4 ms·

> it's certainly unfair competition but still not a monopoly I agree - which is why I specifically did NOT call it a monopoly. > When you paid for the iPhone

> it's certainly unfair competition but still not a monopoly I agree - which is why I specifically did NOT call it a monopoly. > When you paid for the iPhone you also paid for the services bundle that you bought as a package.... You're still missing my point: > And even Spotify has a choice. They can shaft Apple and become Android only, since Android has 85% of the market. The reason they're not doing it right now I assume is because they would also shaft themselves, the AppStore might bring a very big chunk of their revenue (historically iOS users are bigger spenders). EXACTLY. Thus Spotify effectively doesn't have a choice. It's pay Apples tax or don't have support at all. This is compounded when you factor in that the in-app sales that Apple wants to take a cut from for businesses like Spotify are sales that Apple's had no stake in. Since you like car metaphors: it's like a taxi driver buying a car and the the dealer expecting to take a cut from all the taxi fairs even though the dealer's involvement ended the moment the car rolled off their forecourt. > I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to call this a monopoly. Again, I never called the App Store a monopoly. Others might have but I deliberately didn't because I'm already aware that it legally is not a monopoly. However that doesn't mean they don't still have total control over app sales on their own platform - legal terms aside.

close04 8y ago
> Thus Spotify effectively doesn't have a choice. I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. When I go to Malls'R'Us to rent a storefront I only have them as a choice. But I can go to another mall without anyone claiming foul about competition. Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. Rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none. And to pick up on the mall analogy above, some storefronts cost more than others especially if they bring in more revenue for the store. And the owner of the mall also has full control over this. Is this not an equivalent situation? I know I now sound unsympathetic to Spotify's situation but after reading (and later validating) some of the claims Apple is making in this article I can't help but feel like Spotify kind of cheated when they published their call for action by leaving some important stuff out. I had my pitchfork out only to realize the truth is a little more nuanced.
- laumars 8y ago
  > I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. > Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. because rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none. But ignoring Apple's App Store does mean they then get no service for "iDevices" (not just the iPhone). So their choice on iOS is pay the tax or don't have a presence. This is complicated by the fact that they would then lose customers who want a music streaming on multiple platforms including iOS. So Spotify's choice is really just an illusion. > But isn't this what you'd expect when renting a storefront in a mall? Indeed it is. You usually get a little more choice because you can have different landlords in a given high street (albeit you did specifically say "mall" where that choice wouldn't exist) but even in those cases shop owners are regularly complaining that increases in rent are pushing them out of business. and in fact the UK has seen a lot of independent stores go out of business because of exactly that.
  - close04 8y ago
    > So their choice on iOS is pay the tax or don't have a presence If I want my music in the Spotify catalog who decides what's my cut and what's Spotify's cut of the money my music is generating? They have 100% control there so if I want to list my music there what are my choices? Pay up or not have a presence. Apple's choice is to give them access to millions of customers with big pockets (statistically), maintain the whole infrastructure for this, not get anything because the app is "free" but actually not even be allowed to drop them? What kind of choice is that? Should an app even be called "free" if it offers nothing without paying? Isn't that like asking for tax exemptions for a nonprofit organization that makes a profit? Would it be OK if Apple changed the rules so apps had to offer full functionality without further paid unlocks or simply charge for the app as a service in the App Store at whatever monthly price the developer chooses? The fact that Spotify lied or misled about these details that are pretty obscure to most people (including me until I specifically read about them) kind of disqualifies them from playing victim in my perspective. They want all the benefits with none of the strings.
mohamedattahri 8y ago
> Since you like car metaphors: it's like a taxi driver buying a car and the the dealer expecting to take a cut from all the taxi fairs even though the dealer's involvement ended the moment the car rolled off their forecourt. I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them: - they spend marketing dollars to get those customers; - they develop and maintain a platform so you can run your business on it. By simply publishing their app on the App Store, Spotify gets access to 15% richest customers of the smartphone market. If you’re charging customers for something they consume on that device, then I think it’s fair to pay a share. That being said, I have no idea how this will play out in court. Intuitively, 30% the first year sounds like a lot of money for a distribution fee.
- laumars 8y ago
  > I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them: Would the app developers "never have access" to those consumers though? Because if the iPhone didn't exist then consumers would just use another handset. Just like we did before the iPhone and just like a significant amount of people do currently. There's definitely a blurred line somewhere though. I agree to Apple having a fee for app sales though I think 30% is a bit steep but I agree Apple ultimately get to decide how much they want to charge. I agree that some apps might try to circumvent that fee by offering in app sales instead so Apple are trying to close off that particular loophole. However I don't agree that Spotify fall into that same category because their "in app sales" is actually a subscription service to a much larger product. However where do you draw the line? > I think this is an incorrect analogy. Obviously I wouldn't agree but I can completely understand why you'd say that given how open to interpretation analogies can be. To be honest I hate posting them in debates because if you agree with the point then you'll agree with the analogy but if you don't agree with the point then you'll naturally find a reason the analogy doesn't fit. And given analogies aren't meant to be 100% representative, it means there's always plenty of ways to disprove it. Thus analogies are never persuasive in a debate. Worse still, sometimes you end up going down a rabbit hole of arguing analogies rather than discussing the actual point at hand. For this reason, I usually try to avoid them.
rbrtl 8y ago
There does seem to be a conflation of “unfair competition” and “monopoly” going on. Generally speaking of this debate, that is. The App Store is a service rendered to its customers, the likes of Spotify. In the form of the hosting of the app, and all the backend behind that like in-app storage (iCloud). The code review and ‘security guarantee’ that Apple holds over Google and other rivals is also a cost. IMHO this boils down to subsidy, on the part of digital services companies, publishing apps, subsidise the free and “real world” goods and services company’s that go unlevied for their participation. It’s a bit like at carnivals, when food trucks pay to get a place, and are often expected to pay a commission on their profits too. But the charity stands, and free ‘workshops’ for kids etc. don’t pay to be their, because their providing a different service.
- laumars 8y ago
  What free stuff are you referring to?

close04 8y ago

> Thus Spotify effectively doesn't have a choice. I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. When I go to Malls'R'Us to rent a storefront I only have them as a choice. But I can go to another mall without anyone claiming foul about competition. Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. Rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none. And to pick up on the mall analogy above, some storefronts cost more than others especially if they bring in more revenue for the store. And the owner of the mall also has full control over this. Is this not an equivalent situation? I know I now sound unsympathetic to Spotify's situation but after reading (and later validating) some of the claims Apple is making in this article I can't help but feel like Spotify kind of cheated when they published their call for action by leaving some important stuff out. I had my pitchfork out only to realize the truth is a little more nuanced.

laumars 8y ago
> I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. > Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. because rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none. But ignoring Apple's App Store does mean they then get no service for "iDevices" (not just the iPhone). So their choice on iOS is pay the tax or don't have a presence. This is complicated by the fact that they would then lose customers who want a music streaming on multiple platforms including iOS. So Spotify's choice is really just an illusion. > But isn't this what you'd expect when renting a storefront in a mall? Indeed it is. You usually get a little more choice because you can have different landlords in a given high street (albeit you did specifically say "mall" where that choice wouldn't exist) but even in those cases shop owners are regularly complaining that increases in rent are pushing them out of business. and in fact the UK has seen a lot of independent stores go out of business because of exactly that.
- close04 8y ago
  > So their choice on iOS is pay the tax or don't have a presence If I want my music in the Spotify catalog who decides what's my cut and what's Spotify's cut of the money my music is generating? They have 100% control there so if I want to list my music there what are my choices? Pay up or not have a presence. Apple's choice is to give them access to millions of customers with big pockets (statistically), maintain the whole infrastructure for this, not get anything because the app is "free" but actually not even be allowed to drop them? What kind of choice is that? Should an app even be called "free" if it offers nothing without paying? Isn't that like asking for tax exemptions for a nonprofit organization that makes a profit? Would it be OK if Apple changed the rules so apps had to offer full functionality without further paid unlocks or simply charge for the app as a service in the App Store at whatever monthly price the developer chooses? The fact that Spotify lied or misled about these details that are pretty obscure to most people (including me until I specifically read about them) kind of disqualifies them from playing victim in my perspective. They want all the benefits with none of the strings.

mohamedattahri 8y ago

> Since you like car metaphors: it's like a taxi driver buying a car and the the dealer expecting to take a cut from all the taxi fairs even though the dealer's involvement ended the moment the car rolled off their forecourt. I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them: - they spend marketing dollars to get those customers; - they develop and maintain a platform so you can run your business on it. By simply publishing their app on the App Store, Spotify gets access to 15% richest customers of the smartphone market. If you’re charging customers for something they consume on that device, then I think it’s fair to pay a share. That being said, I have no idea how this will play out in court. Intuitively, 30% the first year sounds like a lot of money for a distribution fee.

laumars 8y ago
> I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them: Would the app developers "never have access" to those consumers though? Because if the iPhone didn't exist then consumers would just use another handset. Just like we did before the iPhone and just like a significant amount of people do currently. There's definitely a blurred line somewhere though. I agree to Apple having a fee for app sales though I think 30% is a bit steep but I agree Apple ultimately get to decide how much they want to charge. I agree that some apps might try to circumvent that fee by offering in app sales instead so Apple are trying to close off that particular loophole. However I don't agree that Spotify fall into that same category because their "in app sales" is actually a subscription service to a much larger product. However where do you draw the line? > I think this is an incorrect analogy. Obviously I wouldn't agree but I can completely understand why you'd say that given how open to interpretation analogies can be. To be honest I hate posting them in debates because if you agree with the point then you'll agree with the analogy but if you don't agree with the point then you'll naturally find a reason the analogy doesn't fit. And given analogies aren't meant to be 100% representative, it means there's always plenty of ways to disprove it. Thus analogies are never persuasive in a debate. Worse still, sometimes you end up going down a rabbit hole of arguing analogies rather than discussing the actual point at hand. For this reason, I usually try to avoid them.

rbrtl 8y ago

There does seem to be a conflation of “unfair competition” and “monopoly” going on. Generally speaking of this debate, that is. The App Store is a service rendered to its customers, the likes of Spotify. In the form of the hosting of the app, and all the backend behind that like in-app storage (iCloud). The code review and ‘security guarantee’ that Apple holds over Google and other rivals is also a cost. IMHO this boils down to subsidy, on the part of digital services companies, publishing apps, subsidise the free and “real world” goods and services company’s that go unlevied for their participation. It’s a bit like at carnivals, when food trucks pay to get a place, and are often expected to pay a commission on their profits too. But the charity stands, and free ‘workshops’ for kids etc. don’t pay to be their, because their providing a different service.

laumars 8y ago
What free stuff are you referring to?