS. Unfortunately, Apple often disagrees. They have tried to make multiple frivolous lawsuits against people doing exactly this, over the years. Sometimes it doesn't matter what your rights are, if a company is willing to spend a bunch of money trying to submit illegal lawsuits to bankrupt you.

Citations?

A Citation that Apple wanted to criminalize jailbreaking?

Here you go: https://consumerist.com/2009/02/14/apple-wants-to-make-jailb...

That is a clear example of a bad actor.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#858

Post by MaxBarraclough »

ar_lan wrote: post #727
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just those two, it's standard practice: Audible, Google Play video, Amazon video, Amazon music, Playstation Video, Vimeo, Sky Store video, and YouTube Premium/Google Music (same subscription with different marketing). Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. All this strikes me as a clear indi…

> The exact words used by the Audible app for iPhone: This app does not support purchasing content. Instead, add to your wishlist. I honestly never really thought about why this is - I simply just hated Audible for it, and thought it was the most annoying part of their app. However, it's odd - how come the Amazon app is allowed to get away with its own purchasing system?

You're right, and I was mistaken -- the Amazon app for iPhone lets you checkout.

I believe jordanthoms's explanation is correct.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#859

Post by juiyout »

oneplane wrote: post #845
Dylan16807 wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...okay? I'm asking why oneplane completely disagrees with using the word "tax" here.

Using the word 'tax' here is like calling anything that you need to pay for 'tax'. If you put a bit of money in a vending machine to buy some chocolate, you don't call that vending machine tax, do you? If you were to scope it to 'services' or 'platform', then perhaps we should call virtual hosting cost not cost but tax :p and if you rent a movie, that'd then be movie tax, or rental tax? But what about actual tax, are…

In your vending machine example, it is a transaction, not a tax, as you implied and I agree. However Apple taking cut of app's revenue is awfully a lot like corporate tax.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#860

Post by juiyout »

supernova87a wrote: post #783
ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't see any reason why a user isn't able to run any software they'd like on hardware they've purchased, then you need to educate yourself. Because the reason is that the contract you have with the hardware manufacturer and the terms of use do not allow you to. And there is no contradictory law or regulation that trumps that agreement. I did not sign a contract relinquishing my rights to execute whatever co…

I'm going to take my leave from this thread after this post, as it's kind of like talking to a wall at this point. I get nothing out of it. You don't naturally have any expectations of a right to run whatever code you want on a phone. There is nowhere written in law or regulation that you have such a "right". So there is no such right to give up. Apple enters into an agreement with you to give you a phone with certai…

This reminds me of a joke from my childhood.

USA: If not prohibited by law, you can do.

Taiwan: If prohibited by law, you still can do.

China: Even if allowed by law, you can't do.

Post reply on HN