Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#711

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:12 PM UTC

blululu wrote: post #695

yobbo wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not technically a monopoly, but in so far as it might become one, it is someone else's responsibility to tweet and complain about it. And there is a difference in scale between Apple's control and everyone else's.

In the case of Apple I think if you look at the mobile phone usage of people in the top 25% of incomes in America you would find that they are well over 80% market share. While this is a somewhat contrived segmentation, it is also most important segment for a lot of businesses. Monopoly power is typically assessed by the doj at a regional level so it is not unprecedented to arrive at monopoly issues on the basis of a…

It's inexact, but not contrived at all. If you've ever worked in online advertising, you'll know to treat apple users as a distinct segmentat without worrying to much about why exactly.

There's a reason Google pays Apple so 15 billion pa for search defaults. Adwords would be deeply hurt if Apple decided to withhold its users.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#712

Post by pjmq » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

This coming from a company that decimates its long-standing developer ecosystem at every available opportunity under the guise of security and licensing restrictions.

At least Apple lets people build apps for its platform in a relatively open way whilst also allowing for monetisation. Reap what you sow.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#713

Post by magic123_ » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

tejohnso wrote: post #689

donmcronald wrote: post #5

I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have car…

> I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. Yes. And it's easy to think that for a single issue like this it's a minor problem. Just don't buy Apple products. But there's a larger issue. > in 10 years we’ll all have cars with a half dozen subscriptions forced on us Right. I want to opt out of that. I also want to opt out of the corporate oversight of my property or…

I technically agree with you, and I'm not saying you were currently doing what I'm about to complain about; but I find very annoying the fact that a lot of people seem to use this line of thinking to justify more or less every shitty decision made by these huge corporations.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#714

Post by achenet » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #358

philliphaydon wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t buy Apple to consume as a user if you don’t like it. If you’re an app developer then pay by the rules… It absolutely is an option.

I guess it's technically an option to go out of business by removing your app from the Apple App Store.

if your business is that fragile, maybe you should change your business.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#715

Post by olliecornelia » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #86

Stop buying Apple if you don't like it. Seriously. At the end of the day all of these companies would do the exact same thing as Apple if they were in Apple's position. The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those, then you can be free of the duopoly. Other than using phone specific features, why can't all apps run on your desktop, laptop or elsewhere? I'll never get…

I do like it and I'm tired of tech-brained dorks trying to turn iOS into Linux.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#716

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #429

stale2002 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that Apple has no obligation to give you > If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone Actually, instead of that, citizens of a nation are free to vote for anti-trust, and pro competition laws that force Apple, under threat of government force, to stop engaging in certain actions. We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust law…

Cool, so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful and mostly secure devices people have in their life by "forcing" a company to do things against their will? Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too? We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era. There are very few places in the world with good trains, unless you're…

> so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful

No, people would be free to use the Apple App store if they want.

Apple simply wouldn't be able force the world to pay them 30% of everything anymore. Theyd have to compete on their merits, and people would now have full ownership of their own phone.

> The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way.

So, what, you just support the railway monopoly and oppose the Sherman antitrust act? Please explicitly say whether or not you think the Sherman anti trust act, should be repealed, and all monopolies in the world, and anti competitive behavior, should be legal.

But let's try a different example, since apparently you support the railway monopoly.

I would hope, that you would oppose it Microsoft put a 30% fee on every online transaction, and kicked off all competing web browsers that tried to get around it.

Imagine if every computer in the world, you could only use internet explorer, and they forced you to pay them 30%, and use IE.

Surely you'd have to admit that this should be illegal, for such a monopoly to be enforced like that?

> Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too?

The Sherman anti-trust act is a pretty uncontroversial law. Surely you can't be saying that our existing uncontroversial anti trust laws, that have been around for a century, are the same as laws in China?

> This again is coming from someone who works with and on open source software

Then you should support people being allowed to do what they want, with their own phone.

You are the one who supports authoritarianism, if you oppose people being able to control their own device, that they purchased.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#717

Post by equalsione » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #679

Kettle. Pot. Black. Monopolistic practices is what Spotify is, not just something it does. Recently they went about buying podcasts. The idea was/is to kill off the free protocol and centralise podcasts under their control... That way, listeners, advertisers and podcasters would all have to live by spotify's rules. Like streaming music. Sure. Apple give themselves every advantage, cream the market, etc. They have a m…

https://twitter.com/dada_drummer/status/1598051231817433088?...

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#718

Post by totalZero » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

blululu wrote: post #695

yobbo wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not technically a monopoly, but in so far as it might become one, it is someone else's responsibility to tweet and complain about it. And there is a difference in scale between Apple's control and everyone else's.

In the case of Apple I think if you look at the mobile phone usage of people in the top 25% of incomes in America you would find that they are well over 80% market share. While this is a somewhat contrived segmentation, it is also most important segment for a lot of businesses. Monopoly power is typically assessed by the doj at a regional level so it is not unprecedented to arrive at monopoly issues on the basis of a…

You can't cherry-pick a market segment like that. Each successful product has a niche somewhere.

Dominant market share is not the same thing as a monopoly, because the existence of competitive alternatives is a check on the behavior of the market leader. Also, it is tough to ignore the fact that any customer can buy a Samsung phone with largely the same capabilities at a similar price point to the iPhone.

Not all monopolies are unlawful in the US. There is a need to prove that practices are anticompetitive, such as by unfair pricing or exclusive dealing. If Apple is expected to curate and support an App Store with non-malicious apps and reviews thereof, used on a platform for which they provide an ecosystem of developer tools, they are entitled to charge a fee for that.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#719

Post by scarface74 » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

piva00 wrote: post #559

scarface74 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should we also stop console makers from having first party games? Stop stores from selling store brands?

I'd say yes if console makers would force all 3rd parties to not directly advertise how to create an account with them and pay through their own means for a subscription when needed instead of the console game store. I'd say yes if stores with their own store brands would force producers of 3rd party products to always pay a 30% cut and disallow the consumers from being able to purchase the product at a different pla…

Consoles have forced third party game makers to pay a license fee for every physical game sold since the 80s no matter where you sold the game.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#720

Post by cainxinth » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

kif wrote: post #635

It's a bit ridiculous to see people – who I believe to be tech literate – argue how Apple allowing more access to the device is going to be the end of the world. In my opinion, Apple could very well give a special entitlement to developers who want full system access, maybe even by requiring to register the UDID somewhere on Apple's website for that entitlement to be valid, whatever. Any apps signed with that entitle…

That covers the technical side of why they could do it, but it doesn’t provide a legal or ethical reason why Apple must open up their walled garden more. Everyone agrees they have the right to control their ecosystem to a great extent. This is just the free market fighting out how far that limit is. It’s ultra wealthy companies using their leverage to limit their costs and improve their margins… same as it ever was.