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

651–660 of 688 posts

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#651

Post by scarface74 »

mrep wrote: post #599
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.

Apple is most likely using predatory pricing against Spotify which is illegal [0]. I highly doubt Apple music is profitable at a price point of $10 once the 30% cut is taken into account. But since they also get the 30% cut back, they can subsidize their product while Spotify has to charge $10 at a loss or price it at $14 which is more than Apples price and makes the un-competitive. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

So if every company that sells that product at a loss to gain market share is guilty of predatory pricing, that would include almost every VC funded company b

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#652

Post by scarface74 »

jonahb wrote: post #564
simonh wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a thread of truth in what you’re saying, but it unravels on close inspection. Proprietary cables are hardly new, and to be fair those cables and connectors are usually way better than the standard stuff. Firewire and thunderbolt were actually released as open standards and saw decent adoption. Lightning is far superior to Micro-USB. Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Macbook owners having to…

Nobody rages on HN about Sony’s monopoly over games development for the PlayStation Might be because the App Store is the sole channel. Also, apps are easier to substitute than games, making anti-competitive behavior possible.

And even if you buy a physical game for the Playststion, the game still has to be approved by Sony.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#653

Post by sbuk »

mrep wrote: post #599
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.

Apple is most likely using predatory pricing against Spotify which is illegal [0]. I highly doubt Apple music is profitable at a price point of $10 once the 30% cut is taken into account. But since they also get the 30% cut back, they can subsidize their product while Spotify has to charge $10 at a loss or price it at $14 which is more than Apples price and makes the un-competitive. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

Oh the irony! Spotify claim in "Apple Won’t Let Us Share Spotify Deals We Know You’d Love" that Apple won’t let us share awesome deals and promotions — like 99c for three months of Spotify Premium...

Since Spotify have ~36% of the global market (Apple have ~19%) that could reasonably be viewed as predatory pricing.

It's also worth noting that Spotify charge as much as Apple and you can subscribe to the service without using IAP.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#654

Post by VectorLock »

vesrah wrote: post #543
VectorLock wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Macbook owners having to give up proprietary MagSafe for USB-C charging on their laptops. For me personally and I think for a lot of people that is less about a love for MagSafe than it is an aversion to USB-C.

The difference in the way the USB-C cable and Magsafe handle an off angle tug seals the debate for me.

For every time MagSafe saved me from an errant tug there were 100,000 times it inconvenienced me by disconnecting with the slightest movement.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#655

Post by weavejester »

s3r3nity wrote: post #562
supernova87a wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am very hard-pressed to believe iOS has a monopoly by most arguments. Market share argument: Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%. [1] Ease of customer switching argument: If Apple pressed too much in a way that harmed consumers, there are many other cheaper alternative Android phones vs. iOS to which they can easily port their number over (say what you want about ISPs…

"Android has 71% market share in the EU, as of February 2019 - compared to iOS's 21%."

I think it's worth pointing out that Spotify is a Swedish company, where iOS has a 58% market share, according to the site you linked. It could be that Spotify's main markets are ones where iOS has a more significant share.

"In theory, if the 30% cut was too high, developers wouldn't want to develop on the iOS platform"

The problem is not just that Apple is taking a 30% cut; it's that it's also running a competing service. Spotify are arguing that Apple are unfairly using their supposed dominance in one market (phones) to achieve dominance in another market (streaming music).

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#656

Post by sjwright »

simion314 wrote: post #337
sjwright wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple Music is priced about the same AND they pay the artists more. Sorry but what's the scam? Consumers pay the same price. Artists earn more. Who cares how Apple shuffles fictional numbers in their internal accounting?

The thing is obvious and I will explain it again, using a made up example so less emotions are attached 1 I have an app or service say X and I sell it for 5$ and this is the lowest price I can afford 2 Apple wants a 30% cut, so I will have to make my app 7$ . all is fine so far, the problem is at step 3 3 Apple clones my app names it iX(my original app was named X), makes it 5$ (or bundles it with some gift cars or o…

I get your point. I got your point the first time. But there are a lot of "ifs" in your hypothesis.

Meanwhile Apple is not attempting to undercut Spotify in the retail space. And they are paying artists substantially more than Spotify for the music so they're clearly not attempting to run a more profitable business.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#657

Post by weavejester »

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…

"Actually Apple Music (the streaming version) I believe came after Spotify. Anticompetitive regulations are about penalizing behavior that discourages new entrants to the market.

What? No, they're not just about protecting new entrants, and if you think about it for five seconds it should be obvious why. Microsoft lost it's 1998 antitrust case, despite Internet Explorer being released after Netscape.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#658

Post by graeme »

teilo wrote: post #629
graeme wrote: post #628

I think part of the problem here is that Apple's 30% fee is clearly aimed at digital goods for which the marginal sale has approximately no costs . Most digital goods are quite scaleable, and have enormous marginal per unit. However, Spotify is not at all like that. Neither is Kindle, neither is Netflix. So a system that is somewhat justifiable for software is simply insane for digital goods which do have marginal co…

That may be true for bedroom developers, but it's just not true for the great majority of people or companies making money on app sales. Consider how many of them rely on cloud infrastructure. Those are not sunk costs. Consider also how necessary it is to market your apps, pay your staff, etc. Also not sunk costs.

Those are generally average costs, not marginal ones.

I don’t mean overall profit is 100%. I mean profit on a single extra sale is genrally between 80-100%.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#659

Post by sjwright »

Orphis wrote: post #414
sjwright wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what you're saying it sounds like Spotify should have built a smartphone platform. It's not free for Apple to build and maintain the App Store and everything that entails—from API documentation to the rock solid software platform that is being kept up to date and is astonishingly robust compared to any internet-connected consumer platform that came before it. Some apps pay for that effort with a cut of the app's…

It's not free to build a platform, but I believe the cost has already been paid by the users when they buy their device. No reason to have users pay twice, when they buy their device and when they try to use services on the device they already have.

The cost for the hardware platform is paid by the customer when they buy the phone.

The cost for the store platform is paid by the developers when they sell the app.

Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims

#660

Post by hyperbovine »

jeremy7600 wrote: post #453
hyperbovine wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford's market share of F-150s, the best-selling car in America for 30+ years, is 100%. What is your point.

Do they get 30% for every part you put on it they don't make?

How is that relevant.
Post reply on HN