Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

timetoplayfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#431

Post by xvector »

laumars wrote: post #322
sib wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the thing: consumers paid (voluntarily) for an iPhone that has the restriction that apps must be bought / acquired / loaded through the App Store . So, yes, they own the device that has this restriction. If they didn't want this device, they could have bought one of the many devices that doesn't, as approximately 75% percent of people do globally.

I've had both Android and iPhones and honestly they're much the same. Google gives you a little more freedom in app development but you lose a lot of privacy. Neither company champions jailbreaking. Ultimately there isn't a single consumer handset out there that has the same principles of "now you own the device it's yours to do with as you like". Consumer tech just doesn't operate that way any more.

So you want both freedom over software you install and strong privacy and security.

This will be fine for HN folks but will result in the erasure of security and privacy for normal users.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#432

Post by jonhohle »

wool_gather wrote: post #410
selectodude wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft bundled IE for the express purpose of putting Netscape out of business and used their market power to kill netscape. It’s not illegal to be a monopoly, it’s illegal to abuse that monopoly position. Google can make Maps and chrome and whatever, but they can’t force Samsung to not bundle a competeing maps app.

Counterpoint (and I say this as someone who currently makes a living via Apple's platform): Apple reserves a fair bit of system integration/functionality to their first-party apps. For example, on iOS no navigation app other than Apple Maps can actively navigate when the device is locked. I'm not familiar enough with Android to know if Google does this as well.

But they don’t have a monopoly in any of the spaces you’ve mentioned (or any space at all).

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#433

Post by ppeetteerr »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #390
bdcravens wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify seems to focus on IAP, but if you purchased Spotify Premium outside of IAP, it works just fine with that app.

But how would you know Spotify Premium even exists if Spotify is prohibited by Apple to make any mention of it?

You can advertise Premium in-app. Just have to charge iOS users more than Android users.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#434

Post by xvector »

acdha wrote: post #164
supermatt wrote: post #71

Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your "purchases" - there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems they created. They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple pla…

> vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. Congratulations, you've just reinvented the desktop adware / malware market. We know that if this is possible users will be manipulated into making bad decisions which are hard to recover from, and in many cases those bad decisions will be made for them by their carrier. What I would support is that the app store should be more open: no refusing…

Completely agree. The blindness of users here towards the use case of non-techies is surprising.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#435

Post by binomialxenon »

wool_gather wrote: post #410
selectodude wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft bundled IE for the express purpose of putting Netscape out of business and used their market power to kill netscape. It’s not illegal to be a monopoly, it’s illegal to abuse that monopoly position. Google can make Maps and chrome and whatever, but they can’t force Samsung to not bundle a competeing maps app.

Counterpoint (and I say this as someone who currently makes a living via Apple's platform): Apple reserves a fair bit of system integration/functionality to their first-party apps. For example, on iOS no navigation app other than Apple Maps can actively navigate when the device is locked. I'm not familiar enough with Android to know if Google does this as well.

Android has plenty of its own problems, but not so much in this category. Android users can set default browser, email, SMS app, etc., where iOS does not allow this. Any navigation app can work while the device is locked, it's enabled by a permission called "Draw over other apps", IIRC.

In my opinion, the problem with Android is not that you can't add to its functionality, which you can, but that you can't effectively limit Google's privacy-invasive functionality (much worse than iOS's) unless you can unlock the bootloader.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#436

Post by freehunter »

brmgb wrote: post #116
georgespencer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribe to Spotify through Apple devices Not so as I understand it. Only if you put the option to subscribe into your app in the app store. That cost doesn't exist for Mac or PC, but Apple doesn't heavily curate and have costs associated with the wild west of downloading apps from the web. > it doesn't weight anything to Apple There are…

> Why? They've made the hardware. Why should they have to let Spotify run on it in the exact way Spotify wants? (You can Airplay Spotify to Homepod.) I perfectly understand why Apple would be as anti-competitive as they can away with on their plateform. It benefits them tremendously. What I don't understand is why some comsumers, who are definitely loosing from the situation - even if you prefer the Apple solution co…

>who are definitely losing from the situation

Maybe you haven't considered that some consumers don't feel like they're losing from the situation. Maybe some consumers feel like they are winning because Apple's interests align with their own, and the interests of Apple's competitors are not aligned with their own?

I like having an app store I can trust to not have malware, I like knowing the apps I download have had a human review them for quality. I like having hardware with an OS where the developer of the OS controls when I get updates, not a carrier or manufacturer who are not affiliated with the developer. I like getting security and feature updates for my OS for 5 years. I like paying the developer of my software so the developer has a profit structure that doesn't necessitate spying on me. I like knowing that every piece of software pre-packaged on my device was put there by the developer of the OS with their explicit approval, and not sold to the highest bidder. I like knowing that the software on my phone is exactly how the developer planned it, and not modified by an unaffiliated device manufacturer to the point where multiple websites exist for the sole purpose of creating ROMs that mimic the developer's intended software, necessitating that I now either trust the unaffiliated hardware manufacturer or trust some random person on the Internet to deliver me a clean ROM.

There are platforms that are open and free to use however you see fit. They exist and they are great options. Very modern and easy to use and as open as you want them to be. I prefer the option that isn't open to modification. Products exist for both use cases.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#437

Post by ummonk »

colde wrote: post #153
tumetab1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue of the 30% cut alone is enough for further investigation, Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify.

> Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify. As they mention on the website. That's not true. It's not 30% for Uber or Deliveroo. And most importantly, it's not 30% for Apple Music.

And most importantly, it's not 30% for Apple Music.

What do you mean it isn't? Apple Store could trivially take a 30% cut of the Apple Music revenue, and the only thing that would change would be the distribution of revenue between Apple Music and Apple Store in Apple's revenue reports. The total revenue would be the same.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#438

Post by bduerst »

jonhohle wrote: post #429
volandovengo wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that the US threatened heavily to break up the company. Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...

They bundled _while_ having a monopoly. They could have bundled or they could have had a monopoly, but doing both is where it crosses the anti-trust line since your customers are effectively captive. What does Apple have a monopoly on? What does Amazon have a monopoly on? Google arguably has a monopoly on search which could put them in an unfavorable position should an antitrust case be brought against them (maybe wh…

Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. Having a popular or high-quality product is not the same as having no competition. You can run an ecommerce business online entirely through instagram if you wanted to.

Amazon theoretically is abusing it's market power by being selective about which products it sells in it's stores. When they removed competing AppleTV/Chromecast products from their own and seller lines, to promote their firestick, that was monopolistic behavior. There's also arguments that Amazon is promoting their own line of products on their platform as well, by replicating products that end up being successful, but this is a new area for antitrust that needs to be sussed out.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#439

Post by diffeomorphism »

volandovengo wrote: post #370
headmelted wrote: post #339

Utterly disagree. The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this arbitrarily in a way that at least appears to favour your own products over your rivals is an abuse of your position. If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely, given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously),…

For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that the US threatened heavily to break up the company. Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...

> Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE

I think it is an impressive PR achievement by Microsoft that you remember it this way.

As a more recent example, when Google was fined related to Android, they tried to spin it as "being fined for bundling the play store". That is of course not what they were fined for, but it makes a nice memorable headline.

Post reply on HN