7 ms·

It's hard to take Spotify's call for openness seriously when they're just as controlling as Apple is when it comes to how it allows its users to use its product

It's hard to take Spotify's call for openness seriously when they're just as controlling as Apple is when it comes to how it allows its users to use its product. Most egregiously, they never delivered the promised playback-capable replacement for libspotify, probably because they want to keep their users in their little walled garden where Spotify can subject them to incessant A/B test tweaks to the UI designed to herd them towards the most profitable content. Third party clients that just act like normal music players and don't change constantly would be an affront to that. As you've pointed out, when Apple has made affordances to allow better support for third party services, Spotify has been slow to take advantage of them. HomePods have had APIs that third party music streaming services can hook as well as the capability to set your default streaming service to things that aren't Apple Music for a year and a half now, and as of this writing Spotify has not used them, despite smaller streaming services like Deezer and Pandora having implemented support months ago. Why? I can only guess because HomePods aren't Spotify Connect devices and thus aren't under the control of Spotify the way that Spotify Connect devices are. Spotify isn't upset by the lack of openness, they're upset that Apple won't give them the same VIP treatment that they've gotten from other platform/device vendors (including Microsoft, with Spotify being bundled with Windows 11).

madeofpalk 4y ago
You can take him completely seriously: he just wants to be able to sign up paying users on iPhone without handing 30% to Apple. I don’t think that’s particularly opaque.
- 95014_refugee 4y ago
  This is essentially just the typical corporate aversion to taxation. They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. Nothing new here, other than the weird tech bros leaping to defend the behaviour...
  - starik36 4y ago
    The situation where you can purchase a service for 30% less elsewhere but not on the iPhone is pretty insane. And on top of that, you are not allowed to tell your users how to get a better deal. Regardless of his reasoning, Apple and some others have too much power.
    - juve1996 4y ago
      How can Apple have "too much power" here, when there is a clear alternative where it is cheaper?
      - wbkang 4y ago
        It's not a "clear alternative" when Apple doesn't even allow you to mention that. There are other reasonable alternatives such as letting developers mention the alternative payment methods as long as they explain what the benefits of Apple payment ecosystem. I read a lot of people writing comments like "I prefer to go through Apple because of the ease of unsubscription." If the benefits are so clear, why are developers not even allowed to mention the alternative?
        juve1996 4y ago
        Android is a very real and clear alternative. Android dominates market share. How you can say there isn't a clear alternative, I don't know.
        starik36 4y ago
        Given the vendor lock-in and Apple's 50% market share, it's not much of an alternative.
        juve1996 4y ago
        That doesn't justify your argument. 50% is not a dominant position.
  - hamandcheese 4y ago
    > They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. The infrastructure is already paid for. I paid for it when I bought my $1000 iPhone.
    - mullingitover 4y ago
      That would be a valid point if the phone wasn't vertically integrated with cloud services and ongoing support from the manufacturer. The terms for access to the app store are based on licensing for the software that's part of the device. I could see a reasonable compromise where you can wipe the iPhone and start from scratch with your own OS/drivers/etc, waive your warranty, and then be free to go nuts installing anything you want from any app store. I just can't imagine anyone being happy spending the thousand bucks purely for the hardware.
      - hamandcheese 4y ago
        My last iPhone before this one was also $1000. Oh, also, I pay for iCloud storage. I think I’ve covered the ongoing support and cloud costs as well.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Why should Apple be allowed to have a competitor in the same space without paying the 30% Apple tax on top then? That's anti-trust 101.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So should we also stop console makers from having first party games? Stop stores from selling store brands?
      - piva00 4y ago
        I'd say yes if console makers would force all 3rd parties to not directly advertise how to create an account with them and pay through their own means for a subscription when needed instead of the console game store. I'd say yes if stores with their own store brands would force producers of 3rd party products to always pay a 30% cut and disallow the consumers from being able to purchase the product at a different place of their choosing.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Consoles have forced third party game makers to pay a license fee for every physical game sold since the 80s no matter where you sold the game.
        piva00 4y ago
        My example was about subscriptions, no console maker takes a cut of a subscription to a game done through the game publisher's own servers/service. No console maker takes a cut from sales of digital items done through the game's platform. You are moving the goalposts, licencing is a well established practice and only interferes with the sale of the initial product: the game, not subsequent upsales where the console maker has absolutely no interaction with, just like royalties for IP and so on, it's another broken analogy...
        scarface74 4y ago
- scarface74 4y ago
  You can and in fact Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for years.
- prettychill 4y ago
  Plenty of other threads about the fees but you feel the need to come comment this in a chain about Spotify neglecting to build for and support their customers. Your reply (and mine) are so incredibly unrelated to this comment thread.
- scarface74 4y ago
  He can. Users can go to Spotify.com in any browser and they can even make it easy by supporting Apple Pay. Apple Pay charges standard credit card processing fees of around 2% as opposed to in all purchases.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Until very recently, when courts forced Apple to allow it, Apple prevent developers from event mentioning that a website exists where there's a cheaper option to sign up. Apple has rules, and that's "fine". But they also have rules about the rules that disallow developers from explaining the rules to users. That doesn't sit right with me.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Spotify stopped allowing in app purchases years ago before any Court said anything.
      - madeofpalk 4y ago
        Because, rightly or wrongly, they didn’t want to have 30% more expensive plan on iPhone.
        scarface74 4y ago
        How is that different than any other product where you can sell cheaper through your own website than on a third party platform?
- criddell 4y ago
  Spotify also holds on to about 30% of their subscription revenue. He should drop Spotify to 5% and demand Apple do the same.
originalvichy 4y ago
Surely Spotify has reasons related to music licensing that makes them enforce strict control of playback interfaces? I remember the days of libre Spotify clients, but that was during the days of Spotify still being a relatively small service compared to the iTunes' of the world. Spotify won the battle for 2010s music and that made record companies more eager to control the distribution of their IP.
- pippo82 4y ago
  Hi originalvichy, I was lurking through old threads about devops and came across one of your comments about how you and your company were bundling common devops tooling in a bundle and serving that as a product. I'm new to hackernews and recently found out you can't DM, so I'm replying to this message in hopes of kicking of a conversation around that original message. I'd love to learn more about that specific solution - is it alright if I pick your brain on the topic? Thanks!

madeofpalk 4y ago

You can take him completely seriously: he just wants to be able to sign up paying users on iPhone without handing 30% to Apple. I don’t think that’s particularly opaque.

95014_refugee 4y ago
This is essentially just the typical corporate aversion to taxation. They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. Nothing new here, other than the weird tech bros leaping to defend the behaviour...
- starik36 4y ago
  The situation where you can purchase a service for 30% less elsewhere but not on the iPhone is pretty insane. And on top of that, you are not allowed to tell your users how to get a better deal. Regardless of his reasoning, Apple and some others have too much power.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    How can Apple have "too much power" here, when there is a clear alternative where it is cheaper?
    - wbkang 4y ago
      It's not a "clear alternative" when Apple doesn't even allow you to mention that. There are other reasonable alternatives such as letting developers mention the alternative payment methods as long as they explain what the benefits of Apple payment ecosystem. I read a lot of people writing comments like "I prefer to go through Apple because of the ease of unsubscription." If the benefits are so clear, why are developers not even allowed to mention the alternative?
      - juve1996 4y ago
        Android is a very real and clear alternative. Android dominates market share. How you can say there isn't a clear alternative, I don't know.
        starik36 4y ago
        Given the vendor lock-in and Apple's 50% market share, it's not much of an alternative.
        juve1996 4y ago
        That doesn't justify your argument. 50% is not a dominant position.
- hamandcheese 4y ago
  > They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. The infrastructure is already paid for. I paid for it when I bought my $1000 iPhone.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    That would be a valid point if the phone wasn't vertically integrated with cloud services and ongoing support from the manufacturer. The terms for access to the app store are based on licensing for the software that's part of the device. I could see a reasonable compromise where you can wipe the iPhone and start from scratch with your own OS/drivers/etc, waive your warranty, and then be free to go nuts installing anything you want from any app store. I just can't imagine anyone being happy spending the thousand bucks purely for the hardware.
    - hamandcheese 4y ago
      My last iPhone before this one was also $1000. Oh, also, I pay for iCloud storage. I think I’ve covered the ongoing support and cloud costs as well.
- piva00 4y ago
  Why should Apple be allowed to have a competitor in the same space without paying the 30% Apple tax on top then? That's anti-trust 101.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So should we also stop console makers from having first party games? Stop stores from selling store brands?
    - piva00 4y ago
      I'd say yes if console makers would force all 3rd parties to not directly advertise how to create an account with them and pay through their own means for a subscription when needed instead of the console game store. I'd say yes if stores with their own store brands would force producers of 3rd party products to always pay a 30% cut and disallow the consumers from being able to purchase the product at a different place of their choosing.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Consoles have forced third party game makers to pay a license fee for every physical game sold since the 80s no matter where you sold the game.
        piva00 4y ago
        My example was about subscriptions, no console maker takes a cut of a subscription to a game done through the game publisher's own servers/service. No console maker takes a cut from sales of digital items done through the game's platform. You are moving the goalposts, licencing is a well established practice and only interferes with the sale of the initial product: the game, not subsequent upsales where the console maker has absolutely no interaction with, just like royalties for IP and so on, it's another broken analogy...
        scarface74 4y ago
scarface74 4y ago
You can and in fact Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for years.
prettychill 4y ago
Plenty of other threads about the fees but you feel the need to come comment this in a chain about Spotify neglecting to build for and support their customers. Your reply (and mine) are so incredibly unrelated to this comment thread.
scarface74 4y ago
He can. Users can go to Spotify.com in any browser and they can even make it easy by supporting Apple Pay. Apple Pay charges standard credit card processing fees of around 2% as opposed to in all purchases.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Until very recently, when courts forced Apple to allow it, Apple prevent developers from event mentioning that a website exists where there's a cheaper option to sign up. Apple has rules, and that's "fine". But they also have rules about the rules that disallow developers from explaining the rules to users. That doesn't sit right with me.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Spotify stopped allowing in app purchases years ago before any Court said anything.
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      Because, rightly or wrongly, they didn’t want to have 30% more expensive plan on iPhone.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        How is that different than any other product where you can sell cheaper through your own website than on a third party platform?
criddell 4y ago
Spotify also holds on to about 30% of their subscription revenue. He should drop Spotify to 5% and demand Apple do the same.

originalvichy 4y ago

Surely Spotify has reasons related to music licensing that makes them enforce strict control of playback interfaces? I remember the days of libre Spotify clients, but that was during the days of Spotify still being a relatively small service compared to the iTunes' of the world. Spotify won the battle for 2010s music and that made record companies more eager to control the distribution of their IP.

pippo82 4y ago
Hi originalvichy, I was lurking through old threads about devops and came across one of your comments about how you and your company were bundling common devops tooling in a bundle and serving that as a product. I'm new to hackernews and recently found out you can't DM, so I'm replying to this message in hopes of kicking of a conversation around that original message. I'd love to learn more about that specific solution - is it alright if I pick your brain on the topic? Thanks!