5 ms·

He takes 30% for his platform, what's the issue with Apple taking 30% for their own platform? Quit the platform if you want. If consumers value Spotify enough t

He takes 30% for his platform, what's the issue with Apple taking 30% for their own platform? Quit the platform if you want. If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't)

Yujf 4y ago
Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading. Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should work, which is how it does work on android (and yes most companies still use the play store, because it is hard to convince consumers to use another store, but at least the option is there. Also you can not auto update apps installed from outside the play store which also sucks). My device so I and I alone should determine which software I want to run
- jdmoreira 4y ago
  1. Don't buy Apple. 2. What does that have to do with Spotify not wanting to pay IAP fees? 3. Should Spotify also allow you to "sideload" the mp3s you bought from bandcamp into their player?
  - FiddlerClamp 4y ago
    You can 'sideload' DRM-free MP3s into Spotify on iOS, Android, and desktop: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/
  - Daishiman 4y ago
    "Don't buy Apple" is not actionable advice in a duopoly.
    - threeseed 4y ago
      Except that it isn't a duopoly. There are hundreds of phones available and most have different variations of Android with their own features and restrictions.
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        100 copies of the same two choices is not competition.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        So since all computers are Unix* or Windows, there's no competition? Ridiculous.
        Daishiman 4y ago
        If state governments and agencies offer essential software for only two platforms and the most "open" one is restricted of most useful stuff because Google doesn't like it, no, there isn't enough competition. It's a really basic point and I have no idea what's so hard to understand.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        It's literally the same thing with Unix and PCs. AOSP is completely open source just like Unix, likewise MacOS and Google Android are restricted.
        Daishiman 4y ago
        There is no single human being that can use AOSP as a daily driver given that even government apps use Play Services. An academic exercise of open source isn't an excuse for an actually functional and useful daily driver. We've come as a society to the point where the absence of a cell phone makes you a second-class citizen.
        stale2002 4y ago
        If every single windows computer required you to pay them 30% for every transaction from those computers, yeah that would be an anti trust violation as well. Microsoft got in trouble for the much less bad act of merely bundling a browser with the OS. Imagine how much worse it would be if they took 30% of every transaction on every computer in the world.
    - juve1996 4y ago
      Sure it is. You're asking for sideloading apps. Guess what, that exists. The choice is there for what you're complaining about.
- 542458 4y ago
  Apple’s non-hardware expenses aren’t limited to the distribution platform… They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools and continue to maintain those even after the hardware is sold… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I don’t see why we should compel software authors to add hooks and features and provide tools for non-paying third parties.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Because I already gave them $1000 for the device...
  - wvenable 4y ago
    > They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I hear this argument all the time. But what do you think was done before iOS? When will they have finally gotten paid for all that and don't need to take any more money from you?
    - 542458 4y ago
      Before iOS (and for the early years of iOS) people paid out of pocket for software updates. Now it’s an ongoing cost instead, imposed as a tax on software transactions. This is not an unusual arrangement - people rent things in perpetuity all the time, like EC2 instances and water heaters.
      - wvenable 4y ago
        The fact that it's a tax on software transactions and not simply something rented/charged monthly is kind of the point. And, no, not all software updates were uncommon or charged for before iOS. Windows Update predates iOS by many years. People did pay for development tools but then so do iOS developers for $100 a year. I've personally only paid for dev tools a few times in my life. Developers add value to an ecosystem.
        acdha 4y ago
- lttlrck 4y ago
  And if you don't want to partake in the walled garden distribution then your side-loaded apps will be walled off from latest iOS API and capabilities, and they will be unable to impact the core UX. Sounds fine to me.
threeseed 4y ago
a) It's 15% for businesses making under $1m and those on long term subscriptions. b) Spotify takes a cut from the payment between consumer and musician so I assume they have no issue with it.
hamandcheese 4y ago
> If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't) It should be illegal for apple to force such a choice to begin with.
piva00 4y ago
> If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't) That's not how reality works at all and you are very aware of it. You are trying to force an equivalence between a device ecosystem which has massive network effects once you are in it, a device most people use everyday in 2022 for most of their lives needs: maps, communication, banking, government interactions, entertainment and so on, and pitting it against a simple music/audio service. What makes Apple behaviour even more egregious isn't only the 30% cut, it's that they provide a competitor that doesn't have to care about this overhead cost, it's undercutting the competition because they control the whole platform. If this doesn't sound anti-competitive to you then I believe you are deep into a hole.

Yujf 4y ago

Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading. Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should work, which is how it does work on android (and yes most companies still use the play store, because it is hard to convince consumers to use another store, but at least the option is there. Also you can not auto update apps installed from outside the play store which also sucks). My device so I and I alone should determine which software I want to run

jdmoreira 4y ago
1. Don't buy Apple. 2. What does that have to do with Spotify not wanting to pay IAP fees? 3. Should Spotify also allow you to "sideload" the mp3s you bought from bandcamp into their player?
- FiddlerClamp 4y ago
  You can 'sideload' DRM-free MP3s into Spotify on iOS, Android, and desktop: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/
- Daishiman 4y ago
  "Don't buy Apple" is not actionable advice in a duopoly.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Except that it isn't a duopoly. There are hundreds of phones available and most have different variations of Android with their own features and restrictions.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      100 copies of the same two choices is not competition.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        So since all computers are Unix* or Windows, there's no competition? Ridiculous.
        Daishiman 4y ago
        If state governments and agencies offer essential software for only two platforms and the most "open" one is restricted of most useful stuff because Google doesn't like it, no, there isn't enough competition. It's a really basic point and I have no idea what's so hard to understand.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        It's literally the same thing with Unix and PCs. AOSP is completely open source just like Unix, likewise MacOS and Google Android are restricted.
        Daishiman 4y ago
        There is no single human being that can use AOSP as a daily driver given that even government apps use Play Services. An academic exercise of open source isn't an excuse for an actually functional and useful daily driver. We've come as a society to the point where the absence of a cell phone makes you a second-class citizen.
        stale2002 4y ago
        If every single windows computer required you to pay them 30% for every transaction from those computers, yeah that would be an anti trust violation as well. Microsoft got in trouble for the much less bad act of merely bundling a browser with the OS. Imagine how much worse it would be if they took 30% of every transaction on every computer in the world.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Sure it is. You're asking for sideloading apps. Guess what, that exists. The choice is there for what you're complaining about.
542458 4y ago
Apple’s non-hardware expenses aren’t limited to the distribution platform… They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools and continue to maintain those even after the hardware is sold… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I don’t see why we should compel software authors to add hooks and features and provide tools for non-paying third parties.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Because I already gave them $1000 for the device...
- wvenable 4y ago
  > They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I hear this argument all the time. But what do you think was done before iOS? When will they have finally gotten paid for all that and don't need to take any more money from you?
  - 542458 4y ago
    Before iOS (and for the early years of iOS) people paid out of pocket for software updates. Now it’s an ongoing cost instead, imposed as a tax on software transactions. This is not an unusual arrangement - people rent things in perpetuity all the time, like EC2 instances and water heaters.
    - wvenable 4y ago
      The fact that it's a tax on software transactions and not simply something rented/charged monthly is kind of the point. And, no, not all software updates were uncommon or charged for before iOS. Windows Update predates iOS by many years. People did pay for development tools but then so do iOS developers for $100 a year. I've personally only paid for dev tools a few times in my life. Developers add value to an ecosystem.
      - acdha 4y ago
lttlrck 4y ago
And if you don't want to partake in the walled garden distribution then your side-loaded apps will be walled off from latest iOS API and capabilities, and they will be unable to impact the core UX. Sounds fine to me.

threeseed 4y ago

a) It's 15% for businesses making under $1m and those on long term subscriptions. b) Spotify takes a cut from the payment between consumer and musician so I assume they have no issue with it.

hamandcheese 4y ago

> If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't) It should be illegal for apple to force such a choice to begin with.

piva00 4y ago

> If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't) That's not how reality works at all and you are very aware of it. You are trying to force an equivalence between a device ecosystem which has massive network effects once you are in it, a device most people use everyday in 2022 for most of their lives needs: maps, communication, banking, government interactions, entertainment and so on, and pitting it against a simple music/audio service. What makes Apple behaviour even more egregious isn't only the 30% cut, it's that they provide a competitor that doesn't have to care about this overhead cost, it's undercutting the competition because they control the whole platform. If this doesn't sound anti-competitive to you then I believe you are deep into a hole.