4 ms·

The real problem with the 30% is that it's far too high. It could have been 0%. Why do you care about what deals with Spotify they have? Is this resentment? >

The real problem with the 30% is that it's far too high. It could have been 0%. Why do you care about what deals with Spotify they have? Is this resentment? > You're paying for that slush fund. Google is probably getting the difference from Spotify in some other way. Google/Apple also have a lot of profit with their app stores because 30% is too damn much. If Google wouldn't have a deal with Spotify, you'd still be paying 30%.

hackernewds 3y ago
creating winners and losers while owning a majority chunk of any consumer market segment is considered a monopoly
- bad_user 3y ago
  Monopolies aren't illegal.
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Is this resentment? No, it's unfair market conditions which are illegal in most developed countries. How can small companies expect to compete with the big established ones if those players enjoy deals way way better than what the new players have? It's basically hardcoded inequality creating winners and losers from the start and goes against the free market principles.
- bad_user 3y ago
  That's not true. Most contracts are negotiable, and this is legal. Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. We have a different idea about what the free market is.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. That's exactly why it should change and why Apple(and Google) knows the winds are changing sooner or later. >Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. That works in retail where I can get a volume discount for buying 2 million tonnes of bannanas, but this logic doesn't apply to digital markets which scale much more effortlessly and cheaply regardless of scale meaning steep discounts for big players are somewhat counter intuitive. >We have a different idea about what the free market is. The free market means that if I want x tonnes of bannanas to buy or sell, I can choose which supplier or to whom, and at what price to buy/sell them. In the mobile digital markets you have no such freedom of choice. It's either Apple on the iOS market or Google (minus sideloading) on the Playstore, that's it. They're two monopolies with no competition, not a free market.
gregoriol 3y ago
This kind of deal is just unfair to any other business: if they are a marketplace, they have to have the same rules for everyone. It shouldn't matter how big you are, how you went to college with their CEO, or if your wife drinks tee with their wife: as soon as you provide a service that anyone can get, rules should be the same for everyone.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  A marketplace has never in history given everyone the same deal.
  - gregoriol 3y ago
    History is full of mistakes. It's good to learn from mistakes and history. Now is a good time to make it right.

hackernewds 3y ago

creating winners and losers while owning a majority chunk of any consumer market segment is considered a monopoly

bad_user 3y ago
Monopolies aren't illegal.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Is this resentment? No, it's unfair market conditions which are illegal in most developed countries. How can small companies expect to compete with the big established ones if those players enjoy deals way way better than what the new players have? It's basically hardcoded inequality creating winners and losers from the start and goes against the free market principles.

bad_user 3y ago
That's not true. Most contracts are negotiable, and this is legal. Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. We have a different idea about what the free market is.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. That's exactly why it should change and why Apple(and Google) knows the winds are changing sooner or later. >Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. That works in retail where I can get a volume discount for buying 2 million tonnes of bannanas, but this logic doesn't apply to digital markets which scale much more effortlessly and cheaply regardless of scale meaning steep discounts for big players are somewhat counter intuitive. >We have a different idea about what the free market is. The free market means that if I want x tonnes of bannanas to buy or sell, I can choose which supplier or to whom, and at what price to buy/sell them. In the mobile digital markets you have no such freedom of choice. It's either Apple on the iOS market or Google (minus sideloading) on the Playstore, that's it. They're two monopolies with no competition, not a free market.

gregoriol 3y ago

This kind of deal is just unfair to any other business: if they are a marketplace, they have to have the same rules for everyone. It shouldn't matter how big you are, how you went to college with their CEO, or if your wife drinks tee with their wife: as soon as you provide a service that anyone can get, rules should be the same for everyone.

scarface_74 3y ago
A marketplace has never in history given everyone the same deal.
- gregoriol 3y ago
  History is full of mistakes. It's good to learn from mistakes and history. Now is a good time to make it right.