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

721–730 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#721

Post by koyote »

airstrike wrote: post #179
ubermonkey wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. >They should be FORCED to have an open platform, Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly conten…

> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. Apple sold 47% of the all smartphones shipped in the US in Q4 2018 https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

But only 13% worldwide.

https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-2...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#722

Post by toasterlovin »

underwater wrote: post #682
toasterlovin wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing Apple to 90s Microsoft is a bad analogy. Apple has like sub-20% market share of smart phones. Google/Android is the 90s Microsoft in the smartphone market, not Apple.

Comparing Microsoft to Apple in the 2010's is a bad analogy. Microsoft tried to bundle a web browser by default. Apple outright bans competitor apps and takes a cut of almost every transaction that happens on the device.

Consumers have a viable and realistic alternative in Android and 80% of consumers choose to use that alternative. Consumers did not have a viable and realistic alternative to Windows in the 2000s.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#723

Post by supernova87a »

paavoova wrote: post #704
supernova87a wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, your analogy oversimplifies the situation, just like that old joke about airlines selling paint for different prices. Apple or Google's app store isn't a blank / open space where you entered an agreement that you have right to do anything you want. Just because you want to not run your code by Apple every time doesn't mean you have the right to do it. There is no expectation that you have access to their hardware…

That's fine - I don't care about the App Store and what it offers, I just want some way to give users access to my app. Now what? Apple says "Fall in line if you want to access to our platform", I say "Thanks, but I'm not interested, I just want users to access my app somehow", but they can't and that's the crux of it. There are many legitimate apps banned from the app store, and that would be fine if the user could…

Again, that's not a correct analogy, and you're framing it like someone with deep feelings of entitlement to do what you want in the software world. That's creating a flawed argument in your logic and you're turning your desire into what you believe is legal. Or thinking that because you put work into something, someone else has to give you a forum to get paid for that work.

Actually your bridge analogy is apt, but in a way that works against your argument.

Toll bridges aren't required to have an alternate way around just because you think you have a right to go there for free by some alternative method.

Staten Island is only accessible by toll bridge. Entry to San Francisco from the north or east is only accessible by toll bridge.

Regardless, Apple built an island and a toll bridge that allows crossing for a fee. There is no entitlement in law that says you have the right to get to that island without paying what Apple charges because you think that would be "fair".

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#724

Post by kccqzy »

qhwudbebd wrote: post #683
threeseed wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again. iOS is not a monopoly. Having a monopoly over their own product is what every company has.

"iOS is not a monopoly." I think the confusion here is that you incorrectly believe this is a necessary condition for Spotify's complaint to be upheld.

How so? I'm not very knowledgeable on antitrust law, but I do believe US regulators usually only take action on companies already having a monopoly.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#725

Post by underwater »

toasterlovin wrote: post #722
underwater wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing Microsoft to Apple in the 2010's is a bad analogy. Microsoft tried to bundle a web browser by default. Apple outright bans competitor apps and takes a cut of almost every transaction that happens on the device.

Consumers have a viable and realistic alternative in Android and 80% of consumers choose to use that alternative . Consumers did not have a viable and realistic alternative to Windows in the 2000s.

My point is that Apple and Microsoft are different situations. You can't look at just the market share and ignore the other dimensions where they are arguable behaving worse than Microsoft ever did.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#726

Post by bmsleight_ »

nevir wrote: post #671
NyxWulf wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used the Kindle app ever since it launched, and have followed this fiasco. The trouble for someone like me is I would rather purchase my content from Amazon since I can read it on any device, not just an apple device. p.s. Do you know how I would go about recommending someone add the ability to have green or amber text on the black background?

> p.s. Do you know how I would go about recommending someone add the ability to have green or amber text on the black background? If you're on Android: 1. go to Settings -> Info -> About 2. Draw a lowercase h on the screen (anywhere), and you'll see a "special color mode enabled", and should get amber on black. another letter gives you green on black, but I forget which :( . There's a bunch of hidden color combinatio…

Wow - could not find any other details about this (my google skills are poor?)

Great tip.

Any idea some where to to find the other hidden combinations ?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#727

Post by ar_lan »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #648
GeekyBear wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade to a premium account inside their iOS app last year. You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple getting any cut at all. https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip... Netflix has done the same thing. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-... In my book, the problem is that…

It's not just those two, it's standard practice: Audible, Google Play video, Amazon video, Amazon music, Playstation Video, Vimeo, Sky Store video, and YouTube Premium/Google Music (same subscription with different marketing). Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. All this strikes me as a clear indi…

> The exact words used by the Audible app for iPhone: This app does not support purchasing content. Instead, add to your wishlist.

I honestly never really thought about why this is - I simply just hated Audible for it, and thought it was the most annoying part of their app.

However, it's odd - how come the Amazon app is allowed to get away with its own purchasing system?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#728

Post by leoh »

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…

Amazon has an obligation to play fairly in the marketplace at large and they don't. They operate at a loss. They shouldn't have to let anyone on their platform. But they should also play fair. As it relates to Apple, the iPhone or Android are literally the only reasonable means of accessing online services on the go. They are a platform of a higher order than Amazon and should allow others to play in their sandbox. I don't know what the right number should be — probably it should be zero. 30% is insane.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#729

Post by toasterlovin »

underwater wrote: post #725
toasterlovin wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers have a viable and realistic alternative in Android and 80% of consumers choose to use that alternative . Consumers did not have a viable and realistic alternative to Windows in the 2000s.

My point is that Apple and Microsoft are different situations. You can't look at just the market share and ignore the other dimensions where they are arguable behaving worse than Microsoft ever did.

The illegality of what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer was contingent on them holding a monopoly on personal computing. They were using their monopoly as leverage to obtain other advantages. Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones. Looking at marketshare is essential.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#730

Post by booleandilemma »

But Apple not only has unilaterally changed the rules themselves time and again, but also frequently decides to interpret (and re-interpret) them in ways to disadvantage rivals like us.

Spotify isn’t so much a rival as it is a serf on Apple’s farm though, right?

Apple could just remove Spotify from the app store altogether, for fun.

Post reply on HN