Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#201

Post by sib » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

laumars wrote: post #74

georgespencer wrote: post #44

Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here? Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies). Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow i…

> Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible? I see your point but you could flip that a 3rd way: "Consumers pay for their hardware - they own the device - so why should manufacturers tell consumers what th…

Here's the thing: consumers paid (voluntarily) for an iPhone that has the restriction that apps must be bought / acquired / loaded through the App Store. So, yes, they own the device that has this restriction. If they didn't want this device, they could have bought one of the many devices that doesn't, as approximately 75% percent of people do globally.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#202

Post by gumby » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

flanbiscuit wrote: post #158

judah wrote: post #29

This exemplifies some of the reasons proprietary app store lock-in is bad for consumers. Progressive Web Apps -- web apps that are installable and available offline without any app store -- are a viable alternative, and ultimately a threat to Apple's app store racket. It's likely why iOS Safari continues to drag it's feet on PWA support.

Would a PWA be a viable option for an app like Spotify? I'm definitely on board with them for simple CRUD type apps

a CRUD app would work fine. Isn’t their web player a CRUD app?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#203

Post by sneak » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #100

localhoat wrote: post #34

That’s actually the reason why I don’t by a HomePod

The HomePod is a horrible device unless you want Siri in a can. The source selection is just so locked down for whatever reason, so unless you're all in with the Apple ecosystem, you're going to be missing out something.

The HomePod would be a incredible bargain even if it didn't support Siri at all, and were just an AirPlay compatible speaker. Everyone who complains about Apple Music (myself included) and Siri's uselessness are mostly ignoring the fact that it is the single best compact speaker, audio-wise, shipping today. It's an order of magnitude higher audio quality than everything within 10%-1000% of its price range.

It's insanely great. As a speaker. Period.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#204

Post by ppeetteerr » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #187

ppeetteerr wrote: post #165

I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight. Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained. The only…

> Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple? Apple shrugs and bans Spotify. Next move?

They won't. Not only will this cut into Apple's take, but it will send a very negative message to all other service publishers.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#205

Post by gumby » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

fmo91 wrote: post #39

judah wrote: post #29

This exemplifies some of the reasons proprietary app store lock-in is bad for consumers. Progressive Web Apps -- web apps that are installable and available offline without any app store -- are a viable alternative, and ultimately a threat to Apple's app store racket. It's likely why iOS Safari continues to drag it's feet on PWA support.

I agree with that. However, what worries me about PWAs is discoverability. How can I find a catalog of available PWAs to download? Is there a way?

The same way you discover anything else: advertising, word of mouth, web search. How does the user know about Spotify in tthe first place?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#206

Post by xxpor » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #176

Knowing how crap Spotify app is (an Electron monstrocity on the desktop) that's for the best.

Given that electron monstrosity allows them to have a Linux client, Spotify will always have my support over Apple Music

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#207

Post by ppeetteerr » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

thomascgalvin wrote: post #200

ppeetteerr wrote: post #165

I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight. Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained. The only…

> Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple? I believe this is also against Apple's Terms of Service. IIRC, they have a "most favored nation" clause which prohibits you from offering a lower price on a competing platform.

I was just looking for this in the App Store review guidelines and I couldn't find it. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#208

Post by tantalor » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #187

ppeetteerr wrote: post #165

I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight. Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained. The only…

> Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple? Apple shrugs and bans Spotify. Next move?

Then more users switch to Android. iPhone marketshare is flat.

https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-2...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#209

Post by sneak » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

atestu wrote: post #182

yeldarb wrote: post #19

The timing of this is interesting in the context of Elizabeth Warren’s recent proposal to forbid platform operators from also being participants on their own platforms. It looks like they’ve filed a complaint with the EU Commission; I wonder if it will become a talking point in US politics as well.

Didn't Elizabeth Warren say Apple shouldn't distribute its own apps in the App Store? Apple Music isn't in the App Store…

For the purposes of reasoning about this, Apple iOS and Apple's iOS App Store and the iOS Apple Music app are all the same entity, equivalent. It doesn't matter that it's not in the App Store, it ships on the phone alongside the App Store. That's the same as being in the App Store and getting autoinstalled on every device.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#210

Post by aclimatt » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

ppeetteerr wrote: post #165

I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight. Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained. The only…

Well, that's not entirely true, Apple can't exactly do what it wants. As other comments point out regarding Microsoft, Microsoft were forced to allow IE to be debundled and other competing browsers installed, because having a monopoly on a platform and using that platform to enforce anti-competitive practices is illegal under anti-trust law.

So given Apple's marketshare (not a monopoly per se though pretty substantial), and given they both control the platform that people pay money to access, and promote preferential treatment of a first party service at the expense of any third party services, it sounds pretty ripe for an anti-trust lawsuit.

The same I believe has recently been applied to Google in the EU for using its monopoly to promote its own product search results above other online stores.

The only difference now is, the teeth of anti-trust regulators are a lot more dull than they were in the 90s, for various reasons.