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

Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

timetoplayfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#661

Post by pwaivers »

duhi88 wrote: post #595
gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

Making micro-transactions more profitable would be an unfortunate course of action. There are enough of those apps in the store, and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime. Subscriptions for apps should be different, but I see a challenge in drawing the line between Spotify/Netflix and a scam app like "awesome culculator" that charges $5/mo to people who don'didn't realize it was a subs…

> ...and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime.

This is not a good reason to limit how much money an app developer makes. You want to make the play field fair, regardless if there are some companies making a lot of money.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#662

Post by spiderfarmer »

berbec wrote: post #481
supernova87a wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says? Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing. Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to…

I was about to argue with this and rage against Apple, but then I remembered a very similar situation everyone deals with and no one complains about: Supermarket Generics. "How is it fair for Price Chopper to undercut Rice Crispies with a similar, cheaper product?" no on says this...

There are some extra levels to this. Imagine a country where there is only one supermarket chain allowed. In that case there is no competition and no choice for consumers.

Before you should people should simply switch phones: you can switch phones, but you can't take the apps you bought with you. And even if you switch: there's only one real alternative: Android. If Apple is allowed their 30% cut on literally everythig, why wouldn't Google do the same?

This way you end up with only 2 App stores, 2 Music and 2 Movie streaming services.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#663

Post by cma »

gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

"then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair."

They've still got to at least cover bandwidth (minor) and payment processing.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#664

Post by bduerst »

sinnoh wrote: post #477
bduerst wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. Having a popular or high-quality product is not the same as having no competition. You can run an ecommerce business online entirely through instagram if you wanted to. Amazon theoretically is abusing it's market power by being selective about which products it sells in it's stores. When they removed competing AppleTV/Chromecast products from their own and seller lines, to pr…

really the entire concept of a 'store' has been bastardized by these companies (another thing we can thank apple for) and is a misdirect. the locked down software platforms wherein users can't install anything on their own devices without the owning company's say-so is the artificial monopoly. they're trying to get away with adding things like device management now to weasel out of it but in reality these are artific…

Agreed, and this is where some set of standardization is needed for antitrust law.

Store doesn't mean much. There needs to be a difference between hosting an online store that sells your own products and services, and hosting an online platform that sells your own things but also allows other businesses to sell on it as well.

The latter needs more guidelines on how the host ensures competition, especially when it starts to get market dominance and abuses control of the platform to promote it's own products.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#665

Post by stale2002 »

judge2020 wrote: post #557
gurpreet- wrote: post #126

Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…

While the Apple Tax is a problem of its own, I would hate for Apple to allow downloading apps through websites. A large part of iOS security is that everything has to be co-signed by Apple unless it's an Enterprise distribution app [1], so even if there is an exploit that breaks out of the app sandbox you don't have to worry about malicious websites drive-by downloading it. 1: they're likely refining the process of o…

I mean, you don't have to download apps through a website if you don't want to.

It is everyone's full legal right to do whatever they want with their phone. Including downloading apps from websites.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#666

Post by penagwin »

jhall1468 wrote: post #612
peruvian wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Especially one that isn't currently making money, presumably if Apple wasn't engaging in anti-market strategies they would have more revenue.

How much, I have no clue - but if they can't even have a "get premium now" button in the app then that's insane to me. The 30% fee Apple would take isn't a real alternative either, it's still not profitable.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#667

Post by locust101 »

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…

The difference is that for a mobile app, it's either apple's way or highway(more like nothing). You can't very well be a significant app developer by ignoring iOS. And apple does not allow users to sideload your app on the store. So the amazon analogy is disingenuous at best. You can still operate a website or dozens of other ecommerce platforms to sell your goods. But without app store, there is no way for you to reach iOS users. iOs users are almost 50% of mobile users and contribute much higher percentage of revenue.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#668

Post by supermatt »

jhasse wrote: post #465
supermatt wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am talking about the actual definition of a monopoly, not that defined by antitrust laws, hence my second sentence about how the law (consumer law, anti-trust, or both) needs to change to prevent these walled gardens. I agree Facebook and google are also problems. Amazon too, likely others. They all have their walled gardens - and whats worse is when they "go to war" with each other, affecting the users tied to the…

> I am talking about the actual definition of a monopoly, not that defined by antitrust laws, hence my second sentence about how the law (consumer law, anti-trust, or both) needs to change to prevent these walled gardens. I didn't mean that your definition of a monopoly is incorrect, but that you can't just narrow down the market until you find a monopoly. Because if you could, every company has a monopoly (which wou…

This isn't narrowing down markets until we find a monopoly. This is a trillion dollar company abusing access to their captive market. The only option for users is to leave their ecosystem and lose access to all of their purchases. If that isn't covered by current anti-trust law, then the law is outdated and should be changed.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#669

Post by toasterlovin »

locust101 wrote: post #667
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…

The difference is that for a mobile app, it's either apple's way or highway(more like nothing). You can't very well be a significant app developer by ignoring iOS. And apple does not allow users to sideload your app on the store. So the amazon analogy is disingenuous at best. You can still operate a website or dozens of other ecommerce platforms to sell your goods. But without app store, there is no way for you to re…

iOS users have a web browser, no?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#670

Post by toasterlovin »

bhl wrote: post #654
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…

You’re missing the point: Apple seems to be abusing its power as a platform to unfairly charge content based providers with 30% tax while not applying it to themself. On Amazon, it would be comparable to charging you 15% while not charging themselves the same on their Amazon Basic products.

Where do you think the 15% that they (hypothetically) charge themselves for Amazon Basic products would go? Somewhere other than to Amazon?
Post reply on HN