4 ms·

There is a consumer harm when Apple Music doesn't have to pay 30% cut to App Store while Spotify and the likes have to. That's a huge competitive advantage to A

There is a consumer harm when Apple Music doesn't have to pay 30% cut to App Store while Spotify and the likes have to. That's a huge competitive advantage to Apple. Not to mention Apple can simply advertise their own Apple Music Subscription inside the default Music app and gain market share just like Internet Explorer did.

scarface74 6y ago
Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for years. It doesn’t pay a 30% cut.
- harpratap 6y ago
  They don't do that because Apple doesn't allow you to do that. Not because they don't want to.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    I’m sure every company would like to sell stuff for free and bypass the retailer’s markup.
    - harpratap 6y ago
      They already get charged $100/year for doing that.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        A whole $100 a year? How much do you think the slotting fee is for your typical grocer? Do you think wholesalers pay retailers only $100 a year and then get no markup?
        harpratap 6y ago
        Not a developer's problem if $100 isn't enough for Apple. They are free to charge a fair price and get rid of their anti-competitive behaviour.
        zaroth 6y ago
        Google makes billions of dollars as the gatekeeper to advertising on their Search engine. Apple makes (fewer) billions of dollars as the gatekeeper to their App Store. Google probably takes more than a 30% cut on the ad revenue that they place on 3rd party sites. I’m not saying it’s a perfect analogy (that would be a contradiction). But in general companies make a product, they get to derive revenue directly by selling the product, and/or they can derive revenue by selling access to the users of that product. Google gives the Search engine away for free because they can make way more money selling advertisers access. Apple increasingly is giving their phone away free-er (lower margin) because they can derive more revenue by selling access to services like App Store. It’s their store. They created it. They sold it with the rules they created being clearly displayed on the package. They actually believe those exact rules to be a huge competitive advantage for them. I believe the rules should be clear and evenly enforced, and they should not discriminate based on things like political/religious viewpoint or basically content beyond maturity rating/obscenity/hate speech.
        harpratap 6y ago
        Your analogy falls apart when you consider the fact that Google is being sued for the behaviour you just mentioned. No reason why Apple shouldn't be treated in the same light.
        scarface74 6y ago
        It’s now “anti competitive” for a reseller to markup the price of items it sells? Physical retailers charge both a markup fee and slotting fee. Every console maker takes a cut of games sold both physical and digital. They also charge thousands for their developer’s kit.
        harpratap 6y ago

scarface74 6y ago

Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for years. It doesn’t pay a 30% cut.

harpratap 6y ago
They don't do that because Apple doesn't allow you to do that. Not because they don't want to.
- scarface74 6y ago
  I’m sure every company would like to sell stuff for free and bypass the retailer’s markup.
  - harpratap 6y ago
    They already get charged $100/year for doing that.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      A whole $100 a year? How much do you think the slotting fee is for your typical grocer? Do you think wholesalers pay retailers only $100 a year and then get no markup?
      - harpratap 6y ago
        Not a developer's problem if $100 isn't enough for Apple. They are free to charge a fair price and get rid of their anti-competitive behaviour.
        zaroth 6y ago
        Google makes billions of dollars as the gatekeeper to advertising on their Search engine. Apple makes (fewer) billions of dollars as the gatekeeper to their App Store. Google probably takes more than a 30% cut on the ad revenue that they place on 3rd party sites. I’m not saying it’s a perfect analogy (that would be a contradiction). But in general companies make a product, they get to derive revenue directly by selling the product, and/or they can derive revenue by selling access to the users of that product. Google gives the Search engine away for free because they can make way more money selling advertisers access. Apple increasingly is giving their phone away free-er (lower margin) because they can derive more revenue by selling access to services like App Store. It’s their store. They created it. They sold it with the rules they created being clearly displayed on the package. They actually believe those exact rules to be a huge competitive advantage for them. I believe the rules should be clear and evenly enforced, and they should not discriminate based on things like political/religious viewpoint or basically content beyond maturity rating/obscenity/hate speech.
        harpratap 6y ago
        Your analogy falls apart when you consider the fact that Google is being sued for the behaviour you just mentioned. No reason why Apple shouldn't be treated in the same light.
        scarface74 6y ago
        It’s now “anti competitive” for a reseller to markup the price of items it sells? Physical retailers charge both a markup fee and slotting fee. Every console maker takes a cut of games sold both physical and digital. They also charge thousands for their developer’s kit.
        harpratap 6y ago