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

321–330 of 392 posts

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#321

Post by smaudet »

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…

That's not a reason to use Google Pay - I want a system which I can directly block. Credit Card allows me to do this.

Billing through Spotify might make it harder to unsubscribe, but I can still block my card. Rather not need to fight a large company with a history of ignoring its users or their complaints to get my payment canceled.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#322

Post by chihuahua »

darepublic wrote: post #305
chihuahua wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You do know that YouTube's music selection is much better than Spotify's right. Not even close

Exactly, that's why I'm not paying for Spotify.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#323

Post by AndrewDucker »

ehsankia wrote: post #294
darkwizard42 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

processing fees are on the order of 2-3% at most, platform fees are 30%. That being said, the platforms do incur all sorts of other costs, but these costs are unequally shared across all apps. A free app with no ads does not pay anything but gets all the same features as a 100$ app who contributes 30$ on each sale. The problem is that there isn't a more "fair" solution.

Of course there is. There are multiple other ways that Apple and Google could decide to charge application providers, but they've decided this one makes them the most money.

They could have a standing charge for each app, with charges per thousand downloads, for instance, which would more closely follow their actual costs, and charge 5% for payments. That would have a different set of positives and negatives, but the way they've chosen is just one way amongst many options they've got.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#324

Post by ksec »

falcolas wrote: post #150
mr_aks wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, Spotify is allowed to charge 30% for access to the market it has created, but Google and Apple are not? An app store costs money too - the creation and maintenance of the billing platform/API, bandwidth, human curation, cross-device storage of saved configurations, user acquisition, etc. What makes musicians so different from software developers that it's perfectly acceptable for Spotify to take such a large shar…

Access to User, and Specifically Mobile Apps users, are split between Apple "App Store" and Google "Play Store".

Access to listener, or even if you limit to Mobile listener, are not bound to Spotify.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#325

Post by dehrmann »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #77
olau wrote: post #66

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.

This might have changed, but generally, Spotify pays 70% of premium revenue to rights holders[1], i.e., it's a variable cost. Most won't end up in the hands of artists, but I'm not sure if any streaming or purchase platform is better for that.

1: https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/18/dictate-top-40/

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#326

Post by dmitriid »

falcolas wrote: post #191
dmitriid wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is where I shrug my shoulders and say "Why not [blame] both?" I've yet to see any of these discussions to blame both. And your own comment literally never mentions the Big Three. > can all be screwing over creators in conjunction with their publishers. I prefer not to wade in to conspiracy territory. Apple may have power over the industry, but they are an outlier. The rest do whatever the industry tels them to…

> I've yet to see any of these discussions to blame both. Perhaps because they are outside the context of this discussion? For the purposes of this discussion, they are a constant, no matter what Spotify or Google does. > And your own comment literally never mentions the Big Three. I added a caveat to my "buying from the musicians directly" exactly because of publishers. > Apple may have power over the industry, but…

> For the purposes of this discussion, they are a constant, no matter what Spotify or Google does.

That "constant" is the main reason artists don't get paid. And yet, only streaming services are blamed.

> added a caveat to my "buying from the musicians directly" exactly because of publishers

That's not a caveat. That is wishful thinking. How do you propose streaming services do that?

> they charge the same percentage as the other players in this space that I mentioned. No conspiracy theories required to point this out

Yes, they do charge the same. So it means that 60-65% of their revenue goes to rights holders.

But sure. "They are in on it with rights holders to rip artists off".

> Sure, in articles about music producers

There are very few such articles and most, like your comment, blame streaming services for paying artists too little even though streaming services have nothing to do with paying artists. It's the publishers/rights holders who do that.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#328

Post by ksec »

nerdjon wrote: post #83
olau wrote: post #66

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…

Then let's focus on lowering that percent instead of making the situation worse for consumers. However to be clear, that percent is in the same area that game consoles and I believe Steam (someone correct me?) charge. And we accept that. When the 30% rule for the App Store came down, our smart phones were basically the same as a game console. Most people did not expect these devices to become the central part of all…

>Then let's focus on lowering that percent

I dont think that is the correct way of looking at it. As you stated at the end, you think it is worth it.

The question is value delivery. Not percentage. I could argue in cases where even 90% is acceptable. The question is how much value is delivered and how much of those 90% are used, or was it pure profits, i.e rent seeking. For some categories of Apps, 30% doesn't make sense.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#329

Post by darkwater »

Traster wrote: post #151
darkwater wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Spotify will probably also get less discounts in GCP to compensate part of that. I'm totally speculating, just to be clear.

Why on earth would Spotify be getting a discount on GCP?

Because in big contracts like that you try to negotiate everything, on both sides. But as said I have no real info, I was just thinking aloud.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#330

Post by bennysomething »

olau wrote: post #66
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 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…

What did the eu hit payment card companies with? Only thing I know about is banning vendors from passing on fees to the customer, which harmed us: it prevented the customer from seeing they were being ripped off by credit card companies at the point of sale. (Genuine question here)
Post reply on HN