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

241–250 of 392 posts

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#241

Post by mbesto »

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.

Can back this up. No one at that level of merchant processing is paying the rack rate of what you might see on Stripe. It's usually high 1's, or low 2's.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#242

Post by scarface74 »

mr_aks wrote: post #138
falcolas wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, Spotify also reportedly takes 30% of the revenue before paying the creators. This isn't an Apple/Google/Spotify thing, it's a service thing.

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.

And the Play Store/App Store is a service connecting mobile users to apps and they provide an infrastructure to download apps, developer tools, etc.

What’s the difference?

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#243

Post by yywwbbn »

FredPret wrote: post #221
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…

But the very concept of being an mobile app developer was brought to life by Apple, and later Google. 15 years ago, you could not really be a pro app dev. Now, you can, but with a 30% cut. You are strictly better off. And if you think the 30% is too much, do something else. These companies created something that grew into a foundational element of modern life in about a decade. That’s amazing and should be awarded wi…

The problem is when that innovative company becomes the new IBM/GE/Oracle and starts treating every client as nothing else but a revenue stream instead of focusing on creating new and innovative products. I don’t think Apple/Google are there yet but they are clearly moving into that direction.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#244

Post by lawl »

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 only see a benefit to developers for this, but from a user prospective going with another system is a downgrade.

To me it sounds like a huge upgrade. But admittedly I might be in the minority in that the only reason i use android is because I think iOS is even worse in having to deal with the platform owners bullshit.

The issues with cancelling things seems like a very american centric problem. I don't know, I literally never had an issue canceling a subscription yet.

And hopefully this is a step in the direction where the user has the choice to pay a 30% premium, instead of being forced to. For example I'd be very happy to pay valve 30% more to not have to deal with EGS. I'd be even more happy to pay anyone 30% less to not have to deal with Google.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#245

Post by asdfaoeu »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #238
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.

The fee is much higher than would be for just "processing the bill"

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#247

Post by dangus »

chihuahua wrote: post #240
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you really wanted that you'd just not use Spotify at all.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#248

Post by cortesoft »

yywwbbn wrote: post #239
thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am fine with them charging whatever they want, as long as they don't prevent competitors from opening alternative markets. The problem is the monopoly, not the price.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#249

Post by xwowsersx »

drbacon wrote: post #188
xwowsersx wrote: post #72

Why do/should I, as a Spotify subscriber, care about this at all? I don't understand why there's so much fanfare around this. I feel like I'm missing something basic here...

I actually don't think of this as a consumer issue at all. You probably shouldn't care, but I can see why some consumers might care (e.g. how many entities have their credit card on file, concerns about privacy, a desire to allocate as much money as possible to artists...). I think of this as a developer issue. There's good money being the middle man for transactions. Did consumers really care about the Epic/Apple IA…

I see, thanks. So why would Spotify agree to this if they were able to handle premium subscriptions outside of Google? They expect they will make more money this way even after having to give a cut to Google?

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#250

Post by Drew_ »

kenhwang wrote: post #101
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.

Pretty standard Google playbook these days. Instead of building something and then cancelling it later when it doesn't gain traction to get their PR win, they decide to cash in on the PR win upfront with a big partnership announcement, then cancel the product before building it if it doesn't gain sufficient traction, thus saving on engineering costs and streamlining the typical Google technical offering lifecycle. Be…

This is such an odd conspiracy theory.

This new effort is a response to regulation in markets around the world like South Korea [1] and the Netherlands [2]

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/4/22763040/google-in-app-pu....

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/24/22852966/apple-netherlan...

Post reply on HN