6 ms·
Apple have been in the music business much longer than Spotify.
by breakfastduck 6y ago
Apple have been in the music business much longer than Spotify.
- pityJuke 6y agoI guess he meant music streaming?
- frereubu 6y agoI'm not sure that's relevant is it?
- breakfastduck 6y agoYes, considering apple have been in the music business longer than App Stores have even existed.
- manicdee 6y agoIs Apple charging 30% on all Spotify transactions through their phone/tablet App Store giving them an economic advantage for their own Music store? It’s irrelevant for the example whether Apple was already in that space.
- frereubu 6y agoI don't think that can be right. On the surface you're suggesting that if a company worked in a particular area before another company then the first company is entitled to use anti-competitive practices, which clearly isn't true.
- whomst 6y agoI think the main point the (grand?) parent is saying is that "Apple is in the phone business" isn't a reasonable description of Apple. I agree that Apple hosting itself on its own platform is an abuse of market position (especially for something as peripheral as music), but to claim that music/audio isn't a/hasn't been core part of Apple's business model is ridiculous.
- frereubu 6y agoAh, gotcha. Yes, that does make more sense, thanks. But I still don't think it really addresses the second point, which is the crux of the argument as far as I can see.
- berkes 6y agoWhy does it matter "who came first"?
- HDMI_Cable 6y agoI haven’t read the EU report, but I’m guessing they’re either talking about the streaming business, or they didn’t care about the iPod.
- lucasyvas 6y agoThis observation only further solidifies the issue and directly supports the preceding comments.
- ethbr0 6y ago> Apple have been in the music business much longer than Spotify Since 1968 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records
- Kye 6y agoThis has no connection with the computer company. There have been numerous disputes over the confusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- mlok 6y agoYour assumption is wrong and this is precisely why "The Beatles Apple" attacked "Steve Jobs Apple" on the Trademark front. Source : a part of the article you linked to : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps#Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps#Apple_Corps_v._A...
- ethbr0 6y agoI think you missed the joke about first-isms.
- mlok 6y agoIf there was a joke I did miss it, that's for sure. And I still do :)
- Kye 6y agoSame. I have no idea what the joke is.
- bogomipz 6y agoApple Corp was a company started by the Beatles back in the 1960s. The later Beatles albums were released on Apple Records as well. This Apple was also a source of much legal litigation between the Fab Four and the Apple company being discussed in this post. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps They have both been successful business ventures and interestingly the original idea for the Beatles' Apple Corp is actually very close to what Cupertino's Apple is today electronics, music and movies and retail: "On the founding of Apple John Lennon commented: "Our accountant came up and said 'We got this amount of money. Do you want to give it to the government or do something with it?' So we decided to play businessmen for a bit because we've got to run our own affairs now. So we've got this thing called 'Apple' which is going to be records, films, and electronics – which all tie up"
- echelon 6y agoApple is now a monopoly. They shouldn't be allowed to run an App Store, and they should probably have their services division peeled away into a separate company. All of the mega tech monopolies need to be broken up. What business do any of them have being movie studios, advertising firms, car dealerships (Apple?), banks, and fifteen different marketplaces rolled into one? This is absurd. Tech would be better if neither Apple nor Google ran their app stores, Amazon/Apple/Google weren't in the media business, and Google couldn't run a browser. Break them up.
- threeseed 6y agoYour position is ridiculous and unworkable. By your definition companies like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Epic Games, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, IBM, Stripe, Facebook, Samsung, Adobe etc would all need to be broken up as like Apple they are in multiple markets with similar market shares. YC itself would need to be broken up given your criteria.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoI don't see the problem with separating every platform company from every app store. They can obviously be operated by two separate entities, like Steam on Windows.
- treis 6y ago>They shouldn't be allowed to run an App Store, and they should probably have their services division peeled away into a separate company. I think the ship has sailed on App stores. They're just better than the alternative and consumers are used to them. I'd consider them an integral part of the OS. The problem is the fees. 30% is excessive especially so for in-app purchases where the customer is already acquired. The easiest and cleanest solution is to just cap these to something more reasonable. Something like 5% or maybe CC transaction costs + a couple percent.
- LegitShady 6y ago% of revenue shouldn't be a thing. They're offering a service for distributing apps - there should be a standard fee and transaction costs. When I go to get tires on my car they don't charge me based on my income. When I purchase a book they don't charge a percentage of my income. On the app store suddenly you owe them a % of your revenue and you have to use them to get apps on iphone.
- xwolfi 6y agoExactly, it's time they let others use the phone they built in Shenzhen to listen to music with apps not made by Apple. There's 0 reason to over tax Spotify as punishment for trying to do it better. The capitalist thing to do would be to allow and enjoy fair competition in a pure and perfect market.