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

291–300 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#291

Post by doppel »

rkangel wrote: post #283

This is an interesting result of the collision of device sales, and a digital distribution channel. The normal free market economic push back against Apple on this would go something like: * Apple charges too much * It's not worth it for apps to be in the App Store * App Store selection drops * Consumers stop buying iPhones In practice though, Apple has such a foothold, and device purchase is so separate from App pur…

As Apple says in the article, they put quite a few resources into making the whole App store platform, including in-app payments. The issue is that there is no opt-out for the end user - you cannot use a different app store to install applications for your phone, and jailbreaking is getting harder while at the same time border-line illegal in some jurisdictions, not to mention being quite technically challenging.

Imagine buying a car sold by a gas station chain saying "We made the BEST gas stations you can imagine, but you can ONLY buy gas here. It's a fair marketplace, everyone who wants to sell gas at our stations can do so equally, and we'll take the same cut from everyone!".

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#292

Post by seqastian »

kodablah wrote: post #156
isostatic wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use spotify and netflix without going through apple, the former on my linux desktop, the latter additionally on my smart tv.

Reads to me like you have to get in a different car to shop at those other stores because one of your cars only drives to one store.

its about payment not app store lock in. there is nothing wrong with paying by browser and not via the appstore besides convenience. your car does come with a 'buy new tires' button but you can still go to the store and pay with cash.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#293

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

mythz wrote: post #50
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, currently Apple prohibits developers from linking to their websites subscription signup. I agree if Apple provides payment processing, they should get some cut (though not 30%). The issue is that Apple prohibits signing people up from anything but their IAP feature.

Apple is charging for the reach accessible by participating in their platform, it's effectively a distribution and marketing cost not a payment processing cost. The no linking requirement is so you don't use the accessibility enabled by their platform to bypass their fees. So if Spotify wants to bypass the App Store's subscription fees they'll need to find another way to notify and acquire new Customers, i.e. outside…

This is the clearest way to say it. Spotify has utterly no argument in this case. Their claims make no sense, it’s just a lot of noise for Spotify to drum up an angry mob of people who vaguely misunderstand “monopoly” and hate Apple for whatever unrelated reasons.

If you want to put your product into the distribution channel that Apple spent shitloads of money to create and operate, then you have to pay their fees and that means you can’t engage in a practice like linking to an outside signup page that is solely for the purpose of circumventing the fees you rightly owe for use of the distribution channel.

Nobody has to distribute your app for free. You don’t like the prices Apple charges for it? Go to Android, or make your own distribution channel, whatever.

Spotify is free to not participate if they don’t like the pricing.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#294

Post by bradleyjg »

rkangel wrote: post #283

This is an interesting result of the collision of device sales, and a digital distribution channel. The normal free market economic push back against Apple on this would go something like: * Apple charges too much * It's not worth it for apps to be in the App Store * App Store selection drops * Consumers stop buying iPhones In practice though, Apple has such a foothold, and device purchase is so separate from App pur…

I think iOS app distribution is a bit too narrowly drawn a market. What if Apple had 5% of the smartphone market, they'd still have 100% of the iOS app distribution market.

No, I'd say the right word here isn't monopoly, but rather duopoly. That doesn't mean that antitrust law shouldn't apply, duopoly is definitely not the same thing as a fully competitive market.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#295

Post by rahkiin »

rkangel wrote: post #283

This is an interesting result of the collision of device sales, and a digital distribution channel. The normal free market economic push back against Apple on this would go something like: * Apple charges too much * It's not worth it for apps to be in the App Store * App Store selection drops * Consumers stop buying iPhones In practice though, Apple has such a foothold, and device purchase is so separate from App pur…

Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution the same way Sony has it for PlayStation distribution and Microsoft for Xbox: nothing gets on the platform without their permission. It is their platform.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#296

Post by m000 »

pjmlp wrote: post #91
hamandcheese wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, at the very least, Amazon doesn’t prevent you from reading ebooks from outside their store on a kindle. They just don’t favilate their discovery. (Unless things changed since I last owned a kindle which was quite a while ago)

Just like Apple does when you import books via iTunes.

Big fan of iTunes, aren't you?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#297

Post by [deleted] »

rkangel wrote: post #283

This is an interesting result of the collision of device sales, and a digital distribution channel. The normal free market economic push back against Apple on this would go something like: * Apple charges too much * It's not worth it for apps to be in the App Store * App Store selection drops * Consumers stop buying iPhones In practice though, Apple has such a foothold, and device purchase is so separate from App pur…

[deleted]

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#298

Post by aaomidi »

Someone wrote: post #226
aaomidi wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fraction doesn't matter at all in this case. Spotify is saying they're abusing the 30% to be able to push their own music application for cheaper.

If so, McDonalds is abusing its power even more. They don’t even let me sell my burgers in their stores. Similarly, it wouldn’t surprise me if music festivals or cinemas charge suppliers selling on their grounds more than 30% of revenues. I know app stores feel different, but as far as I know, that legally still is a reasonably apt comparison. That may eventually change, but if so, someone will have to specify what e…

McDonald's doesn't host other food companies though.

In this case apple has a marketplace AppStore.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#299

Post by guipsp »

rahkiin wrote: post #295
rkangel wrote: post #283

This is an interesting result of the collision of device sales, and a digital distribution channel. The normal free market economic push back against Apple on this would go something like: * Apple charges too much * It's not worth it for apps to be in the App Store * App Store selection drops * Consumers stop buying iPhones In practice though, Apple has such a foothold, and device purchase is so separate from App pur…

Apple has a monopoly on iOS app distribution the same way Sony has it for PlayStation distribution and Microsoft for Xbox: nothing gets on the platform without their permission. It is their platform.

It is quite different in terms of market share (which matters for anti trust issues).

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#300

Post by [deleted] »

josephg wrote: post #233
infinity0 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I'm very confused how you're twisting Apple's huge contribution toward LLVM and Webkit over the years into some evil act. I'm not twisting anything into an evil act, read my words more closely. Some of Apple's contributions to open source have been beneficial to the rest of us, because there are competitors to keep them in check in those areas they chose to do open source in. You should have no doubt that, had…

What areas are there no competitors, in the space of things they opensource? LLVM has GCC. Webkit has (amongst others) blink. Darwin has Linux. FoundationDB has dozens of great competitors. And even in the absence of competitors, how is new permissively licensed opensource software a bad thing? How, exactly do you weaponise opensourcing decent software which has no competitors? Can you give some examples?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN