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

481–490 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#481

Post by ceejayoz »

dmix wrote: post #475
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 with…

> They only make money by keeping customers happy.

You can also make money by giving customers no choice.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#482

Post by supernova87a »

weavejester wrote: post #479
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 m…

Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU.

As I said in a comment far below here, 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. 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.

Which way is a regulator supposed to look at it?

The point about Apple Music is also interesting. Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#483

Post by had2makeanact »

andromeduck wrote: post #192
headmelted wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still missing the point. Apple owns a mall (iOS). In that mall, Apple owns a book store (iTunes). Amazon also has a book store in the mall (Kindle). Apple does not want to sell Amazon's books (Kindle format ebooks) in it's store (iTunes). Ok. Apple decrees that no store in the mall shall sell any books but iTunes books, which only they may sell. Not Ok.

Amazon is free to sell books in their app, they just need to pay a portion of their revenue for the privilege of doing so much like in the mall.

Do malls take a portion of the revenue generated from the stores? I assumed they just paid rent and kept the money generated.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#484

Post by throwawaymath »

aqme28 wrote: post #478
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.

It's anticompetitive, but is it illegal? Is it unethical? Does Apple's favoritism of its own products on its platform mean competing products cannot exist on the platform, or that they're less capable/visible?

There are many platforms which rigidly control what's allowed on it. For example, is Netflix comparable? Netflix can control which providers are represented on its platform.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#485

Post by oarsinsync »

supernova87a wrote: post #482
weavejester wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 m…

Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU. As I said in a comment far below here, 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…

> Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market. Apple Music was actually the newer entrant in that case.

A bit of apples to oranges comparison, but Internet Explorer was also the newer entrant in a previous case.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#486

Post by georgespencer »

EthanV2 wrote: post #449
philistine wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of having Xcode be available on PCs, which we all know are free to own. Yeah, right.

I guess the point is you might already own a PC, and you could use that for developing Android apps, for example. But if you also want to use Xcode and develop iOS apps as well then you have to buy a Mac.

If that is the point it's not a very good one.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#487

Post by ThomPete »

coldtea wrote: post #301
ThomPete wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's the only way you can do it.

They can always create their own mobile platform, if they think Apple providing them with one is not worth much to them... After all Google and Apple did.

Just as Apple could allow them to build their own payment stack into it and circumvent the app store.

But they don't.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#488

Post by Mikeb85 »

Forgetting specific claims about money and app store revenue cuts, Apple could be in for some serious trouble in Europe, as the European Commission is far more pro-consumer than the relevant authorities in the US. Where they'll get into trouble is the fact that Apple Music uses APIs that aren't available to other developers, that they restrict developers from redirecting to their website from within the app, all while having a competing product. It's not the competing product that's an issue, nor the app store cut, but the fact that they're giving themselves an unfair advantage. The EC has already punished Google for similar, I don't see how Apple escapes unscathed.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#489

Post by dmix »

ceejayoz wrote: post #481
dmix wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 with…

> They only make money by keeping customers happy. You can also make money by giving customers no choice.

I addressed that in my comment.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#490

Post by [deleted] »

supernova87a wrote: post #482
weavejester wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 m…

Well, that is a separate and good point, and very much a political one. And you can never tell with the EU. As I said in a comment far below here, 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN