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

61–70 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#61

Post by ndnxhs »

chrischen wrote: post #35
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the best case is that Apple sets the price it does business at, but that there are reasonable ways for the app to use a different payment provider, even if just by linking to the web. This keeps Apple's price in check naturally... As they'll need to keep the price competitive enough that the convenience of using their service is worth it.

I can also see the argument that for users that discover an app through the App store, they must pay the platform/acquisition costs. But I agree a lifetime 15% is unfair. Best case scenario is 1) Apple switches their platform monetization to a more direct model where you pay to advertise your app in the App store. This will get tricky because their "Top apps" list still serve as advertising but you can't just remove…

In this case users should also be able to install from outside sources and not be forced to use the app store.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#62

Post by ndnxhs »

keiferski wrote: post #52

I have noticed that the quality of writing at Apple has gone down dramatically since Jobs passed. It used to be concise and elegant. Now it’s some cross between a SAAS landing page and a passive-aggressive tweet. You can see this everywhere from Apple.com to this letter.

The writing in this was very unexpected. Reads more like some devs rant post and not an official statement.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#63

Post by itsOnlyLinguist »

B0btheBuilder wrote: post #51
eridius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a word for what you’re describing here: middleman.

I'm struggling to see a distinctive difference between a middleman and a platform...

Aye. Everything is connected. We are all one essentially

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#64

Post by Insanity »

segphault wrote: post #20
zaidf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yup. Another prominent example is Amazon’s inability to sell books in the Kindle application on iOS, which has the same anticompetitive undertones given that Apple sells ebooks to users of its platform.

Oh that's a shame, most books I buy today are through the Kindle app on Android (or my Kindle device).

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#65

Post by numair »

> A significant portion of Spotify’s customers come through partnerships with mobile carriers. This generates no App Store contribution, but requires Spotify to pay a similar distribution fee to retailers and carriers.

Everyone would benefit from seeing what both Apple and Spotify are paying to the carriers for these bundling deals.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#66

Post by computerex »

eridius wrote: post #33
cialowicz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work.

Spotify is essentially a middleman. Apple is much more, they’re building the entire platform.

What an incredibly silly comment. Serving music to millions of people across all major platforms whilst also being kosher/legal are real multifaceted challenges. This is one of the reason why you don't see much competition in this space. Remember Grooveshark? That was closer to a "middle man" than Spotify, and they promptly got sued and got shutdown.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#68

Post by mythz »

aaomidi wrote: post #58
mythz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not have a monopoly on Smart Phones or App Stores. They're able to as much as anyone to control how their platform is used - there's no law against maintaining a closed and curated platform and your product or platform is not considered a Market in by itself. There's also no law against having a monopoly, only for abusing your monopoly in one market to gain an unfair advantage in a different one.

Which is what spotify is arguing is happening with Apple Music

iOS isn't considered to be a market so they don't have one to abuse. Unless the courts declare that iOS is a market then the App Store would be considered to have a monopoly on App Stores in iOS, but you can't have a monopoly on your own product/platform (then everyone would be a monopolist). A monopoly is measured against the overall market. If Android didn't have an App Store or it was the size of Windows App Store then iOS App Store could be considered a monopoly, but not at the fraction of the user base that iOS has now.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#69

Post by dmitriid »

numair wrote: post #65

> A significant portion of Spotify’s customers come through partnerships with mobile carriers. This generates no App Store contribution, but requires Spotify to pay a similar distribution fee to retailers and carriers. Everyone would benefit from seeing what both Apple and Spotify are paying to the carriers for these bundling deals.

Everyone would benefit from seeing what both pay the labels. Everyone speaks about “they only pay artists X per stream”. However, neither of them pays the artist directly.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#70

Post by jraedisch »

RayVR wrote: post #60
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…

They’re not milking anything. Apple has, as far as I know, always charged 30%. What has changed is the way we buy and pay for apps and services. Everyone wants to move to the subscription service model and Apple has developed rules accordingly.

I thought the problem was, that their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own, if they choose to.
Post reply on HN