4 ms·

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

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.

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.