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

Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

newsroom.spotify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 392 posts

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#191

Post by falcolas »

dmitriid wrote: post #153
falcolas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I shrug my shoulders and say "Why not [blame] both?" It can be that Apple, Spotify, and Google can all be screwing over creators in conjunction with their publishers. That said, not all musicians on Spotify go through publishers.

> This is where I shrug my shoulders and say "Why not [blame] both?" I've yet to see any of these discussions to blame both. And your own comment literally never mentions the Big Three. > can all be screwing over creators in conjunction with their publishers. I prefer not to wade in to conspiracy territory. Apple may have power over the industry, but they are an outlier. The rest do whatever the industry tels them to…

> I've yet to see any of these discussions to blame both.

Perhaps because they are outside the context of this discussion? For the purposes of this discussion, they are a constant, no matter what Spotify or Google does.

> And your own comment literally never mentions the Big Three.

I added a caveat to my "buying from the musicians directly" exactly because of publishers.

> Apple may have power over the industry, but they are an outlier.

Not exactly - they charge the same percentage as the other players in this space that I mentioned. No conspiracy theories required to point this out.

> Care to ask them where this money goes? No one ever dares to.

Sure, in articles about music producers (I recall more than a few hitting HN over the years, especially when Taylor Swift was raising a ruckus about them and Spotify).

> And the vast majority of popular music on the platform is likely to come from big publishers, not from indie aggregators.

I don't believe anybody is disputing that.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#192

Post by madeofpalk »

nvahalik wrote: post #162
forty wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked (admittedly a long time on Apple, as a developer, I couldn't refund and cancel a subscription for my customers. They have to go through Apple to do that. Not a great experience.

It’s usually fairly simple though. You (as a dev) don’t have to front the cost for support folks to handle it.

You still have to answer the emails and say "Sorry no I cannot refund you, go ask Apple" and have the customer not believe you.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#193

Post by benhurmarcel »

nerdjon wrote: post #45

As a user, why would I choose this? I only see a benefit to developers for this, but from a user prospective going with another system is a downgrade. Assuming google works like Apple (correct me if I am wrong), disabling a subscription should be able to happen from a central location with a click or 2. If I instead go with the billing through a company not only do they now have my credit card information, but I have…

It's very easy to stop your Spotify subscription, on their website. There isn't any trick.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#194

Post by thow-58d4e8b »

falcolas wrote: post #150
mr_aks wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this argument. Spotify is a service connecting listeners to the artists and infrastructure and development of said service has its cost whereas Google/Apple charge fees for the app store which Spotify subscription does not require.

So, Spotify is allowed to charge 30% for access to the market it has created, but Google and Apple are not? An app store costs money too - the creation and maintenance of the billing platform/API, bandwidth, human curation, cross-device storage of saved configurations, user acquisition, etc. What makes musicians so different from software developers that it's perfectly acceptable for Spotify to take such a large shar…

The problem with this line of argumentation is - why single out phone OS providers as the only link in the very long supply chain that deserves a cut?

Why not internet provider? Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax?

The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those

What about the phone manufacturer - Xiaomi or Samsung would definitely not reject their fair share

None of this would happen without electricity - power transmission companies deserve a portion

There really isn't a coherent moral argument in favor of the current status quo - it's simply about market power, nothing else

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#195

Post by gboss »

candiddevmike wrote: post #129

They'll unlock a ton of innovation by letting developers use documented and testable payment platforms instead of the "I really hope this works in production" android (and apple) payment systems. Having to support all of these payment processors is such a pain the ass.

I actually agree with this. We’ve really struggled with Apple Pay. It’s partly our payment processor’s fault but the limited documentation from Apple and the strict limitations we’ve encountered trying to debug Apple Pay has taken us way longer than it should have to get right.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#196

Post by makeitdouble »

nerdjon wrote: post #45

As a user, why would I choose this? I only see a benefit to developers for this, but from a user prospective going with another system is a downgrade. Assuming google works like Apple (correct me if I am wrong), disabling a subscription should be able to happen from a central location with a click or 2. If I instead go with the billing through a company not only do they now have my credit card information, but I have…

＞ Assuming google works like Apple (correct me if I am wrong), disabling a subscription should be able to happen from a central location with a click or 2.

As a user I might go with Spotify exactly for that reason.

My Google account is personal and already attached to a lot of services, while the Spotify one is dedicated and shared. I’d hate to go hunt for the right Google account that has the subscription.

Also, Apple subscriptions have several issues like the service provider can’t cancel your subscription. Given that Apple will not let you cancel the current running month, even if the provider agrees with your case, it leads to fucked up situations that only emerge because there’s a middleman.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#197

Post by smileybarry »

enos_feedler wrote: post #123
kobalsky wrote: post #109

keep in mind that it's not for everyone, it says: "pilot will allow a small number of participating developers" it's also an agreement, so it's very likely that they are requiring price parity. in that case the only benefit of picking a different payment processor for end users would be for they joy of typing their billing information again. regardless, looks like a step in the right direction

For the reason you mentioned I don’t think its a step in the right direction. Carriers already know how to charge their users. Google and Apple should let the user choose their carrier as a systemwide in—app payment processor. Its a small fix, its a good user experience. Arguably even better than what exists today. And is a step in the right direction (move away from Apple and Google controlled things)

I would hate carrier-based charging. We still have a shared cellular account in my family so I would end up billing someone else, rather than my credit card, and that's on top of giving my carrier more lock-in (subscriptions? delayed billing? etc.).

The Payment Request API existed in browsers for years (always saw it in settings but never in actual use other than Google Pay/Apple Pay), what about something like that? If you install the PayPal app, it can export a "payment receiver" control that apps can call. Your carrier could then implement that too, bank app, credit card company app, etc.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#198

Post by yreg »

madeofpalk wrote: post #189
nerdjon wrote: post #45

As a user, why would I choose this? I only see a benefit to developers for this, but from a user prospective going with another system is a downgrade. Assuming google works like Apple (correct me if I am wrong), disabling a subscription should be able to happen from a central location with a click or 2. If I instead go with the billing through a company not only do they now have my credit card information, but I have…

> As a user, why would I choose this? On iOS you do not have that choice with many apps because they (fairly) do not wish to fork over 30% of revenue. So if this was introduced to iOS, the choice would be "Sign up for Netflix in the app" or "Not at all". You just do not have the option to use centralized billing on iOS with Netflix. "You download the app and it doesn’t work".

>"You download the app and it doesn’t work"

Steve wouldn't be happy about this.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#199

Post by falcolas »

munk-a wrote: post #172
FredPret wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple/Google app stores are a service connecting users to app creators, and all the points about Spotify also apply to Apple and Google. In the case of Apple, they literally created the entire market, from the CPUs all the way up. If 30% is too much, publish your content as a web app. If you want to play in the walled garden, pay the cover charge.

I think the biggest difference is that Spotify isn't a monopoly at the end of the day - it's a popular service. A lot of people still use different methods to listen to music like YouTube, iTunes, bandcamp and a plethora of others. If you, as a band, want to make money on your music you aren't required to do business through spotify, it's a choice that most people make because it's free money. On the other hand if yo…

Google Play, which charges 30%, is not a monopoly either. Nor is Steam. The Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo scene is a bit less clear, but they charge 30% too.

Musicians have about the same freedom in this respect as any application developer, practically speaking. AKA, they're just as exploited (if not moreso, see other comments about how musicians are also being screwed over by studios).

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#200

Post by falcolas »

thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #194
falcolas wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, Spotify is allowed to charge 30% for access to the market it has created, but Google and Apple are not? An app store costs money too - the creation and maintenance of the billing platform/API, bandwidth, human curation, cross-device storage of saved configurations, user acquisition, etc. What makes musicians so different from software developers that it's perfectly acceptable for Spotify to take such a large shar…

The problem with this line of argumentation is - why single out phone OS providers as the only link in the very long supply chain that deserves a cut? Why not internet provider? Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax? The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those What about the phone manufacturer - Xiaomi or S…

My point is: Spotify's 30% is not a fair cut. It's no more fair a cut as the Apple/Google/et.al. cut from developers.

Since HN is a lot more familiar with the cuts the stores take out of developers earnings, it makes for a nice point of comparison.

Post reply on HN