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

311–320 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#311

Post by Moru »

josephg wrote: post #244
myoffe wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but a counter argument could be that Apple has created the ability of your phone to have apps installed on it. And I’m theory you could jailbreak your phone and install any app you’d want.

Sure; but I paid $1000 for my phone in part because of that capability. My phone would be worth less if I couldn't install apps like spotify. And unlike a game console, app purchases aren't used to subsidise the phones. Its pure profit for apple. And I wouldn't have a problem with that in general, except it feels dirty to claim Apple are saints for graciously allowing apps like spotify to be sold on their platform. T…

And the developers are paying a fee every year just to exist on the app store.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#312

Post by sjwright »

guipsp wrote: post #299
rahkiin wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Sony owns approximately 50% of the console market.

How much of the smartphone market does Apple control?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#313

Post by syshum »

jhanschoo wrote: post #136
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…

> And Spotify isn't asking to keep 100% of the revenue. Spotify is asking for a choice of letting users pay how they wish. But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling…

>>if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system.

No they cant, that is a violation of Apples Policies and would result in the App being removed, Amazon tried that with ebooks years ago. You can not redirect a user for payment inside the app, to a payment system outside the app.

>Regarding the walled-garden App Store policies of Apple, it's not friendly to enthusiasts and some developers, but it is good for most Apple consumers, and helps less tech-savvy users trust Apple's App Store.

It is not an either or option. I think Google has struck a good balence, Their App store is pretty locked down today, but if you know the "hidden" menu and what steps to take you can easily unlock the device and install alternate stores and apps.

There is zero security reason why Apple could not supply this type of hidden unlock for people, it is pure monetary control that they desire

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#314

Post by ahmedalsudani »

benjaminsuch wrote: post #304
ahmedalsudani wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not exactly. You're free to buy from other stores, and suppliers can sell to them. A very important distinction.

You are free to buy a smartphone from other manufacturers. No one is forcing you to use an Apple product.

It's either Android or iOS really. I'd love for a decent alternative to exist but if you don't want Google tracking everything you do, Apple is the only option.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#315

Post by dragonwriter »

guipsp wrote: post #299
rahkiin wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Marketshare matters less than whether consumers empirically switch to competitors in response to price shifts.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#316

Post by kelnos »

xvector wrote: post #239
life_of_sigh wrote: post #201

From apples blog "And developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules." This is the key issue spotify has, Apple music is not playing by the same rules, in fact their monopoly on the app store its undermining Spotifies fair competition. Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple…

> Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple tax which makes it hugely cheaper. ...as is the case with every native app? Notes doesn't have to pay the same tax as paid notes apps, for example. The only solution here to establish "fairness" as you want it is to abolish any marketplace fees entirely, and that's pretty nonsensical, given that 15%/30% isn't a…

Apple has chosen to be the sole gatekeeper of what runs on the phone. That choice has costs, costs which Apple should bear.

Before Apple's IAP system existed, Apple didn't seem too worried about the App Store not generating enough revenue to keep them afloat.

> reaping all of their benefits, while not contributing back to the service or platform which allows them to exist in the first place.

Please, you're acting like Apple is providing the App Store out of the goodness of their hearts. No, they do it because a healthy app ecosystem drives iPhone sales, and the lack of such would destroy the iPhone's viability as a product.

It's a symbiotic relationship: the app developers benefit by having a place to sell their wares, and Apple benefits by having apps that their users want and need available on their platform. Except that Apple is abusing their end of the deal by engaging in anti-competitive behavior in some app categories.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#317

Post by colde »

mrunkel wrote: post #266
abalone wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams. Give me a break. It doesn’t take 15-30% to implement a secure payment system. This is proven by Apple itself:…

Sure Apple makes money off their share of the payment system. Why shouldn't they? They built the whole thing from scratch, including the phones it runs on. Also Apple doesn't just support the secure payment system, they also handle distributing the money and providing customer support to the end user and the developer. That isn't free either. If you don't like the Apple model, there are alternatives. Apple's argument…

But it's quite interesting that Apple seems okay with not taking a cut of e.g. Uber, but does want to take a cut of Spotify. Why should they be treated differently?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#318

Post by life_of_sigh »

xvector wrote: post #239
life_of_sigh wrote: post #201

From apples blog "And developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules." This is the key issue spotify has, Apple music is not playing by the same rules, in fact their monopoly on the app store its undermining Spotifies fair competition. Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple…

> Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple tax which makes it hugely cheaper. ...as is the case with every native app? Notes doesn't have to pay the same tax as paid notes apps, for example. The only solution here to establish "fairness" as you want it is to abolish any marketplace fees entirely, and that's pretty nonsensical, given that 15%/30% isn't a…

> The only solution here to establish "fairness" as you want it is to abolish any marketplace fees entirely

Or the owner + controller of a market place shouldn't be allowed to enter the market place and abuse their controlling position to surpress competition. Financial market places have many regulations like this.

So perhaps the solution as some propose is that Apple Music should be broken off into a seperate company and then will have to pay the 30% charge and compete freely on the same grounds as spotify as Apple falsly protestest it does.

Other one is that alowing alternative app store so that there is not a monopoly and that 30% price can actually have some competition to find a more realistic level.

But Apple would never do any of those, they dont want fair competition and love their lockins.

The alternative thought as well, I payed for a phone I should be able to buy aftermarket apps for it without having to give apple a 30% cut for everything I buy.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#319

Post by easytiger »

twoslide wrote: post #101
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.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#320

Post by z3t4 »

Just let me download the mp3 and play it on whatever device I choose. First I need a iPhone $1000, then I need a Internet service with enought data to stream HQ audio $50 /month. Then I need a (Spotify or other) subscription $30 /month. Why not let me buy the songs/albums from some web page/app !?
Post reply on HN