7 ms·

> 3. Doesn’t Sootify also take a 30% cut to allow artists on their platform? Is Apple paying for their engineering staff, data centers and streaming bandwidth?

> 3. Doesn’t Sootify also take a 30% cut to allow artists on their platform? Is Apple paying for their engineering staff, data centers and streaming bandwidth? No. Once someone purchases Spotify, Apple just pushes app updated, a microscopic fraction of the cost of running Spotify. Putting that aside, the real issue is that Apple has their own competing service that effectively doesn't have to pay the same tax. That is where things become anti-competitive.

JimDabell 3y ago
> Is Apple paying for their engineering staff, data centers and streaming bandwidth? No. Is Spotify paying for artists’ session musicians, recording studio, or musical instruments? No. > Once someone purchases Spotify, Apple just pushes app updated, a microscopic fraction of the cost of running Spotify. How much work does Spotify do to publish an individual song?
- smoldesu 3y ago
  I think the point is that the tax is a double-standard. Apple can inherently exploit more competitive tactics by offering a first-party option that is financially infeasible to resist. Spotify isn't squeaky-clean either, but their argument is sound. Not only can Apple grant themselves private API entitlements (a literal competitive advantage), but competitors cannot offer a cheaper alternative even if they wanted. It's a situation where ad-ridden platforms like YouTube and TikTok are rewarded and legitimate licensed competitors can barely justify a native iOS app.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    What private API entitlements does Apple take advantage of that affects Spotify? It took Spotify over a year to implement streaming over cellular Apple Watches after it was introduced with a four month lead time when it was in public beta
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      It's no surprise they'd drag their feet on investing in a platform that actively prevents them from competing. You're describing a broken egg and asking why the chicken never hatched. > What private API entitlements does Apple take advantage of that affects Spotify? That's not what I said. Spotify is arguing that Apple has double-standards, and I'm using the existence of API entitlements to back them up. It's an ironclad example that Apple does have conflicting interests whether they want them or not. Apple claims those double-standards help users, but I'm arguing that the promotion of special closed-door agreements and ad-supported platforms is preventing actual competitors from emerging.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        > It's no surprise they'd drag their feet on investing in a platform that actively prevents them from competing. You're describing a broken egg and asking why the chicken never hatched. Did people who were interested in being able to run with just an Apple Watch choose not to buy an Apple Watch or choose to switch to Apple Music? How did they think this was going to hurt Apple and not themselves? > That's not what I said. Spotify is arguing that Apple has double-standards, and I'm using the existence of API entitlements to back them up Of course the OS vendor is never going to allow every app the same level of access to the hardware that they have. Do you want every application to have root access? How has Apple having “private entitlements” hurt their competitors when it comes to books (where Kindle is more popular), streaming video (AppleTV+ vs Netflix - really? ), streaming music (Spotify still has more market share on iOS I believe), podcasts (I use Overcast). Third parties can manipulate the photo library. The two exceptions I can think of are adding music to the music library directly on the phone and installing apps.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        > Do you want every application to have root access? No application should have root access. If Apple is giving their competitive apps root-equivalent permissions then I would say that's an even larger scandal. > How has Apple having “private entitlements” hurt their competitors [...] By creating yet another gate where they are exempt from the rules. > The two exceptions I can think of With all due respect, if there are exceptions you can think of then I think the situation is flawed. There's also the browser engine dispute, iMessage's neverending hermitage, and Apple's gradual depreciation of cross-platform libraries. We can argue that there's some merit to all of those behaviors, but together they represent a coordinated anticompetitive strategy. If Apple can't isolate their hardware ambitions from their software ones, I feel like this will end with a judge threatening to break Apple into two companies a-la United States v. Microsoft Corp.

JimDabell 3y ago

> Is Apple paying for their engineering staff, data centers and streaming bandwidth? No. Is Spotify paying for artists’ session musicians, recording studio, or musical instruments? No. > Once someone purchases Spotify, Apple just pushes app updated, a microscopic fraction of the cost of running Spotify. How much work does Spotify do to publish an individual song?

smoldesu 3y ago
I think the point is that the tax is a double-standard. Apple can inherently exploit more competitive tactics by offering a first-party option that is financially infeasible to resist. Spotify isn't squeaky-clean either, but their argument is sound. Not only can Apple grant themselves private API entitlements (a literal competitive advantage), but competitors cannot offer a cheaper alternative even if they wanted. It's a situation where ad-ridden platforms like YouTube and TikTok are rewarded and legitimate licensed competitors can barely justify a native iOS app.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  What private API entitlements does Apple take advantage of that affects Spotify? It took Spotify over a year to implement streaming over cellular Apple Watches after it was introduced with a four month lead time when it was in public beta
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    It's no surprise they'd drag their feet on investing in a platform that actively prevents them from competing. You're describing a broken egg and asking why the chicken never hatched. > What private API entitlements does Apple take advantage of that affects Spotify? That's not what I said. Spotify is arguing that Apple has double-standards, and I'm using the existence of API entitlements to back them up. It's an ironclad example that Apple does have conflicting interests whether they want them or not. Apple claims those double-standards help users, but I'm arguing that the promotion of special closed-door agreements and ad-supported platforms is preventing actual competitors from emerging.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      > It's no surprise they'd drag their feet on investing in a platform that actively prevents them from competing. You're describing a broken egg and asking why the chicken never hatched. Did people who were interested in being able to run with just an Apple Watch choose not to buy an Apple Watch or choose to switch to Apple Music? How did they think this was going to hurt Apple and not themselves? > That's not what I said. Spotify is arguing that Apple has double-standards, and I'm using the existence of API entitlements to back them up Of course the OS vendor is never going to allow every app the same level of access to the hardware that they have. Do you want every application to have root access? How has Apple having “private entitlements” hurt their competitors when it comes to books (where Kindle is more popular), streaming video (AppleTV+ vs Netflix - really? ), streaming music (Spotify still has more market share on iOS I believe), podcasts (I use Overcast). Third parties can manipulate the photo library. The two exceptions I can think of are adding music to the music library directly on the phone and installing apps.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > Do you want every application to have root access? No application should have root access. If Apple is giving their competitive apps root-equivalent permissions then I would say that's an even larger scandal. > How has Apple having “private entitlements” hurt their competitors [...] By creating yet another gate where they are exempt from the rules. > The two exceptions I can think of With all due respect, if there are exceptions you can think of then I think the situation is flawed. There's also the browser engine dispute, iMessage's neverending hermitage, and Apple's gradual depreciation of cross-platform libraries. We can argue that there's some merit to all of those behaviors, but together they represent a coordinated anticompetitive strategy. If Apple can't isolate their hardware ambitions from their software ones, I feel like this will end with a judge threatening to break Apple into two companies a-la United States v. Microsoft Corp.