Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#611

Post by gnicholas » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

baby wrote: post #602

nevir wrote: post #238

Apple did the same thing to Kindle for iPhone back when it launched. We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple announces their intent to build in-app purchasing. The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MU…

I wasted so much time trying to figure out how to get books in the iOS kindle app. When I finally figured out that I had to use my laptop, I was still confused at so why the iOS app was not saying anything about anything.

Technically you can use your iPad/iPhone, but you have to use a web browser instead of the Kindle app. A funny thing happens when you do — the website redirects you to the Amazon app, which then redirects you back to the website. Honestly, I don't know how Amazon does purchasing through the Amazon app without giving 30% to Apple, but it seems that they don't let you purchase books this way.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#612

Post by jhall1468 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

peruvian wrote: post #590

ajscanlan wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world, Spotify may not be a white knight but they're definitely an underdog.

I'd be more likely to consider Spotify an underdog if they weren't a VC-fueled, still-not-profitable startup.

I'd like to think comparing a VC-funded company to one of the largest public companies on earth the very definition of underdog.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#613

Post by berbec » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

blackflame7000 wrote: post #524

berbec wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Spotify do this and remain competitive with Apple's $9.99 offering. The offering Apple can make because they don't have to pay themselves a 30% cut.

Well the fact is that they can’t so long as Apple is manipulating their platform but they can encourage people to leave the Apple platform which is far more devastating to Apple than losing music subscribers

Do you think Spotify has the customers to force Apple to change because of the number of people who switch to Android for their service?

Or does Apple have the customers to kill Spotify by cutting them off?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#614

Post by WA » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #589

Whenever Apple's 30% take on the App Store comes up, people on this website get all up in arms about it. Let me provide some perspective, which I think is sorely lacking: I sell physical goods on Amazon. They charge me 15% for this privilege. The only reason they don't charge more is because physical goods have lower margins than digital goods (my margins after it's all said and done are somewhere between 10-15%). An…

Thing is, unless your app is already somewhat popular, Apple won’t do anything for you. Maybe you get more customers. But maybe an app like Spotify invested enough in marketing to reach new customers without Apple‘s health.

The problem is that it’s really hard to measure how many customers Apple really brings and how many would find an app through other means.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#615

Post by throwaway24680 » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

It's time for app developers to unionize. Collective action is the only way to level the playing field.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#616

Post by threeseed » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

code_sloth wrote: post #311

usaphp wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT Newspaper also has a monopoly on distribution of ads on NYT pages, so should they charge themselves to put their own ads?

Yes. So costs of putting up an ad are reflected in the relevant departments. Large corps do this all the time, transferring money from the left pocket to their right pocket. It's somewhat similar to net neutrality proposals. AT&T doesn't have a monopoly as an ISP. However, if AT&T starts/acquires a video streaming service, they should not give unfair advantages to their own service because they want to compete with N…

And Apple probably does this too.

What does it change ? Nothing.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#617

Post by gremlinsinc » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

elagost wrote: post #282

nevir wrote: post #238

Apple did the same thing to Kindle for iPhone back when it launched. We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple announces their intent to build in-app purchasing. The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MU…

My dad has had iPads since the first one, and it is still jarring for him to not be able to just click a "store" button in the Kindle app. (I believe it used to have a webview for the store built-in; I do not use the Kindle app) He was very confused when it disappeared. I imagine most users feel this way. I had to coach my mom to sign up for Pandora on the website so she saved a couple bucks a month, and it was baffl…

Could they put: Apple Users: Upgrade.

Then on the payment page:

- Spotify fee: $9.99.

- Apple's cut: $3.33. (When purchased through the app, save online).

- Total: $13.32 > [Purchase Button]

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#618

Post by supermatt » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #169

supermatt wrote: post #71

Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your "purchases" - there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems they created. They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple pla…

>Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. There's nothing wrong with providing an app store as long as that store offers fair and non-discriminatory terms to all vendors. Charging app developers for the costs of running a store and maintaining an ecosystem is perfectly reasonable; using those charges to stifle competiti…

i have been thinking more about this and i think you are right. on GOG i am (depending on rightsholdet) able to add games to my library that I own on steam. if this was the norm, enforced through consumer rights, it would allow users the ability to purchase licenses through a store of their choice.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#619

Post by threeseed » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #194

ihuman wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically it does? Apple could be taking a 30% cut all Apple Music subscriptions for hosting the application and processing the payment. Apple then gets the remaining 70%.

Do they actually take a 30% cut? If they're accounting in that manner, then it's likely that Apple Music is running at a substantial loss, which would constitute predatory pricing under EU competition law.

You have an overly simplified view of Apple Music.

It’s on multiple platforms, it’s tied to Beats, it has a relationship with iTunes Store, there is advertising involved etc. So there could be multiple licensing and revenue sharing deals that mean Apple Music is not running at a loss.

In fact I think it’s likely than you’re wrong.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#620

Post by madrox » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

A week before launch of an SVOD product I worked on, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring.

It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our launch date.

Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services. They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work. Cutting back from 30% is how Apple incentivizes even heavier integration into their ecosystem.

Apple keeps doing this: Google and the Google Phone app, Netflix, Spotify, my product...more that we haven't even heard of, since not many are as big as the ones I've mentioned. The idea that this is somehow about protecting the consumer rings hollow.