4 ms·

Unless "everyone" also includes Apple Music, then it's anti-competitive.

Grustaf 8y ago
That’s like demanding newpapers pay full price for ad space on their own pages. Just absurd. What does it even mean, Apple owns Apple Music.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Apple have a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps, so they are required to offer fair terms to all app vendors, including themselves. Apple could charge themselves the 30% App Store fee for Apple Music, demonstrating that the App Store is a fair marketplace that doesn't artificially advantage Apple's own services. It would then be incumbent on Apple to prove that Apple Music is priced fairly, rather than being deliberately operated at a loss to squeeze other streaming music services out of the market.
  - usaphp 8y ago
    NYT Newspaper also has a monopoly on distribution of ads on NYT pages, so should they charge themselves to put their own ads?
    - code_sloth 8y ago
      Yes. So costs of putting up an ad are reflected in the relevant departments. Large corps do this all the time, transferring money from the left pocket to their right pocket. It's somewhat similar to net neutrality proposals. AT&T doesn't have a monopoly as an ISP. However, if AT&T starts/acquires a video streaming service, they should not give unfair advantages to their own service because they want to compete with Netflix.
      - threeseed 8y ago
        And Apple probably does this too. What does it change ? Nothing.
  - ovao 8y ago
    What does it mean for one company to “charge oneself”? If Apple Music isn’t a separate legal entity, it means invoicing oneself without any monetary transfer. Which is frankly just ledger masturbation.
- code_sloth 8y ago
  Not absurd. Different departments in the same company have budgets of their own. If a department wants to buy an ad from their own paper, it should affect their remaining budget, just as it should show up on the Ad department's revenue.
  - Grustaf 8y ago
    Sure, but this would not affect Apple music, it’s not like they would shut it down. The Apple eco-system is so popular because Apple takes a holistic approach, they wouldn’t mind at all losing money on Apple music if it increased iPhone earnings.
darzu 8y ago
.. that would just be Apple paying themselves.
ihuman 8y ago
Technically it does? Apple could be taking a 30% cut all Apple Music subscriptions for hosting the application and processing the payment. Apple then gets the remaining 70%.
- krait 8y ago
  Apple does pay artists a much larger cut than Spotify. At e.g. 5000 streams Apple pays the artist ca 37 USD vs the 22 USD that Spotify pays out.
  - ric2b 8y ago
    $22*1.30 = $35.1 Interesting, so Spotify could pay nearly the same simply by paying the 30% to artists instead of Apple. And of course, those 37 might already be partly paid by Spotify anyway.
    - grotsnot 8y ago
      22*1.3 = 28.6
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Do they actually take a 30% cut? If they're accounting in that manner, then it's likely that Apple Music is running at a substantial loss, which would constitute predatory pricing under EU competition law.
  - ihuman 8y ago
    Does it count as a loss if they’re both taking that loss on iOS users?
  - threeseed 8y ago
    You have an overly simplified view of Apple Music. It’s on multiple platforms, it’s tied to Beats, it has a relationship with iTunes Store, there is advertising involved etc. So there could be multiple licensing and revenue sharing deals that mean Apple Music is not running at a loss. In fact I think it’s likely than you’re wrong.
sugarpile 8y ago
Don’t worry, Apple takes a 100% cut of Apple Music’s revenue
- amelius 8y ago
  Which might be negative.

That’s like demanding newpapers pay full price for ad space on their own pages. Just absurd. What does it even mean, Apple owns Apple Music.

jdietrich 8y ago
Apple have a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps, so they are required to offer fair terms to all app vendors, including themselves. Apple could charge themselves the 30% App Store fee for Apple Music, demonstrating that the App Store is a fair marketplace that doesn't artificially advantage Apple's own services. It would then be incumbent on Apple to prove that Apple Music is priced fairly, rather than being deliberately operated at a loss to squeeze other streaming music services out of the market.
- usaphp 8y ago
  NYT Newspaper also has a monopoly on distribution of ads on NYT pages, so should they charge themselves to put their own ads?
  - code_sloth 8y ago
    Yes. So costs of putting up an ad are reflected in the relevant departments. Large corps do this all the time, transferring money from the left pocket to their right pocket. It's somewhat similar to net neutrality proposals. AT&T doesn't have a monopoly as an ISP. However, if AT&T starts/acquires a video streaming service, they should not give unfair advantages to their own service because they want to compete with Netflix.
    - threeseed 8y ago
      And Apple probably does this too. What does it change ? Nothing.
- ovao 8y ago
  What does it mean for one company to “charge oneself”? If Apple Music isn’t a separate legal entity, it means invoicing oneself without any monetary transfer. Which is frankly just ledger masturbation.
code_sloth 8y ago
Not absurd. Different departments in the same company have budgets of their own. If a department wants to buy an ad from their own paper, it should affect their remaining budget, just as it should show up on the Ad department's revenue.
- Grustaf 8y ago
  Sure, but this would not affect Apple music, it’s not like they would shut it down. The Apple eco-system is so popular because Apple takes a holistic approach, they wouldn’t mind at all losing money on Apple music if it increased iPhone earnings.

darzu 8y ago

.. that would just be Apple paying themselves.

ihuman 8y ago

Technically it does? Apple could be taking a 30% cut all Apple Music subscriptions for hosting the application and processing the payment. Apple then gets the remaining 70%.

krait 8y ago
Apple does pay artists a much larger cut than Spotify. At e.g. 5000 streams Apple pays the artist ca 37 USD vs the 22 USD that Spotify pays out.
- ric2b 8y ago
  $22*1.30 = $35.1 Interesting, so Spotify could pay nearly the same simply by paying the 30% to artists instead of Apple. And of course, those 37 might already be partly paid by Spotify anyway.
  - grotsnot 8y ago
    22*1.3 = 28.6
jdietrich 8y ago
Do they actually take a 30% cut? If they're accounting in that manner, then it's likely that Apple Music is running at a substantial loss, which would constitute predatory pricing under EU competition law.
- ihuman 8y ago
  Does it count as a loss if they’re both taking that loss on iOS users?
- threeseed 8y ago
  You have an overly simplified view of Apple Music. It’s on multiple platforms, it’s tied to Beats, it has a relationship with iTunes Store, there is advertising involved etc. So there could be multiple licensing and revenue sharing deals that mean Apple Music is not running at a loss. In fact I think it’s likely than you’re wrong.

sugarpile 8y ago

Don’t worry, Apple takes a 100% cut of Apple Music’s revenue

amelius 8y ago
Which might be negative.