Live data from Hacker News

Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

newsroom.spotify.com

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#81
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not Spotify either though and I am not sure how Spotify is responsible for their relationship with musicians.

Labels ARE shareholders in Spotify. There is absolutely a conflict of interest regarding how Spotify handles its rights/royalties negotiations when the licensees are an oligopoly, who derive value from both sides of the transaction, and represent downstream beneficiaries who have no say in the deal struck or prices paid. Spotify and Labels together screw musicians, acting separately, and together.

> Labels ARE shareholders in Spotify.

As with the previous claim, it would be very helpful if you could cite data to this effect. When I googled myself I found a report[1] which does not seem to indicate that Spotify is majority owned by Labels. What percentage of Spotify is owned by record labels then? And why do they (less than 1/3 according to the source I found ) control Spotify and how does it make their relationship with artist's Spotify's problem?

Also, you know who the record labels own 100%? The record labels. Seems like if they wanted to fleece their artists they could just do it by fleecing their artists with fewer steps than buying minority stakes in Spotify and then hoping Spotify fleeces them, so they have no choice but to fleece their artists (seriously can't believe I just wrote something so dumb out).

And if it is record labels Fleecing their artists, why point fingers at Spotify? Again I'm going to point out that since they became prominent, revenue for the music industry has grown while before Spotify, it was declining. Do the artists prefer the decline that came before Spotify?

[1]: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/who-owns-spotify-toda...

> Via a combination of ‘Statement Of Ownership’ SEC filings plus its 20-F annual report – all filed this year – we’ve been able to paint a picture of Spotify’s ownership cap table today.

>

> That cap table continues to be dominated by Spotify’s two founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon, along with a number of institutional investors, many of whom have been major shareholders for much of the time that Spotify has been a publicly-traded company.

>

> Among them are investment management firm T. Rowe Prices & Associates, investment firm Baillie Gifford, banking giant Morgan Stanley, and tech and multimedia giant Tencent Holdings (partly through its subsidiary, Tencent Music Entertainment). > > All the ups and downs of Spotify’s share price story hasn’t scared these investors away – clearly, they’re in for the long run.

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#82
post #43

If I write an app for the app store and sell it for $10, apple gets $3. If I sell it for $5, apple gets $1.5. If I sell a subscription for $10/month they get $3 a month. Apple's work is the same for all of these. Their monopolistic position is how they can demand a pretty exorbitant 30% cut. Walmart, Costco, et al wish they had a 30% profit on everything the sold. For the record I don't even really like Spotify that…

> Walmart, Costco, et al wish they had a 30% profit on everything the sold. You should see the markup these retailers charge on accessories. If 30% revenue upsets you then 300% on HDMI cables, USB cables, game accessories is going to blow your mind.

Indeed, but that's why you can buy those items at different stores. With Apple, not so much.

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#83
post #45

If I write an app for the app store and sell it for $10, apple gets $3. If I sell it for $5, apple gets $1.5. If I sell a subscription for $10/month they get $3 a month. Apple's work is the same for all of these. Their monopolistic position is how they can demand a pretty exorbitant 30% cut. Walmart, Costco, et al wish they had a 30% profit on everything the sold. For the record I don't even really like Spotify that…

What's the principle you're advocating? That the number of 30% is too high, but 20% would be ok? How are we to decide what number is right? Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices? Do you follow the same rule you're advocating for? When your app some day makes more than 30% margin on customers revenue, you're going to lower your prices,…

How about allowing competition and different app stores? Or hell, allowing someone to download an app from their website and run it like we do on desktop.

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#84
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labels ARE shareholders in Spotify. There is absolutely a conflict of interest regarding how Spotify handles its rights/royalties negotiations when the licensees are an oligopoly, who derive value from both sides of the transaction, and represent downstream beneficiaries who have no say in the deal struck or prices paid. Spotify and Labels together screw musicians, acting separately, and together.

> Labels ARE shareholders in Spotify. As with the previous claim, it would be very helpful if you could cite data to this effect. When I googled myself I found a report[1] which does not seem to indicate that Spotify is majority owned by Labels. What percentage of Spotify is owned by record labels then? And why do they (less than 1/3 according to the source I found ) control Spotify and how does it make their relatio…

https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-spotify/

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#85
post #72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices? Yes. Though since this is voluntary in the same way that having internet access is "voluntary", I'm going to say that isn't relevant here. Similarly, there is competition in the same sense that you have a choice of more than 2 parties to vote for. > How are we to decide what number is right? Don…

I guess developing an app on iOS for sale at a healthy profit margin just became a fundamental human right.

No. Though I _would_ like to live in a world where there is true free market — i.e. not the way capitalism is practised in the U.S.A. When you don't regulate the market, you end up monopolies like Apple. Nobody is able to compete fairly, and we lose out.

I don't know how you came to "I guess developing an app on iOS for sale at a healthy profit margin just became a fundamental human right.".

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#86
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the principle you're advocating? That the number of 30% is too high, but 20% would be ok? How are we to decide what number is right? Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices? Do you follow the same rule you're advocating for? When your app some day makes more than 30% margin on customers revenue, you're going to lower your prices,…

> Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices? The only change of pricing ever made within a decade was made because of a threat of an anti-trust lawsuit and copied word for word by Google almost instantly after that. Safe to say that the competition is dead.

I think your understanding of competition is a little warped or flawed. The mark of competition isn't that a company's price changed. It's that other people/companies were free to enter the market.

You are absolutely free to go and develop your own phone ecosystem and app store, or go provide your app development services elsewhere. That is competition. And that is what the court has found.

Competition is not that I need to give you more shelf space or a better price for selling something on my marketplace.

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#87
post #85
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess developing an app on iOS for sale at a healthy profit margin just became a fundamental human right.

No. Though I _would_ like to live in a world where there is true free market — i.e. not the way capitalism is practised in the U.S.A. When you don't regulate the market, you end up monopolies like Apple. Nobody is able to compete fairly, and we lose out. I don't know how you came to "I guess developing an app on iOS for sale at a healthy profit margin just became a fundamental human right.".

Apple is not a monopoly, and the court agreed with that.

Maybe you should more carefully examine what exact market you're talking about.

Re: Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It

#88
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the principle you're advocating? That the number of 30% is too high, but 20% would be ok? How are we to decide what number is right? Isn't the principle that parties entering into an agreement voluntarily and with competition get to set their own prices? Do you follow the same rule you're advocating for? When your app some day makes more than 30% margin on customers revenue, you're going to lower your prices,…

How about allowing competition and different app stores? Or hell, allowing someone to download an app from their website and run it like we do on desktop.

Apple chooses not to do that, to be able to give a controlled experience, to be able to review apps and screen them, and to, yes, benefit from the pricing power that allows them.

They don't have to allow more competition in their own store. There are other stores you can sell apps through.

Post reply on HN