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

381–390 of 392 posts

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#381

Post by NeutronStar »

taf2 wrote: post #100
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…

Pretty confident in the US since at least 2002 - after aol, sprint and others got in big trouble it’s been super illegal to not allow people to cancel

No post body was provided.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#382

Post by elzbardico »

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…

Well what made Spotify possible was the giant investments done by apple and google in the modern smartphone. I don't want to pay more for a new phone.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#383

Post by selcuka »

HotHotLava wrote: post #344
selcuka wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it was easy for an artist to undercut Spotify, they'd be doing it Isn't this the definition of a monopoly?

No, the definition of a monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." A company that is not easy to undercut could just be an efficient business that operates roughly at cost without excessive margins.

I disagree. Spotify is practically a monopoly and is a rent-seeking entity. The reason artists can't go somewhere else is not because Spotify efficiently operates at cost (their gross margin was 26.5% in Q4), but because it's the only brand most customers know.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#384

Post by politician »

dantheman wrote: post #310
politician wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments regulate all sorts of features on all sorts of products: building codes, electrical codes, car mpg requirements, how planes work, tax requirements, how corporations are allowed to function, the rights of citizens, ... Why should software get a free pass?

Because all of those things are about externalities?

Software has externalities.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#385

Post by alam2000 »

desiarnezjr wrote: post #183
munk-a wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the fraud risk still generally born by credit card companies at the end of the day? I think we can legitimately talk about the costs of maintaining the app-store as a marketplace, and we can talk about the future costs of providing updates free of charge in perpetuity and orchestrating the infrastructure to host those various downloads... but that's about where their service offering ends. App review is a joke,…

Nope. All fraud and chargebacks go back to the merchant/seller. The processor will immediately hold those funds in question pending a dispute or resolution around the fraud or chargeback. On top of that there's a hefty fee for any fraud or chargeback that's not refundable even if it's resolved in your favor. Usually in the range of $40 per instance.

No post body was provided.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#386

Post by eyelidlessness »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #366
eyelidlessness wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us actually don’t use either of these products. I can’t speak for the person who got the whatabout, but I think it’s presumptuous to jump straight to hypocrisy without any information about other choices and how they might or might not be consistent.

Yeah, that's fair. So, you don't use YouTube at all? What video streaming sites do you use as an alternative? Or do you just not consume online video that isn't behind a strict publisher? My understanding of the YouTube-alternatives is that they tend to be more anti-censorship, so they're likely to host even more "worse" content then Joe Rogan vs. YouTube.

> So, you don't use YouTube at all?

If at all possible! I used to, but mostly either for streaming music (it was a convenient way to play full albums instead of finding CDs I never got around to ripping). I stopped doing that when the recommendation algorithm started trying to show me shit like Alex Jones after I listened to a Pink Floyd album or whatever.

> What video streaming sites do you use as an alternative? Or do you just not consume online video that isn't behind a strict publisher?

I mostly don’t consume a lot of video content at all. Even at times when I have it’s been mostly listening while doing other things. When I do now it’s almost entirely Netflix, and probably half the time I’m just listening while snuggling my pup.

FWIW I don’t think Netflix is any kind of a morally better alternative, either. My distaste for both Spotify for audio and YouTube for video is the same: I don’t like to consume lots of small bursts of information, especially with a lot of context switching and interaction, especially with a lot of sensory input. And I don’t like to pay extra to turn off shuffle.

As far as the moral aspect of content on these platforms, I mostly think they’re all garbage or waiting to be. And yep, consuming the ones I do does make me a hypocrite. But I appreciate the opportunity to put that fact in evidence.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#387

Post by happymellon »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #370
happymellon wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no proof that if Spotify gave the labels more money, that it would go to the artists. I think Spotify is an excellent example of labels using a 3rd party to mislead where they money is really going when Spotify is paying nearly 80% of its income as fees to 3rd parties.

Yes, that too! There are multiple intermediaries involved here.

Maybe, but this is not Spotify that's the issue.

They have a license to play music, and they pay for the songs at a rate that the labels charge for. If artists do not get enough money from streaming then their label should negotiate more from Spotify. If they are already taking 80% of Spotifys income then that means that either they aren't charging Spotify enough, and Spotify should charge users more, or they are taking a larger chunk and deflecting blame.

With them using the RIAA for the longest time as a distraction from it actually being Sony et al that was suing it's customers, I would not be surprised if this is misguided blame again.

But again, if artists do not get enough money from streaming music, then that is not Spotifys fault. It has paid for a product that it is reselling. You don't then get to bitch that you sold someone something for below the cost that you wanted to.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#388

Post by escapedmoose »

madeofpalk wrote: post #363
Nextgrid wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the worry behind CC info. You are not liable for card-not-present fraud. When it comes to personal data, CC info is always the least of my worries. Fraudulent card transactions are my bank's problem, not mine.

It is an inconvenience, i would imagine. I would prefer credit card fraud does not happen to me (it never has).

I use Apple Pay 99% of the time, and with my credit card Apple Pay continued to work even when I had to get a new card number. Didn’t even have to wait for the new card to arrive in the mail before using it. The old inconveniences of a stolen card aren’t so bad anymore.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#389

Post by mPReDiToR »

selcuka wrote: post #383
HotHotLava wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the definition of a monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." A company that is not easy to undercut could just be an efficient business that operates roughly at cost without excessive margins.

I disagree. Spotify is practically a monopoly and is a rent-seeking entity. The reason artists can't go somewhere else is not because Spotify efficiently operates at cost (their gross margin was 26.5% in Q4), but because it's the only brand most customers know.

Deezer is in competition, Amazon Music, YT Music.

Monopoly doesn't apply, does it?

Even DAB/FM radio takes their lunch.

Re: Spotify and Google Announce User Choice Billing

#390

Post by Siira »

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…

> And we accept that.

You do. I certainly don’t. And you’re just doing that because it’s the status quo, not out of any analysis.

Post reply on HN