9 ms·
> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies
by cialowicz 8y ago
> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work
Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work.
- eridius 8y agoSpotify is essentially a middleman. Apple is much more, they’re building the entire platform.
- justinjlynn 8y agoSpotify build distribution, recommendation infrastructure,and more. They are far more than a warehouse middleman which adds no additional value beyond providing a retail outlet.
- eridius 8y agoThere’s a word for what you’re describing here: middleman.
- B0btheBuilder 8y agoI'm struggling to see a distinctive difference between a middleman and a platform...
- itsOnlyLinguist 8y agoAye. Everything is connected. We are all one essentially
- eridius 8y agoA car dealership is a middleman. A auto manufacturer is a platform. The car dealership sits between you and the manufacturer, making it easier for you to buy the car, but taking a cut. But you don't need the dealership in order to use your car. Spotify makes it easier for you to find music, but once you've found music, you don't need Spotify anymore (not a perfect analogy since you need to pay to purchase the music from a real store if you're ditching Spotify, but close enough). The auto manufacturer actually builds the car, supplies the replacement parts and manuals for repair, provides software updates for the car's computerized systems, manages any kind of in-car network GPS systems, etc. This is Apple. They develop the whole OS, including all the frameworks that developers actually use to build their apps (and the developer tools too, for that matter), they keep it updated, adding new features and fixing bugs. Apple provides ongoing value to both the user and the developer over the entire lifetime of the app.
- justinjlynn 8y agoThere's a word for what more you're contributing to the debate here: nothing.
- bad_user 8y agoI pay for Spotify due to their app. It runs on all the platforms I want it to run, including on Linux or on my Playstation, you can easily switch devices, picking up where you left off, you can remotely control devices, etc. The suggestions engine isn't spectacular, but works. I also like to see what my friends listen to. They also have the best integrations with other apps. The music selection could use some improvement but it's much better than Apple's Music and getting better every month. In other words your claim is very disingenuous.
- eridius 8y agoYou’re saying you get value out of Spotify’s services. That’s good. Middlemen exist because they’re providing some value. Doesn’t make them not middlemen though. Ultimately, if I use Spotify to discover an artist, I’m going to continue paying Spotify to listen to that artist and the artist themselves will be lucky to even make pennies off of that. I could move off Spotify and keep listening to that artist pretty easily, I just probably won’t. Spotify is a middleman focused on discovery but isn’t providing ongoing value to the artist once the viewer has discovered them. Apple on the other hand is building and maintaining the platform that app creators use. This is a lot more tha discovery, the app wouldn’t even exist without the platform, and Apple keeps adding more value to the platform over time. Apple is not a middleman.
- bad_user 8y agoSpotify would and does exist on all the other platforms, like Android, Windows or the open web. Apple created a lot of value with its first iPhone, but the world evolved since then. And yes, in your definition, Apple too is a middleman, because a big reason for why many people buy overpriced smartphones is to use apps. That you can't move those purchases easily to another platform, that's the lock-in effect of Apple's walled garden, but that doesn't make them any less of a middleman. Speaking of pennies, I emphasize, but how much are artists getting paid by Apple Music? Isn't this hypocrisy on their part? This whole thing is infuriating because Apple can easily undercut its competition because they don't have to pay the 30% store tax. This is anti-competitive behavior and yes, I realize that Apple does not have a monopoly, but I think anti-trust laws should be rewritten, because this kind of behavior isn't acceptable coming from the world's richest software company, due to the infinite potential they have for harming the market.
- computerex 8y agoWhat an incredibly silly comment. Serving music to millions of people across all major platforms whilst also being kosher/legal are real multifaceted challenges. This is one of the reason why you don't see much competition in this space. Remember Grooveshark? That was closer to a "middle man" than Spotify, and they promptly got sued and got shutdown.
- pfortuny 8y agoThat is the definition of work-for-hire, is it not? Is it immoral now?
- weego 8y agoIt's not a case of morals, but 30% at apples scale is fairly egregious.
- threeseed 8y agoPretty cheap actually for distribution channels. If Spotify were selling their products through retail they would probably lose about 50% of their margins.
- askmike 8y agoIt's not fair to compare a digital marketplace with retail channels.. I'm quite sure technically (at the size of the Apple Store) a digital marketplace could charge 1% and still make a profit after the operational costs.
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoI agree that 30% is egregious oligopoly pricing, but 1% is definitely insufficient to run a payment service and a software distribution platform that includes any sort of fraud prevention and support.
- askmike 8y agoIn 2018 (edit: 2017) they made roughly $11.5 billion[1] with their 30% cut. 1% instead would be $383 million a year. You think that wouldn't be sufficient to run a digital store (including the things mentioned)? Pretty sure you can do it with far less than that. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-app-store-generated-over-11-billion-in-revenue-for-the-company-last-year/#25298b6b6613 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-ap...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- twoslide 8y ago> make more money off others' work That's basically capitalism in a nutshell
- easytiger 8y ago> That's basically capitalism in a nutshell That's an edgy tankie teenager's definition of capitalism in a nutshell.
- isostatic 8y agoExactly what my local store does. They pay the wholesaler 10 and sell to me for 15.
- ahmedalsudani 8y agoNo, not exactly. You're free to buy from other stores, and suppliers can sell to them. A very important distinction.
- coldtea 8y agoYou're also free to use Spotify online, on your Desktop, on Android, etc. You're not forced to have an iPhone.
- isostatic 8y agoI use spotify and netflix without going through apple, the former on my linux desktop, the latter additionally on my smart tv.
- spiderfarmer 8y agoProblem is that Apple is actively trying to prevent that. They have no right to do that and are abusing the power they have in other areas to do it.
- rdsubhas 8y agoYep. > Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. And Apple's aim is to make more money off that more money. It's such an obviously, laughably stupid argument they're doing there.
- dpwm 8y agoWell, Apple just want to "grow the pie." Although growing on the pie seems a more apt metaphor. Defending 15% fees on second-year subscription is pretty difficult. There's no marketing, very little fraud risk. It's really rent-seeking behaviour – which of course is the commercial point of the walled garden approach. This is Apple exploiting a very lucrative market position, one that they did invest quite a lot of money in – and took quite a gamble – to create.
- ajharrison 8y ago> This is Apple exploiting a very lucrative market position, one that they did invest quite a lot of money in – and took quite a gamble – to create. What's wrong with that?
- _mghw 8y agoConsumers get perma-shafted.
- dpwm 8y agoCounterargument: consumers are free to switch their entire phone to enjoy the rent-seeking behavior of another party on another platform.
- exergy 8y agoDefinitely no counter-arguments from me. Because of Apple's pricing insanity, I've made sure I own zero of their devices, and I think every person capable of independent thought should do the same.
- coldtea 8y ago>Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work. Yes, but on mobile Spotify doesn't even provide the Marketplace -- only part of it (their own app), the other (the mobile OS, platform, payment processing, consumer trust, marketing, etc) is built by Apple and Google.
- ThomPete 8y agoBecause that's the only way you can do it.
- coldtea 8y agoThey can always create their own mobile platform, if they think Apple providing them with one is not worth much to them... After all Google and Apple did.
- ThomPete 8y agoJust as Apple could allow them to build their own payment stack into it and circumvent the app store. But they don't.