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

201–210 of 392 posts

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#201

Post by nerdjon »

OmahaBoy69 wrote: post #132
nerdjon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully understand that I am... maybe closer to people here but in the grand scheme of things financially I am in a better state than most people. But so I was curious, I have $762 worth of subscriptions a year through Apple. So I could save $228.60 if they were all 30% less. To me that is worth it. But I would also like to point out, that many of the apps I am subscribed too. I am only subscribed too because it was…

How the hell did you manage to rack up $762 in yearly subscription fees...?

About $360 of that is Apple One Premier.

Disney+, Budget app, weight management, couple yearly apps. Not that hard to get to that point I don't think.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#202

Post by nerdjon »

divbzero wrote: post #112
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…

I suspect you’re right about this. I would love to see the data on how many users end up choosing Spotify’s payment system over Google Play Billing.

That would be very interesting data.

But I would be surprised if we ever actually saw that data.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#203

Post by giantrobot »

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…

> 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

This is a novel idea. Verizon and Cisco could charge a price above their cost. They could call this a "profit margin". You might be on to something here.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#204

Post by smt88 »

jmacd wrote: post #79

"Over the coming months, Spotify will work with Google’s product and engineering teams to build this new experience" It's so absolutely bizarre to announce something at this stage. I wonder what is prompting it.

> It's so absolutely bizarre to announce something at this stage.

This is 100% a defense against antitrust investigations happening across the country.

It doesn't matter that users don't care, that they may never roll it out, or that it may never roll out beyond Spotify. Promises are free -- they can make as many promises as they want to try to blunt the inevitable litigation.

In return, they're getting one fewer enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to pick up the other major developers antagonizing the app stores, like Match Group and Epic, using the same tactic.

Unfortunately, this shows even more dedication to the monopoly -- it's not dissimilar from dictators who allow their political opponents to live to make it seem like there's a democracy.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#205

Post by dale_glass »

falcolas wrote: post #122
Erwin wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify is public and you can see most of their numbers -- the Cost of Revenue for 2021 was 7 billion EUR on 9.6 in revenue. The cost is said to be mostly the royalties though it would include paying the many millions to some podcasters. The ad-supported users outnumbers premium users (236 million to 180 million) but bring in only 1/6th the revenue. So that's a factor depressing the payout per stream. https://investo…

Or phrased slightly differently, Spotify takes 30% of revenue generated by selling access to artists' songs.

Seems pretty fair, since if it was easy for an artist to undercut Spotify, they'd be doing it.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#206

Post by tomnipotent »

munk-a wrote: post #176
morepork wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and Google (and others) also allow loading credit using physical cards that you purchase at retail stores. I believe the stores get around a 5-10% margin on these, i.e. you buy a $100 gift card, and the store only pays Apple/Google $90-95. There is a definite cost to all these so 0% is unreasonable. Epic is trying to be the "good" games distribution store and they reportedly take a 12% cut. Something around the…

Unfortunately Epic can't honestly comment on what cut they're taking while their storefront loses immense amounts of money[1] - I agree that a lower percentage is probably a lot more reasonable but I don't think EGS can serve as that example. 1. https://www.pcgamer.com/epic-has-sunk-dollar500m-into-the-ep...

> can't honestly comment on

Of course they can, but we can acknowledge it's a moving target. I'm at least confident it will be better than Steam.

> loses immense amounts of money

This is the same for any growth business/product where you front-load marketing and business development costs, and is not an indicator of future trends.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#207

Post by madeofpalk »

yreg wrote: post #198
madeofpalk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

https://youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com/

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#208

Post by falcolas »

dale_glass wrote: post #205
falcolas wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or phrased slightly differently, Spotify takes 30% of revenue generated by selling access to artists' songs.

Seems pretty fair, since if it was easy for an artist to undercut Spotify, they'd be doing it.

Just like the application developers on Google Play, Apple's app store, and Steam, eh?

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#209

Post by danielheath »

lxgr wrote: post #160
nightski wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam lets developers sell keys without the tax using their own systems. In addition to this you are allowed to list your games on other storefronts for PC.

Do you know if there is any revenue sharing happening in the background in that model?

AFAIK they do it without revenue sharing because it keeps customers using steam (running their client, seeing their ads, viewing their store, and being tied to the steam ecosystem). They don't need to turn a profit on the tiny, irrelevant volume of off-site sales.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#210

Post by ratww »

falcolas wrote: post #199
munk-a wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Yep. One major difference is that with Google/Apple (and also Steam I believe), app makers can at least choose the price of their apps and services themselves, and they know how many units they sell. If Google/Apple are charging you 30%, just increase your price.

With Spotify, however, musicians can't choose how much their music is worth, and the payment of royalties is also not exactly transparent.

Post reply on HN