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

231–240 of 392 posts

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#231

Post by SXX »

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?

As already already been said there is no revenue sharing.

Though there is fair-use policy that Steam users shouldn't be given worse deal. E.g you're not allowed to only run 30%-off discount exclusively on your store without offering same discount for Steam store users sometime later.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#232

Post by lotsofpulp »

Sesse__ wrote: post #144
Shank wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To the people who think the exorbitant fees are okay: Imagine a world with no cash. Now the payment card companies decide they want 30% of all transactions. You think that would be reasonable? Just so that we're talking on equal terms here, card processors and networks solve a massive amount of problems that existed with cash. Pre-card, many stores setup credit accounts with individuals, had book keeping practices…

Even your 2.9% number is probably too high. Perhaps for AmEx or in super-high-risk situations you need to pay that kind of fees, but for regular MC/VISA in developed countries, even a medium-sized business can get below 1%. Large companies, like Apple, can almost certainly get it lower than that. Source: Involved in multiple such deals over the years.

It is 2% to 3% in the US due to the copious rewards programs which result in minimum 2% cash back for credit card users.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#233

Post by yywwbbn »

falcolas wrote: post #208
dale_glass wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are plenty of different platforms besides Spotify which have comparable catalogs and are available on all/most platforms (even Apple Music has an Android app). Their subscription prices are almost the same so the market seems to be very competitive and nothing like the iOS App Store.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#234

Post by yywwbbn »

Sesse__ wrote: post #144
Shank wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To the people who think the exorbitant fees are okay: Imagine a world with no cash. Now the payment card companies decide they want 30% of all transactions. You think that would be reasonable? Just so that we're talking on equal terms here, card processors and networks solve a massive amount of problems that existed with cash. Pre-card, many stores setup credit accounts with individuals, had book keeping practices…

Even your 2.9% number is probably too high. Perhaps for AmEx or in super-high-risk situations you need to pay that kind of fees, but for regular MC/VISA in developed countries, even a medium-sized business can get below 1%. Large companies, like Apple, can almost certainly get it lower than that. Source: Involved in multiple such deals over the years.

> in developed countries,

In the EU it’s legally capped at 0.3% for all transactions (0.2 for debit cards).

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#235

Post by addandsubtract »

dm319 wrote: post #220
gmiller123456 wrote: post #211

This may sound like a snippy question, but I'm genuinely curious as to why this is considered news? Isn't this just getting another payment option, similar to what many, many other services have been offering for over a decade? Seriously, am I missing something?

I'm also confused, as I think I simply pay Spotify for my premium subscription (given I joined Spotify using it mainly on the desktop). Which bit is new?

I just reread the article, because at first it sounded like Spotify was announcing a payment method of their own, ala Google Pay. Instead, this is Spotify announcing that you'll be able to pay for a subscription in the app using another payment method _besides_ Google Pay, which is the standard for all in app purchases. It's only news, because it's the first finde Google has allowed an IAP without going through Google Pay.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#236

Post by Graffur »

criddell wrote: post #14

> represents a first-of-its-kind option in payment choice and offers opportunities for both consumers and developers What is the opportunity here? For consumers is it that you can pick who you pay? That doesn't sound like much of an opportunity to me. What is the opportunity for developers?

The whole thing reads like a set up for an april fools joke or something. Bizzare

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#237

Post by yywwbbn »

xmprt wrote: post #142
nerdjon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let's focus on lowering that percent instead of making the situation worse for consumers. However to be clear, that percent is in the same area that game consoles and I believe Steam (someone correct me?) charge. And we accept that. When the 30% rule for the App Store came down, our smart phones were basically the same as a game console. Most people did not expect these devices to become the central part of all…

If we want to make the situation better for customers then companies like Apple and Google should provide subscription management/payment API for IAPs for free to developers so developers are incentivized to use the centralized platform. Customers can manage and cancel payments through that centralized platform. The only reason developers come up with these roundabout methods for payment is because of the massive fee…

Well even with all the available competition most developers seem to consider the 30% fee on Steam fair enough to host their games there. So maybe that 15/30% is not as ‘massive’ as one might think, especially considering that the app store model was massive improvement over what existed before them. Not that I’m a huge fan of closed ecosystems in general, but I’m not sure the government should dictate what sort of software features manufacturers should implement on their devices. Especially considering that most consumers don’t really value the ability to freely install any software they want on their devices and seem to be fine with the closed garden approach.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#238

Post by darkwizard42 »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #54

It has always seemed weird that if I use my Spotify account on my Android phone, iPad, and desktop, who gets a cut of my money depends on which one I use to set up billing.

That is because the person who does the billing incurs the costs...the billing isn't based on usage, it is based on who processes the bill.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#239

Post by yywwbbn »

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…

Because Apple and a Google created a market where there was none. It basically impossible to make money from selling mobile apps to consumers before them.

Had Verizon singlehandedly created the internet and had no real competitors they might have been able to tax it’s usage. Thank God that did not happen, though…

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#240

Post by chihuahua »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #77
olau wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that a consumptionist attitude is popular these days, but as a user of something like Spotify I would surely prefer as much as possible of my monetary contribution ending up with Spotify and the musicians instead of in the hands of a company controlling the market place. To the people who think the exorbitant fees are okay: Imagine a world with no cash. Now the payment card companies decide they want 30% of al…

I don't think Spotify is the best example here, since I'm not particularly convinced that more cash going to them would end up in the hands of musicians. But certainly, if I subscribe to The Economist I want as much of my money as possible to go to the journalists who actually write the content.

For Spotify in particular, I'd rather have more money going to Google instead of Spotify. Because I don't want to be funding Joe Rogan.
Post reply on HN