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

491–500 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#491

Post by pbhjpbhj »

thegayngler wrote: post #80
segphault wrote: post #7

> Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. And it’s not just the App Store that they’re trying to squeeze — it’s also artists, musicians and songwriters. Uh, I seem to recall Apple being forced to reverse some brazenly greedy policies for their music service when a high-profile artist called them out and withheld content in protest. For Apple to characterize itself as a champion…

Spotify literally sued artists and musicians because they didnt agree with a court ordered fee increase...but Apples hypocritical on this issue somehow. Spotify also uses Apples infrastructure and marketing tools for its app. I dont think Ive seen any app creator up on stage at Apple events more than Spotify. Its not like Spotify will use Apples tools and ecosystem one time then stop. Its ongoing and 15% is reasonabl…

>ongoing and 15% is reasonable.

What markup do you think that is. For larger apps I'd imagine it's about 1500% (ie 1% covers the costs).

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#493

Post by max76 »

throwawaymath wrote: post #484
aqme28 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To my understanding this is not illegal, and the ethics are debatable.

I don't think Netflix is comparable. The App Store is a market place, where things are bought and sold. Netflix is not a consumer marketplace.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#494

Post by pbhjpbhj »

bunnycorn wrote: post #89
segphault wrote: post #7

> Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. And it’s not just the App Store that they’re trying to squeeze — it’s also artists, musicians and songwriters. Uh, I seem to recall Apple being forced to reverse some brazenly greedy policies for their music service when a high-profile artist called them out and withheld content in protest. For Apple to characterize itself as a champion…

Taylor Swift is an hypocrite. She called out Apple when she was at her high, now she bends to Spotify and launches exclusive content on the platform. The platform that doesn't want to pay the artists even when they have all the right.

What did she actually say about Apple?

She mightn't be a hypocrite, just she may not care as long as she's paid??

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#495

Post by throwawaymath »

max76 wrote: post #493
throwawaymath wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To my understanding this is not illegal, and the ethics are debatable. I don't think Netflix is comparable. The App Store is a market place, where things are bought and sold. Netflix is not a consumer marketplace.

That's a fair point. On the other hand, Microsoft Windows wasn't a marketplace with respect to web browsers.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#496

Post by kitsunesoba »

jhanschoo wrote: post #136
exwiki wrote: post #4

> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs. We think that’s wrong. I think that's a very hypothetical claim. > Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update…

> And Spotify isn't asking to keep 100% of the revenue. Spotify is asking for a choice of letting users pay how they wish. But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling…

IMO apple’s subscription management is greatly undervalued. When I go there and cancel a subscription, it just cancels and that’s it. No intentionally buried links to hunt down, no “But why are you leaving? :(“ guilt trip modal, no convoluted payment method removal process.

I would be much more supportive of efforts to push Apple to allow third party payment systems of the practices I mentioned above weren’t so common.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#497

Post by bena »

learc83 wrote: post #480
hellisothers wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I use Community professionally.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#498

Post by gumby »

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.

Antitrust law in the US bans monopoly "tying": using a monopoly you have in one market to try to control a separate market.

I believe Spotify is claiming Apple is doing this with Apple Music vs Spotify and I didn't see this issue addressed by Apple's message.

I am not sure I agree with Spotify's claim, and US antitrust is in a parlous state, but this approach may get traction in the EU. However Apple's market share is far far from monopolistic.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#499

Post by loceng »

emsy wrote: post #176

I've mentioned this in a reply but I think it's worth pointing out as its own comment to gather thoughts on this: What if Microsoft would take 30% of every transaction that is done via Windows? And if the sellers don't comply they gets kicked off the platform. That's essentially what Apple is doing, but I'm pretty sure if Microsoft was the one doing it the would be far fewer apologists. In fact, I very much think Mic…

I'd rather analysis includes looking in the opposite direction to understand the pros and cons of each business model: what would Microsoft ecosystem look safety and security wise on PCs if they took 30% to have additional resources to review applications for malicious behaviour, and so on?

Fundamentality Apple decided on the 30% model for arguably good reasons.

People are free to purchase other non-Apple laptops and products that use other operating systems. If it was a case where patents or other only allowed for one option, then yes, that's the case for rules to break that monopoly.

And yes, I understand network effects and sunk costs of consumers, however if the value continues to be there for consumers then they will continue to use the ecosystem. If a company selling a premium Calendar app doesn't think 30% cut is fair then they don't have to build an iOS app, and then likely some other company who thinks it is fair will very likely fill in that gap - if not, then the marketplace wouldn't work.

And it's true there's a lot of work to be done if you want to compete with Apple wholly with lesser or no revenue share you need to create the same or better ecosystem as them - perhaps the main differentiation being a lower or no fee for your version of the App Store.

Finally you could argue Apple have enough profit from elsewhere to cover the benefit the App Store provides, however they're not setup as a co-operative to distribute costs and/or make as little profit as possible - though that certainly is an interesting option for a competitive business model, whether there's an appetite from consumers to pay into such a scheme or a path there is another question.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#500

Post by parthdesai »

madeofpalk wrote: post #373
revel wrote: post #361

I love how brazen this letter is. > Apple’s approach has always been to grow the pie. Apple's approach has always been to grow it's own pie. They have never been even remotely interested in playing nicely with other companies. I don't fault them for it, but let's not kid ourselves here; the app store is largely an extremely profitable exercise in rent seeking. It's not like this is new for Apple; they've had propriet…

> they've had proprietary cables and adapters for as long as I can remember. Apart from Lightning, which was created when no better alternative existed, I cannot remember a proprietary Apple connector in at least the past 10 years.

>Apart from Lightning, which was created when no better alternative existed

Gotcha, then why does new iPhone not have USB-C while new MacBooks only have USB-C?

Post reply on HN