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

Addressing Spotify’s Claims

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#271

Post by mrunkel »

C4stor wrote: post #265

It's nice to see Apple admitting that they have for a long time, and for the detriment of everyone, fused two very distincts roles. The first is distributing software, and the second is processing payments. Incredibly, the first is free for everyone, even if you distribute billions of copies of your app, which doesn't make any sense in a vacuum. But they allowed themselves to become the only payment processor availab…

The 30% is for distribution, payment processing (including refunds) and first line customer support, in both directions.

It also includes vetting all app submissions for users.

I would wager that neither Google nor Apple cares about the developers directly. Indirectly they want to make it possible for developers to reach their (Apple's) customers because it's good for the customer.

However, the developer pays apple $99/yr, the customers a great deal more.

I still see the app store as a great thing for customers and developers.

And again, if you don't want to pay apple anything, release your app for free and have your customers login to the app after they buy it somewhere else. But if you want to leverage the app store's reach, you need to pay Apple their share.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#272

Post by C4stor »

mrunkel wrote: post #271
C4stor wrote: post #265

It's nice to see Apple admitting that they have for a long time, and for the detriment of everyone, fused two very distincts roles. The first is distributing software, and the second is processing payments. Incredibly, the first is free for everyone, even if you distribute billions of copies of your app, which doesn't make any sense in a vacuum. But they allowed themselves to become the only payment processor availab…

The 30% is for distribution, payment processing (including refunds) and first line customer support, in both directions. It also includes vetting all app submissions for users. I would wager that neither Google nor Apple cares about the developers directly. Indirectly they want to make it possible for developers to reach their (Apple's) customers because it's good for the customer. However, the developer pays apple $…

That's exactly my point : 30% for everything makes 0 sense !

1. Distribution shouldn't be indexed on the price of what you're distributing. Distribution costs are mostly flat. They could be charging a per MB cost of download, plus a flat cost for app curation for example, it would make sense.

2. 30% for payment processing is ten times what it needs to be.

3. Same as 1., customer support costs doesn't depend on the app revenue, they should be charged independently of that it Apple played fair.

$99 a year is a laughably small amount to pay for big editors, it doesn't even cover bandwidth costs of distributing data. The only point is preventing the app store being literally flooded by low quality apps.

So yes, to leverage the App Store reach, I should pay the App Store something. And that something should nothing at all to do with what my own customers are paying me, which the App Store shouldn't even know to begin with.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#273

Post by laumars »

close04 wrote: post #270
laumars wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's certainly unfair competition but still not a monopoly I agree - which is why I specifically did NOT call it a monopoly. > When you paid for the iPhone you also paid for the services bundle that you bought as a package.... You're still missing my point: > And even Spotify has a choice. They can shaft Apple and become Android only, since Android has 85% of the market. The reason they're not doing it right now I…

> Thus Spotify effectively doesn't have a choice. I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. When I go to Malls'R'Us to rent a storefront I only have them as a choice. But I can go to another mall without anyone claiming foul about competition. H…

> I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options.

> Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. because rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none.

But ignoring Apple's App Store does mean they then get no service for "iDevices" (not just the iPhone).

So their choice on iOS is pay the tax or don't have a presence. This is complicated by the fact that they would then lose customers who want a music streaming on multiple platforms including iOS. So Spotify's choice is really just an illusion.

> But isn't this what you'd expect when renting a storefront in a mall?

Indeed it is. You usually get a little more choice because you can have different landlords in a given high street (albeit you did specifically say "mall" where that choice wouldn't exist) but even in those cases shop owners are regularly complaining that increases in rent are pushing them out of business. and in fact the UK has seen a lot of independent stores go out of business because of exactly that.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#274

Post by ThomPete »

coldtea wrote: post #268
cialowicz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work.

> Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work. Yes, but on mobile Spotify doesn't even provide the Marketplace -- only part of it (their own app), the other (the mobile OS, platform, payment processing, consumer trust, marketing, etc) is built by Apple and Google.

Because that's the only way you can do it.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#275

Post by kelnos »

xvector wrote: post #230
exwiki wrote: post #4

> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs. We think that’s wrong. I think that's a very hypothetical claim. > Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update…

> I think that's a very hypothetical claim. How is this is a hypothetical claim? It is blatantly obvious. Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace. Even now, desktop use constitutes a tiny fraction of their total users. It's not a hypothetical claim at all, really. > 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss Source? Because 30% / 15% is a common middleman commision for most platform…

You're acting like Apple gets nothing out of a healthy app ecosystem (if there weren't apps, no one would bother to buy an iPhone), or from their App Store review process (many people prefer the iPhone because they feel safer with iPhone apps than they would with Android apps). It's not like Apple provides a developer SDK and reviews apps out of the goodness of its heart.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#276

Post by manojlds »

00deadbeef wrote: post #255
xvector wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that's a very hypothetical claim. How is this is a hypothetical claim? It is blatantly obvious. Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace. Even now, desktop use constitutes a tiny fraction of their total users. It's not a hypothetical claim at all, really. > 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss Source? Because 30% / 15% is a common middleman commision for most platform…

> Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace Spotify's earliest days were before smartphones. I had Spotify on my computers before they'd even released an iPhone app.

This is response to Spotify's site which has the timeline - https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/

Spotify launched on Desktop after the App Store launched.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#277

Post by vlozko »

infinity0 wrote: post #204
millstone wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has no grand plans to dominate open source, that's silly. All of Apple's OSS contributions can be easily understood as solving Apple's needs. Apple's LLVM involvement is not driven by spite towards the GPL; Apple simply needed a compiler that was compatible with their business model. Likewise they started WebKit so as not to be dependent on MS for a browser, and Swift because they wanted a successor to aging Ob…

That's very innocent and naive of you to believe, though of course it's easy to write off any corporate misbehaviour as "solving business needs". Steve Jobs originally tried to keep the ObjC compiler frontend to GCC proprietary but was forced to open source it due to GPL requirements. Needless to say he hated the GPL ever since that episode and of course jumped on the opportunity to fund a competitor with a non-copyl…

Lots of companies hate the GPL. It’s nowhere exclusive to Apple. So what? They don’t have to align with your vision of what open source should be like. What’s wrong with the idea of playing in a different sandbox with a different set of rules if the rules in your current sandbox aren’t ideal? Are you suggesting that we should shame companies who don’t want to deal with GPL-licenses code?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#278

Post by [deleted] »

00deadbeef wrote: post #255
xvector wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that's a very hypothetical claim. How is this is a hypothetical claim? It is blatantly obvious. Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace. Even now, desktop use constitutes a tiny fraction of their total users. It's not a hypothetical claim at all, really. > 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss Source? Because 30% / 15% is a common middleman commision for most platform…

> Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace Spotify's earliest days were before smartphones. I had Spotify on my computers before they'd even released an iPhone app.

[deleted]

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#279

Post by kelnos »

ulfw wrote: post #94
jraedisch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the problem was, that their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own, if they choose to.

But that's a too simple way to look at it. I am not trying to defend the 30%, but just saying 'their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own' doesn't go far enough. They got two options: a) make a 30% on $10/month from Spotify -> $3 in Apple's bag for no work or effort at all. Almost pure profit. b) sell their own music solution for $10/month (INSTEAD of that customer going…

Apple: $ to build the app, $ to maintain the music label relationships, $ to manage paying royalties, $ to manage server infra, $ for bandwidth.

Spotify: $ to build the app, $ to maintain the music label relationships, $ to manage paying royalties, $ to manage server infra, $ for bandwidth, $ to Apple for the "privilege" of being listed on the App Store and using Apple's payments system (which they have no choice over).

Both companies have the exact same base costs to operate their service. But Apple gets to charge for subscriptions through the app for free, whereas Spotify does not. That's literally the only difference cost-wise, and IMO Spotify is correct to consider that anti-competitive. Whether or not Apple would make more or less money shuttering Apple Music and transferring all their customers to Spotify is completely irrelevant.

And no, I don't consider "creating and maintaining an iOS payments system" to be a part of Apple's costs here. That would exist even if Apple Music did not, and the marginal cost of having Apple Music use that system is virtually nil, certainly not 30% of Spotify's subscription fee.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#280

Post by dmitriid »

threeseed wrote: post #114
chrischen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they may be specifically referring to the most recent royalties hike that was opposed by Amazon, Spotify, but supported by Apple. Was most likely a PR move to make Apple look like a supporter of artists.

So Apple does actually pay artists more but that's irrelevant because something, something "it's a PR move". I would imagine that the artists probably care even if you don't.

It's a big problem that artists don't care. Artists are the ones who know the actual deals they have with publishers/labels.

So instead of demanding their fair share from the labels, they go after streaming services who don't even pay them directly: all money goes through labels.

Post reply on HN