281–290 of 392 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you really wanted that you'd just not use Spotify at all.
A silly response. It's much easier to not do anything than it is to move my music ecosystem somewhere else.
"It's much easier not to switch" is just a peculiar way to spell "I don't care enough to switch" in this case.
If someone doesn't care enough to do something as easy as switch music streaming services, do they actually care?
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.
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 those other companies are paid for their service directly. You don’t directly pay for the app stores.
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 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 really care for this attempt at analogy. The cut that Apple or Google takes is more similar to the price manufacturers pay for shelf space in a retail store. I'm guessing that in many instances these kinds of charges amount to far more than the 2-3% a card processor takes. And frankly, 2-3% is already ridiculous.
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.
Isn't this the definition of a monopoly?
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…
Apple does not have a monopoly on software distribution, nor on making computers. Apple makes very popular computers in their iPhones, but other phones, tablets, laptops, gaming consoles, etc all do the same stuff. Eg. When your phone is broken, you can still call people over your laptop, and you can access an internet browser from basically anything
Both firms leveraged their dominance in the mobile OS market to dominate the mobile app distribution market, and then they leveraged their dominance in the mobile app distribution market to dominate the mobile app payments market.
When talking about monopolies, the working definition is firms that have significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[2]. Both Apple and Google fit that bill for the mobile OS, app distribution and payments markets. Whether you use the words monopoly, duopoly or cartel to describe them doesn't really matter, because all of those terms are accurate descriptors.
[1] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
[2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
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...
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? More like a world with only endcaps. The difference between the app stores and retail is that every SKU has a fixed margin. At most stores that sell a variety of product, anything you see right away is a paid placement. The f…
It may surprise you to learn that not every app is Fortnite.
The myth of the indie developer held down by Apple and Google is a trope thrown out there just like every supermarket brand evokes images of family farms.
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…
My point is: Spotify's 30% is not a fair cut. It's no more fair a cut as the Apple/Google/et.al. cut from developers. Since HN is a lot more familiar with the cuts the stores take out of developers earnings, it makes for a nice point of comparison.
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 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…
Spotify don't give much to musicians compared to other platforms. They are keen on putting hundreds of millions into podcasts though, which is why I left them. Joe Rogan's objectionable behaviour aside - I just don't give a shit about podcasts, so I feel like my sub money would be going to the wrong people.