4 ms·

I don't understand this argument. Spotify is a service connecting listeners to the artists and infrastructure and development of said service has its cost where

by mr_aks 5y ago

I don't understand this argument. Spotify is a service connecting listeners to the artists and infrastructure and development of said service has its cost whereas Google/Apple charge fees for the app store which Spotify subscription does not require.

falcolas 5y ago
So, Spotify is allowed to charge 30% for access to the market it has created, but Google and Apple are not? An app store costs money too - the creation and maintenance of the billing platform/API, bandwidth, human curation, cross-device storage of saved configurations, user acquisition, etc. What makes musicians so different from software developers that it's perfectly acceptable for Spotify to take such a large share of the revenue their music has earned? (To make my own position clear, I don't think any of them deserve 30%)
- thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
  The problem with this line of argumentation is - why single out phone OS providers as the only link in the very long supply chain that deserves a cut? Why not internet provider? Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax? The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those What about the phone manufacturer - Xiaomi or Samsung would definitely not reject their fair share None of this would happen without electricity - power transmission companies deserve a portion There really isn't a coherent moral argument in favor of the current status quo - it's simply about market power, nothing else
  - falcolas 5y ago
    My point is: Spotify's 30% is not a fair cut. It's no more fair a cut as the Apple/Google/et.al. cut from developers. Since HN is a lot more familiar with the cuts the stores take out of developers earnings, it makes for a nice point of comparison.
    - dchftcs 5y ago
      Spotify has very low margins so it's hard to say 30% isn't fair. Any lower they'd have trouble paying their costs. Streaming in general helped the music industry revenue grow. You can say Spotify might be bad at business for not making much money on a 30% cut, but overall they seem to be serving decent value for money to the copyright holders and customers. Before streaming, the overhead was a lot higher, with the retail distribution chain taking a comparable cut.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    > Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax? > The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those This is a novel idea. Verizon and Cisco could charge a price above their cost. They could call this a "profit margin". You might be on to something here.
  - JoBrad 5y ago
    Because those other companies are paid for their service directly. You don’t directly pay for the app stores.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      Developers already pay Apple $100 a year to publish apps on the App Store. Google charges a fee for access to the Play Store, as well.
  - yywwbbn 5y ago
    Because Apple and a Google created a market where there was none. It basically impossible to make money from selling mobile apps to consumers before them. Had Verizon singlehandedly created the internet and had no real competitors they might have been able to tax it’s usage. Thank God that did not happen, though…
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      I am fine with them charging whatever they want, as long as they don't prevent competitors from opening alternative markets. The problem is the monopoly, not the price.
      - rswail 5y ago
        If they are a monopoly (or roughly equivalent) then they can be regulated.
- ksec 5y ago
  Access to User, and Specifically Mobile Apps users, are split between Apple "App Store" and Google "Play Store". Access to listener, or even if you limit to Mobile listener, are not bound to Spotify.
FredPret 5y ago
Apple/Google app stores are a service connecting users to app creators, and all the points about Spotify also apply to Apple and Google. In the case of Apple, they literally created the entire market, from the CPUs all the way up. If 30% is too much, publish your content as a web app. If you want to play in the walled garden, pay the cover charge.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think the biggest difference is that Spotify isn't a monopoly at the end of the day - it's a popular service. A lot of people still use different methods to listen to music like YouTube, iTunes, bandcamp and a plethora of others. If you, as a band, want to make money on your music you aren't required to do business through spotify, it's a choice that most people make because it's free money. On the other hand if you want to write an app for a mobile device you're, realistically, either going to write it for Android or iOS. On the Android side you can distribute it as an apk assuming you can handle the cost of writing self-updating code - but on the iOS side you're hooped. Mobile devices are a part of modern life, the fact that one company dominates the market (and another company takes the remainder) leaves the market extremely unhealthy.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    Google Play, which charges 30%, is not a monopoly either. Nor is Steam. The Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo scene is a bit less clear, but they charge 30% too. Musicians have about the same freedom in this respect as any application developer, practically speaking. AKA, they're just as exploited (if not moreso, see other comments about how musicians are also being screwed over by studios).
    - ratww 5y ago
      Yep. One major difference is that with Google/Apple (and also Steam I believe), app makers can at least choose the price of their apps and services themselves, and they know how many units they sell. If Google/Apple are charging you 30%, just increase your price. With Spotify, however, musicians can't choose how much their music is worth, and the payment of royalties is also not exactly transparent.
scarface74 5y ago
And the Play Store/App Store is a service connecting mobile users to apps and they provide an infrastructure to download apps, developer tools, etc. What’s the difference?

by mr_aks 5y ago

falcolas 5y ago

So, Spotify is allowed to charge 30% for access to the market it has created, but Google and Apple are not? An app store costs money too - the creation and maintenance of the billing platform/API, bandwidth, human curation, cross-device storage of saved configurations, user acquisition, etc. What makes musicians so different from software developers that it's perfectly acceptable for Spotify to take such a large share of the revenue their music has earned? (To make my own position clear, I don't think any of them deserve 30%)

thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
The problem with this line of argumentation is - why single out phone OS providers as the only link in the very long supply chain that deserves a cut? Why not internet provider? Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax? The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those What about the phone manufacturer - Xiaomi or Samsung would definitely not reject their fair share None of this would happen without electricity - power transmission companies deserve a portion There really isn't a coherent moral argument in favor of the current status quo - it's simply about market power, nothing else
- falcolas 5y ago
  My point is: Spotify's 30% is not a fair cut. It's no more fair a cut as the Apple/Google/et.al. cut from developers. Since HN is a lot more familiar with the cuts the stores take out of developers earnings, it makes for a nice point of comparison.
  - dchftcs 5y ago
    Spotify has very low margins so it's hard to say 30% isn't fair. Any lower they'd have trouble paying their costs. Streaming in general helped the music industry revenue grow. You can say Spotify might be bad at business for not making much money on a 30% cut, but overall they seem to be serving decent value for money to the copyright holders and customers. Before streaming, the overhead was a lot higher, with the retail distribution chain taking a comparable cut.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax? > The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those This is a novel idea. Verizon and Cisco could charge a price above their cost. They could call this a "profit margin". You might be on to something here.
- JoBrad 5y ago
  Because those other companies are paid for their service directly. You don’t directly pay for the app stores.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Developers already pay Apple $100 a year to publish apps on the App Store. Google charges a fee for access to the Play Store, as well.
- yywwbbn 5y ago
  Because Apple and a Google created a market where there was none. It basically impossible to make money from selling mobile apps to consumers before them. Had Verizon singlehandedly created the internet and had no real competitors they might have been able to tax it’s usage. Thank God that did not happen, though…
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    I am fine with them charging whatever they want, as long as they don't prevent competitors from opening alternative markets. The problem is the monopoly, not the price.
    - rswail 5y ago
      If they are a monopoly (or roughly equivalent) then they can be regulated.
ksec 5y ago
Access to User, and Specifically Mobile Apps users, are split between Apple "App Store" and Google "Play Store". Access to listener, or even if you limit to Mobile listener, are not bound to Spotify.

FredPret 5y ago

Apple/Google app stores are a service connecting users to app creators, and all the points about Spotify also apply to Apple and Google. In the case of Apple, they literally created the entire market, from the CPUs all the way up. If 30% is too much, publish your content as a web app. If you want to play in the walled garden, pay the cover charge.

munk-a 5y ago
I think the biggest difference is that Spotify isn't a monopoly at the end of the day - it's a popular service. A lot of people still use different methods to listen to music like YouTube, iTunes, bandcamp and a plethora of others. If you, as a band, want to make money on your music you aren't required to do business through spotify, it's a choice that most people make because it's free money. On the other hand if you want to write an app for a mobile device you're, realistically, either going to write it for Android or iOS. On the Android side you can distribute it as an apk assuming you can handle the cost of writing self-updating code - but on the iOS side you're hooped. Mobile devices are a part of modern life, the fact that one company dominates the market (and another company takes the remainder) leaves the market extremely unhealthy.
- falcolas 5y ago
  Google Play, which charges 30%, is not a monopoly either. Nor is Steam. The Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo scene is a bit less clear, but they charge 30% too. Musicians have about the same freedom in this respect as any application developer, practically speaking. AKA, they're just as exploited (if not moreso, see other comments about how musicians are also being screwed over by studios).
  - ratww 5y ago
    Yep. One major difference is that with Google/Apple (and also Steam I believe), app makers can at least choose the price of their apps and services themselves, and they know how many units they sell. If Google/Apple are charging you 30%, just increase your price. With Spotify, however, musicians can't choose how much their music is worth, and the payment of royalties is also not exactly transparent.

scarface74 5y ago

And the Play Store/App Store is a service connecting mobile users to apps and they provide an infrastructure to download apps, developer tools, etc. What’s the difference?