Live data from Hacker News

Addressing Spotify’s Claims

apple.com

451–460 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#451
Couldn't agree more. It's Apple's world, if you are asked to play in a certain way - play it. Build your own ecosystem if you are not happy there. It's like everything in life, if you are not happy with something you have to find a way to make the change, don't Q_Q

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#452
post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://mixmag.net/read/new-data-reveals-which-streaming-pla...

I've heard the argument about this is that Spotify has a free tier, and free listens pay out less.

And this makes sense. They are counting the value paid per 1000 plays. If most of users in spotify are free, the average will be lower. Also, spotify has more plays than apple, so the final value paid might be higher.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#453
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their market share on iOS devices is a bit higher than that

Ford's market share of F-150s, the best-selling car in America for 30+ years, is 100%. What is your point.

Do they get 30% for every part you put on it they don't make?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#454
post #74

Apple’s essential claims: 1. 15-30% is a fair “contribution to maintaining the App Store ecosystem” which has led to Spotify’s “dramatic growth.” 2. Spotify is greedy and bad, just look at how they squeeze artists, unlike us. The second point is really weak considering that paying such a high fee to Apple, which Apple Music itself doesn’t have to pay, might force Spotify to take it out of the artists’ end to stay afl…

> paying such a high fee to Apple, which Apple Music itself doesn’t have to pay, might force Spotify to take it out of the artists’ end to stay afloat.

bunnycom's reply to you is flagged dead, but there's an important rebuke to that claim: Spotify doesn't use iAP for subscriptions any more, and Apple gets no money off of Spotify today except for pre-existing subscriptions from before Spotify disabled iAP: https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip...

So I think it's a bit specious to say Spotify has to squeeze artists more to pay Apple's fees, when they're not even paying those fees any more.

And I'd venture to say the iAP process really does help growth of apps like Spotify: it lets you use a single credit card you have linked to your iTunes account for all in-app purchases with just TouchID/FaceID, and is a much lower-friction way of paying money to an app than filling in your credit card information into every app, having to change them all when your card expires, etc. I wouldn't say it's worth a 30% (or even 15%) cut, but it's not worthless.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#455
post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only do you still have to hassle with Apple's clunky provisioning profiles No you don't. XCode takes care of all of that automatically, I haven't had to hassle with provisioning profiles in years.

You provide anecdotal evidence (like me) as it requires me to set it manually to work and it has been so for about a year.

What do you need to 'set manually' ? You check 'automatically manage signing' and select your team from the list (if you're in multiple teams) and it should Just Work™.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#456

As with so many matters that involve money, arguments fly around left and right that claim to be on principle, but really aren't. When you see ESPN and Comcast argue over showing the World Series, don't buy the argument that one of them is "trying to prevent loyal customers from being able to see their favorite game", or when your local hospital group withdraws from your employer health plan that "the other side is t…

I agree with your point, but don't underestimate the power of public opinion, or the public wallet. I tend to think Apple is shitty in this instance, and I advocate all people use hardware-neutral services when possible. I stand with Spotify - that is, until they do something wildly anti-consumer or break their app.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that idea, we should forbid grocers from charging less in-store for their brand name items that compete directly with mainstream brands (Safeway Select, WholeFoods 360, etc)

Can you comment on my point and not add an "What about x" ? My point is about the user, do I benefit is a supermarket makes it own products cheaper, Yes , but if it makes my preferred product more expensive to force me to buy the product they want, this does not benefit me, again, tell me about what the benefit is for the user/consumer not what about x, the market shares, the laws in US, free market ....

The consumer gets an equivalent service for cheaper, that is like literally the definition of consumer benefit in economics. If you truly believe that X is better than iX than you can pay the extra money for X, but if iX is just as good and is cheaper than X the consumer benefits because they can spend less to get the same service.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. > Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. because rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none. But ignoring Apple's App Sto…

> So their choice on iOS is pay the tax or don't have a presence. Not true. They can simply not offer in-app purchases. The Kindle App doesn’t pay any “tax” to Apple. Consumers have access to the Kindle App without Apple getting any “cut” of Amazon purchases even as Apple has Books.

I think this is basically what Spotify are doing at the moment but it's not really an ideal solution. Though I guess there's nothing stopping users signing up via Safari and then installing the native iOS app.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty cheap actually for distribution channels. If Spotify were selling their products through retail they would probably lose about 50% of their margins.

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion unless you seriously compare physical with digital distribution. Retail margins are famously low (very low single digits). The problem is that Apple and Google are exploiting their mobile content distribution oligopoly so aggressively that they are practically begging for a regulatory crackdown. I wonder why companies are getting carried away with this kind of profit des…

> Retail margins are famously low (very low single digits).

The margins and costs include more than the wholesale price of the product. The correct question is how much does a farmer get paid for a gallon/liter of milk and how much is that same gallon/liter sold for at the shop. Farmers in the US are getting roughly $1.00 per gallon for whole milk. How much is it selling in the store? Roughly $3.50.

Anytime people talk about “greed,” I tune out because that’s the sign of a person who doesn’t actually know what goes into running the thing they claim a company is greedy with. Take the Apple 30% fee for example. If you ran payment processing yourself through Stripe, you might pay 3%. So let’s take Apple’s remainder to 27%. Apple handles chargebacks/disputes for you. So each dispute using Stripe would cost you $15 unless you win the dispute. We also have fraud prevention and management, which Apple provides. An app developer never has to deal with fraud on the App Store. An fraud is a significant issue, especially selling globally.[1] How much is fraud worth? I would say that it’s worth at least 5% to never have to deal with it. So now the App Store commission is 23%.

Next you have to deal with a CDN for delivery of the purchased app. Where do you store the file? How do you secure it? Who pays for the bandwidth of distributing it? Who maintains that system? With the App Store you don’t have to deal with any of that. I would say that’s worth at least 5%. You can’t have any downtime or you lose money. You can’t have casual security or you’ll lose product. So that system has to be well maintained, robust, and able to handle scale, and be fast and easy for your customer.

Now we are at 18% of Apple’s commission remaining. For every product you sell worldwide, you have tax consequences worldwide, assuming you care about following the law. For every sale you get, you potentially have to remit taxes, taxes that vary by individual jurisdiction. Apple does all of that for you. They also provide a localized and internationalized store front for almost any country in the world. Want to sell your App in Vietnam? Is your infrastructure set up to reach those customers? How about your Vietnamese skills when a potential customer has a purchasing issue? How about your payment processor? Are they set up to handle how Vietnamese people like to pay for things? Can a Vietnamese person go buy a gift card and use it on their device to buy your product? With the App Store, you get all of that capability built-in. And you get that capability for pretty much every connected country. Including market exposure via App Store search and discovery. Let’s combine this point with the next, a product website. If you want to sell on your own you have to build and maintain a website to sell your app. You need to integrate payment processing, the download, security, and maintain it. While most of us have the skills to do that, you also have to ensure it’s updated, you have to pay to host it, translate it into worldwide languages (or not.) However if you actually want to sell your app, you’ll also need to worry about SEO, online marketing and attracting users to your app. Just a simple webpage isn’t going to make a dent in search results from the open web since your “premium music player” keyword will take years to rank.

So the App Store gives you the ordering system, access to many more markets than you’d likely normally be able to handle yourself as well as the aforementioned search and discovery. There is also the trust factor: why would I download some random music player from some random site off the internet? That concern is going to create a high barrier to getting large numbers of people to download the app. Not so on the App Store.

I would say all of that is worth at least 8%.

So that leaves our “greed percentage” at 10%. However, we have another aspect as well. Not only do you sell a paid version, you also have a free version you use as a marketing tool to expose people to how great your app is. That free version has ads that you insert while people are listening to music on your music player. You get 100% of the revenue from the ads, Apple has nothing to do with that. However, all of the stuff we’ve described above — Apple gets 0% for free apps — and your free users download and use the store infrastructure by the millions. Millions of downloads that never touch your system. Who pays for that bandwidth? Not you, at least not directly. So Apple has 10% of that fee unaccounted for. Handling all of your free users is probably worth at least 5%. Also we haven’t talked about an update. If you release an update, how do all of your millions of users get the update? Apple handles that for you as well.

On your second year of a subscription, the commission drops to 15% because many of those above listed expenses aren’t as relevant. However, taxes, update infrastructure, payments, declined cards, collections, etc.. that’s still being handled.

Making an argument that Apple is “greedy” is ill-informed. Besides, you don’t even have to pay Apple 30%. Users could go to your website and pay there. Then Apple is handling all of you download/update infrastructure for practically free. That 30% is only applicable when users pay within the App Store context. So Apple handles the distribution of potentially millions of downloads even though they aren’t necessarily making much money from your subscriptions you sell outside the store. Maybe it’s greedy to expect Apple to manage millions of your downloads for just a $99 per year developer fee? Apple expecting a cut of transactions they manage isn’t unreasonable.

[1] https://stripe.com/guides/2017-global-fraud-report

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#460

This is a surprisingly open response to what is likely to be a legal matter, particularly given Apple's usual silence on... most everything. I definitely take issue with it's avoidance of the core issues though: That the services they provide aren't optional on the iPhone. They make it sound like connecting Spotify to users, and allowing them to use their in-app purchase mechanism is a service they offer that they sh…

You know, it's a funny thing, how to define anticompetitive and monopoly practices, depending on how you frame the scope of the market. See Peter Thiel's book for a chapter on this.

You could say that Apple has a monopoly over developers building apps and providing their services to people using iPhones. But is that the scope that is under regulation, or what constitutes the "marketplace"?

Someone else looking at it could say that Spotify has a multitude of ways to provide its content to customers -- web, it's own Windows + Mac desktop apps, Android, etc. Would you claim that that is lacking competition?

Which way is a regulator supposed to look at it?

Post reply on HN