3 ms·

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.

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.