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

EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

beuc.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#51

Post by mort96 »

Hikikomori wrote: post #45
mort96 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't pay 30% to Apple Isn't that because it pays 100% to Apple? I get that there's a competitive advantage to not having to siphon off 30% of revenue to another entity... but how do you actually solve this here? One option would be to split up Apple and require the services division to be an entirely separate company, and maybe that would be a good solution... but if we assume that Apple will be allowed to se…

Let Spotify pay for services rendered, like app downloads, rather than a flat fee completely unrelated to cost of producing services rendered. Could even let Spotify host their own downloads, if the Appstore and apples service is so good they shouldn't be afraid of some competition.

Pretty sure Apple's argument there would be that the "services rendered" includes continued maintenance and development of the iOS platform. That has been their angle with the EU DMA stuff, it's why their fee is called the "Core Technology Fee". (Of course, this is Apple's spin on it.)

You could say that platform owners (over a certain size?) shouldn't be allowed to take a cut of commerce which happens on the platform. I certainly wouldn't be against that.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#52

Post by smoldesu »

xvector wrote: post #33
smoldesu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone actually has to incentivize building things and getting shit done America will incentivize actual monopolies to massacre their employees before admitting they're wrong and need to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike Say what you will about the free market, but assuming that businesses will always make the right decision is a good way of ensuring your food is rotten and your warranties go un…

You can theorize all you want given a strike in 1892, but in the last 20 years demonstrate this is not the case. Hundreds of disruptive startups have emerged and become successful. Now compare this same ones to the EU.

> You can theorize all you want given a strike in 1892, but in the last 20 years demonstrate this is not the case.

The last 20 years demonstrate that America will charge it's largest domestic tech business with a breakup over just their stance on third-party browsers. There's not much left to the imagination.

> Hundreds of disruptive startups have emerged and become successful. Now compare this same ones to the EU.

Like ARM and STMicroelectronics? Once you look past the West-coast hype machines, there's quite a few European businesses that haven't been challenged by American competitors, startup or otherwise. Some of them are even considered critical components of American businesses, if you could believe that.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#53

Post by troupo »

rantee wrote: post #25
r00fus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about this? I hear the rates vary by platform. For example Tidal was pushing for much higher royalties as part of its push to get more artists to sign with it.

Yes, the rates vary by platform. In the US, there's a combo of statutory (or CRB-approved) rates on the publisher side, and negotiations on the label side. On the publisher/songwriter side, streams are not "public performances" under the Copyright Act (in the US), so royalties are not handled by the court-sanctioned monopolies that have been in place since the early 20th century (ASCAP, BMI).

> On the publisher/songwriter side, streams are not "public performances" under the Copyright Act (in the US)

And the industry has been fighting tooth and nail to make streaming services use performance licenses, not mechanical licenses. Here's a very good (long) overview https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/14/17117160/spotify-mechanic...

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#54

Post by xvector »

blackbear_ wrote: post #50
zx10rse wrote: post #38

The conversation here is really degrading, when EU is mentioned. People down vote for the sake of down vote every opinion that is not in favor of EU, so they can silence it? It is really disappointing to see such behavior here on HN.

I think many are just tired of American "exceptionalism" being pushed with the same fallacies every time.

It's not exceptionalism if it's true. The EU's very culture lacks the "get shit done" mentality present in the US. On average, people are less bold and take less risks.

This is evident in the lack of meaningful consumer technology businesses over the last 20 years and a dearth of startups precipitated by hand-wringing VCs that would rather invest in land than ideas. As such, the EU has missed out in trillions of euros in growth and millions of jobs.

Even stretching back to WWII we can see that, from daylight bombings to Normandy, American military strategy and culture was much more bold and high-risk, high-reward, which is what you need to get shit done.

People are more risk-averse in the EU and that significantly slows the pace of progress. As the EU's share of the global economy continues to decline, something will have to give. The EU encourages inheriting wealth and punishes building it.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#55

Post by piva00 »

mort96 wrote: post #48
piva00 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that because it pays 100% to Apple? I didn't expect I'd have to make this point clearer but given the pedantry in HN: Apple Music doesn't have to pay 30% of its revenue and survive with the rest of 70%, it has potential access to 100% of Apple Corp's revenue, which is vastly larger than the revenue that Apple Music brings to Apple Corp... Apple Corp can subsidise multiple Apple Music if they so wish to mainta…

> I didn't expect I'd have to make this point clearer but given the pedantry in HN I wasn't being pedantic. I understood exactly what problem you were pointing at, as I hoped the rest of my comment would make clear (but maybe I was wrong). Spotify needs to survive on 70% of Spotify's revenue, Apple needs to survive on 100% of Apple Music's revenue + 30% of Spotify's revenue. Of course that's unfair. What I was trying…

> I wasn't being pedantic. I understood exactly what problem you were pointing at, as I hoped the rest of my comment would make clear (but maybe I was wrong).

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. Reading it again made it clearer, my fault.

Re: EU Commission protects consumers in Apple music streaming case

#56

Post by Hikikomori »

mort96 wrote: post #51
Hikikomori wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let Spotify pay for services rendered, like app downloads, rather than a flat fee completely unrelated to cost of producing services rendered. Could even let Spotify host their own downloads, if the Appstore and apples service is so good they shouldn't be afraid of some competition.

Pretty sure Apple's argument there would be that the "services rendered" includes continued maintenance and development of the iOS platform. That has been their angle with the EU DMA stuff, it's why their fee is called the "Core Technology Fee". (Of course, this is Apple's spin on it.) You could say that platform owners (over a certain size?) shouldn't be allowed to take a cut of commerce which happens on the platfor…

Guess the insane hardware margins doesn't pay for that.
Post reply on HN