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

811–820 of 865 posts

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#811

Post by scarface74 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #775
latexr wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. And then every PAID app will switch to FREE and charge for PRO, to circumvent the 30%. Oh, Apple complained it’s not technically a microtransaction? Fine, just separate every feature into a new purchase. > If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why…

> And then every PAID app will switch to FREE and charge for PRO, to circumvent the 30%. Then make it 30% of the first 20 or 30 dollars, and 5% or less after. That more than pays for Apple's verification work without letting them gouge repeat payments.

How many apps on the store sell for over $5 let alone $30?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#812

Post by scarface74 »

headsoup wrote: post #687
hokumguru wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This opens up a wide host of negative side-effects including the extreme ease of malware. I'd say the #1 value proposition for the App Store, and why most iOS users prefer it, is the guarantee of virus-free programs.

Why don't Apple/Google ensure AV/Malware protection is a default app? Why do we depend on Apple/Google protecting us from these big bad apps? If not Apple/Google controlling it directly, I'd imagine there would be a reasonable market for malware/AV providers on mobiles, if not solutions provided by Apple/Google.

More to the point, why do you act as if malware protection has ever been effective and not just a resource drain?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#813

Post by scarface74 »

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…

Amazon played the victim here but book publishers preferred Apple’s model to Amazon selling their books at a loss to keep competitors out and to boost sales of the Kindle.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#814

Post by scarface74 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #777
CraneWorm wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kindle for iPhone You put a walled garden... in another walled garden. On a more serious note: I get it; among Apple users are the most happily paying people that you can find on this planet and if you have a product you want to make it available to them. No wonder they think it their right to take a massive 30% cut.

An important thing is that the Kindle walled garden is an abstract free program that can be installed into most devices. It doesn't try to push the customer around. There are very different types of garden out there.

Amazon very much tries to push publishers around. How is what Amazon does to publishers any different than Apple?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#815

Post by scarface74 »

owenwil wrote: post #4

The claims in here are pretty wild, particularly around how Apple has favored its own products: - Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch - It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod - It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri - It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis - It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies I genuinely hope Europe t…

-Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch

The newest version of WatchOS does allow it. The first generation of watchOS really didn’t allow any apps - just remote views of iOS apps (yeah I’m simplifying it).

- It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod

Apple doesn’t have any apps on the HomePod. Now we are going to force all single purpose devices to ship with an SDK?

- It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri

Apple also just came out with any third party integration with Siri a version or two ago. Again we want the government to dictate the timeline when they build features for apps?

- It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies

Netflix also blocked its API from most third parties years ago. Can we sue Netflix?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#816

Post by owenwil »

tumetab1 wrote: post #112
owenwil wrote: post #4

The claims in here are pretty wild, particularly around how Apple has favored its own products: - Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch - It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod - It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri - It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis - It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies I genuinely hope Europe t…

> The issue of the 30% cut alone is enough for further investigation, Not really, it's 30% for everyone, not just Spotify.

Even if it's for everyone, the point is: it's egregious. Even more so when Apple competes in the same space.

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#817

Post by scarface74 »

theli0nheart wrote: post #24
darklion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? Rephrased, Spotify seems to think it has a /right/ to run its software on Apple platforms in an identical fashion to Apple's first-party software. Does that mean Apple has an obligation to provide an equivalent technical capacity for literally any software that runs on its devices? An app store?…

> Which raises the question: to what degree does a platform owner have a responsibility to support the businesses of others? I wish you'd stopped here because this is an interesting question, but the rest of your comment feels like it stretches things a bit. What Spotify seems to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong), is that Apple does provide the technical capabilities for third parties to do as they're asking, but A…

Once you publish an API you’re stuck with supporting it. When I’m hacking around with a library I wrote for my own use, I might do all sorts of things while I’m iterating but don’t want others to consume until they are fully baked.

The same thing about not allowing others to use “private APIs”. No guarantees are made about any methods that I didn’t make public. If I change that method in future releases, and your software that depends on it breaks - so be it.

Windows is full of backward compatibility hacks because one piece of software that wanted to use an undocumented method.

Apple has since day one had APIs that it used privately until they were fully baked and made public. Do you think that Apple waited two or three years to make share extensions public because of competitive reasons?

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#818

Post by scarface74 »

jedberg wrote: post #526
ummonk wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And most importantly, it's not 30% for Apple Music. What do you mean it isn't? Apple Store could trivially take a 30% cut of the Apple Music revenue, and the only thing that would change would be the distribution of revenue between Apple Music and Apple Store in Apple's revenue reports. The total revenue would be the same.

Exactly, but Apple can run their streaming service as a loss leader because they still get to book the 30% revenue on the store side. Spotify can't recoup that 30%. This effectively gives Apple an extra 30% margin for their streaming music service.

So in that case we shouldn’t allow any VC backed company because they are all pretty much running at a loss.

I definitely couldn’t start a ride sharing company when Uber and Lyft are being funded by VCs...

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#819

Post by headmelted »

headmelted wrote: post #339

Utterly disagree. The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this arbitrarily in a way that at least appears to favour your own products over your rivals is an abuse of your position. If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely, given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously),…

* should read forces Apple to apply it's rules fairly. Was a bad edit, whoops!

Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair

#820

Post by lancesells »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #794
lancesells wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel for Spotify and other companies on the 30% tax but I also love knowing that any purchase by my family or myself is protected, private and easily refunded if there's a mistake. There are already a lot of apps preying on kids but it would be at another level without the in-house payment system. I think something like 30% on the first purchase and then 5-6% for any recurring purchases would make more sense. I kno…

> Maybe there's an App Association that challenges all of these stores on their rather high recurring fees. I think it's perfectly reasonable for governments to update their terms and agreements.

I would rather their focus was on citizens rights first but there's some merit to that.
Post reply on HN