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

471–480 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#471

Post by redwall_hp »

zaidf wrote: post #6
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

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…

I think Apple is going to find itself standing alone by the time the dust settles on this issue. Their 30% tax is a disservice to its own customers, not just app publishers. Apple tries to counter that the problem is Spotify . It's Spotify that is money-hungry, Apple claims: Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. The only problem with this argument is that Spotify is just one e…

Let's not forget that you can't buy Kindle books on iOS because of this policy. Apple wants 30% of the cost of every book, which would kill Amazon's margin. (Of course, this is just businesses fighting over the lion's share of the money; the publisher is only going to give the author ten cents on the dollar in royalties anyway.) But Apple will happily sell you books in their store, which smells like anticompetitive behavior.

Steam Link faces a similar issue. Apple, apparently, considers buying desktop games through an app that can remotely play them on your phone to be the same situation, and demand that payments go through them.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#472

Post by laumars »

close04 wrote: post #400
laumars wrote: post #273

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 If I want my music in the Spotify catalog who decides what's my cut and what's Spotify's cut of the money my music is generating? They have 100% control there so if I want to list my music there what are my choices? Pay up or not have a presence. Apple's choice is to give them access to millions of customers with big pockets (statistically), maintain th…

> If I want my music in the Spotify catalog who decides what's my cut and what's Spotify's cut of the money my music is generating? They have 100% control there so if I want to list my music there what are my choices? Pay up or not have a presence.

Indeed. This same argument has been ranging on for years about music streaming services and ebooks via Amazon too. So it's not just Apple who get put under the spotlight.

> Apple's choice is to give them access to millions of customers with big pockets (statistically), maintain the whole infrastructure for this, not get anything because the app is "free" but actually not even be allowed to drop them? What kind of choice is that? Should an app even be called "free" if it offers nothing without paying? Isn't that like asking for tax exemptions for a nonprofit organization that makes a profit?

I think that's a little disingenuous. Apple don't chose to let app developers on board - Apple do it because their platform depends on it. Smart devices live and die depending on the developers that support it.

I also agree there is an infrastructure cost but as I said in an earlier post, it's not equivalent to the infrastructure costs of bricks and mortar despite Apple retaining the same kind of mark up. This is where people get narked off. But as I said elsewhere, I also accept Apple has the right to charge whatever they think they can get away with. I mean that's just basic business.

Your point about free apps is an interesting one however if we're honest, Apple do still make money even from free apps. Developers have to pay a small fortune to get their apps included in the App Store - from MacBook sales (if they weren't already Mac users), developer licences and app submissions. I think (but please correct me if I'm wrong here) Apple also have their own ad network for iOS as well? So they would obviously get a cut of that too. In any case I'm not trying to disagree with you here - more just say that Apple are hardly making a loss on free apps even without taking into account in-app sales.

> Would it be OK if Apple changed the rules so apps had to offer full functionality without further paid unlocks or simply charge for the app as a service in the App Store at whatever monthly price the developer chooses?

In fairness Amazon's app store states something like full functionality. I can't remember the specifics but they push back on apps that are in-app orientated in a scammy way while still allowing developers to be contributed for their work. It's a system which works pretty well - at least from an end user perspective. In fact that was one of the biggest things I missed when I "upgraded" my son's Kindle to a regular Google Play-powered Android tablet.

> The fact that Spotify lied or misled about these details that are pretty obscure to most people (including me until I specifically read about them) kind of disqualifies them from playing victim in my perspective. They want all the benefits with none of the strings.

I don't think Spotify has mislead anyone any more than Apple are misleading people. As you said, they all have an agenda - but that's just the nature of business. The question is really who's controlling the deck and are they doing so unfairly. The answer to the former is quite clearly Apple - but the jury is still out on the latter.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#473

Post by supernova87a »

unethical_ban wrote: post #456
supernova87a wrote: post #438

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.

I agree that public opinion is important, because it's usually what guides public policy.

But I would just caution people to consider whether your stance is truly based on what you think should apply generally, or just because you like the person/party in the specific case. (applies to a lot of things in life)

The power of platform providers versus app providers ebbs and flows back and forth with new technology, depending on who has the most market / customer pull. And you should try to deconfuse your principles about who should be able to charge what, from your liking of the provider -- because that can change in an instant.

Craigslist charges employers a significant fee to post their job listings. Employers have far less sway than Spotify does in that platform dispute. I'm guessing you (audience) like Craigslist, and support them in what they charge? Why?

Amazon charges companies to sell on their platform. You probably don't complain a lot about that, and that's probably just as restrictive as Apple+Spotify for some sellers. Why? Is it because you like Amazon's services?

Or you maybe like Grubhub, and don't care that it takes a huge cut from restaurant owners. (a cut that is more painful than what Spotify charges per month, to the restaurant on every single order you make)

I don't choose sides either way. What is "reasonable" is what the parties had the clout and market pull to agree to, and what the law says is acceptable in form.

Separate your principles from your preferences.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#474

Post by mediocrejoker »

syshum wrote: post #303
Someone wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so, McDonalds is abusing its power even more. They don’t even let me sell my burgers in their stores. Similarly, it wouldn’t surprise me if music festivals or cinemas charge suppliers selling on their grounds more than 30% of revenues. I know app stores feel different, but as far as I know, that legally still is a reasonably apt comparison. That may eventually change, but if so, someone will have to specify what e…

App stores feel different because they are different. You seem to have an incorrect definition of what a market is McDonalds is not a market, McDonalds is a vendor in a Market. Apples has a created a market on is the platform by virtue of the App Store, a case can be made for Anti-Trust due to to this, but it would be a hard one. Defining what is and is not a market is always one of the largest challenges for Anti-Tr…

I am not familiar with the legal history you cite but it is intriguing. Are there other antitrust cases that hinged on whether or not two things were their own markets or part of a larger one?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#475

Post by dmix »

supernova87a wrote: post #438

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…

They only make money by keeping customers happy. Isn't that why ESPN and Comcast want the World Series in the first place? Customers aren't giving them money in return for nothing like automatons.

People always try to make businesses out as the unitary function organizations where their profit is completely disconnected from serving a market and keeping that market happy.

The only time when companies can operate without keeping customers happy are a) when they have an absolute monopoly and (often the same) b) when they are given some sort of political protection from the marketplace whether indirectly or directly.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#476

Post by mediocrejoker »

kelnos wrote: post #286
chrischen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the % for processing/platform is justifiable and hard to argue against setting that % for them. The most likely outcome is that they will either remove the restriction from advertising alternative payment methods on signup, and in exchange Apple can do what it wants with in-app payments.

If Visa or MasterCard tried to charge 30% transaction fees, they'd be laughed out of the market. The problem is that you can't laugh Apple out of the market for payments on iOS devices, because they don't allow other entrants into that market.

Visa and Mastercard do actually charge 30% if you don't pay within 30 days or so. Why is that not equally laughable?

Is it because they provide a service in exchange for that 30%, a service that many people are willing to pay 30% for?

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#477

Post by hello_friendos »

leoh wrote: post #326
maaaats wrote: post #38

What an immature letter, did not really expect a response like that. It also fails to address the most important points from Spotify, which I thought were: you have no choice but to use the apple store, and promoting your own payment is not allowed. Fix one of those and most people would be happy.

That and the fact that they pay a shitload of money to Apple and Apple fucking won't allow Siri to work.

I guess you didn't take the time to read the full response:

When we reached out to Spotify about Siri and AirPlay 2 support on several occasions, they’ve told us they’re working on it, and we stand ready to help them where we can.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#478

Post by aqme28 »

supernova87a wrote: post #438

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…

> Spotify wants a lower $ charge. Apple owns the platform and controls that access and $ charge. That's it.

I think that's an oversimplification.

When you control the platform and then use that control to favor your own products on that platform, that's anti-competitive.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#479

Post by weavejester »

supernova87a wrote: post #438

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…

" There's no public right to have a music app be charged a certain amount that's called "fair". Spotify could charge nothing to consumers, and be charged nothing by Apple. It's their choice. It's Apple's choice."

Competition laws place limitations on what a business can do. They're not free to sell or price entirely as they please.

In this case Spotify are arguing that Apple is using its dominance of the smartphone market to give an unfair advantage to its own music store. Whether or not this is true is up to the courts to decide, but it's not a frivilous case; there's a real risk to Apple that they lose.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#480

Post by learc83 »

hellisothers wrote: post #464
rhodysurf wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XCode is free and has been for ages. To this day you can develop whatever you like for the Mac and not pay Apple a penny. You don’t even have to use XCode to do it. It’s even free for iPhone development for your own device now, though you have to pay a fee to publish stuff. I’m not sure what you comment about emulators is about to be honest, The iOS emulator for the Mac is free. True it is all free except the whole h…

This is a disingenuous argument, you have to buy a PC to develop Windows. And you have to pay $100-300 for windows, AND you have to play $600-$2500 _per year_ for Visual Studio

Visual Studio Community (which is everything you'd need if you aren't a large team) is free. You can use it for up to 5 users for commercial work.
Post reply on HN