3 ms·

Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. In this case, Spotify can only "sell" their app to Apple c

Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. In this case, Spotify can only "sell" their app to Apple customers exclusively via Apple's store and they are forced to pay a fixed 30% to Apple for every transaction done through the spotify app, while using a payment system created and supplied by the store owner. And at the same time apple provides a competing product pre-installed on all their devices, which would be the equivalent to placing your product on the eye-level, well-lit shelves while putting away your competitor's product at the bottom shelf. There's a lot more nuance in this case that doesn't fit in with your analogy.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> they are forced to pay a fixed 30% to Apple for every transaction done through the spotify app Spotify has never paid this. You signed up online and then logged into the app. To the degree Apple has behaved anti-competitively, Apple Music v Spotify is the clearest case. But it’s not because of payment processing, but that Apple can see Spotify’s data and strategy and then use it against them from a superior marketing position.
- darklion 3y ago
  If you’re suggesting there’s some sort of data- or usage- mining of Spotify’s app and/or app integrations with the OS going on, you’re going to have to provide much more evidence than just the allegation of “Apple can see Spotify’s data”. The device might be able to see “Spotify’s data”, but the closest thing Apple-the-company has to “Spotify’s data [on iOS/macOS]” is likely to be device/customer profiles on who downloads the app from the App Store. And I’m sure the amount of data that Apple has on Spotify and their business and marketing strategies from non-device sources is both vastly superior and vastly more than what they would get from device-based information.
paulmd 3y ago
> Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. This is absolutely not true at all, exclusivity agreements are incredibly widespread in supply chains. https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-pieces/grocery/exclusivity%20in%20the%20food%20manufacturer%20grocer%20trade%20reasons%20behind%20the%20marketing-procurement%20practice%20june%202001.pdf https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-p... > Both retailers and manufacturers assert that over the past decade this practice has increased materially. In some retail outlets or corporations, the activity is now found in virtually every category. Based on reliable industry benchmarks from the late 1990's it is likely that as of 2001, at least half of major Canadian manufacturers are involved in some form of exclusivity arrangement with Canadian distributors. “With some exceptions” doing some heavy lifting I guess, considering we’re talking about basically whole industries and product sectors.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > This is absolutely not true at all, exclusivity agreements are incredibly widespread in supply chains. I never signed an exclusivity deal to only shop from a single grocery store, I don't think that exists anywhere in the world. But buying an iPhone is effectively an exclusivity deal where you agree to only buy from Apples store. This makes it fundamentally different from other exclusivity deals that are business to business, this is exclusivity on individual customers. I think the Apple store is the biggest such exclusivity deal on customers in history for a general marketplace. I can't think of anything else, except slavery or where a company owns the whole town and thus all the markets, but a company town is still way smaller scope than the Apple store.
  - darklion 3y ago
    > this is exclusivity on individual customers. Yes, individual customers who choose to buy an iPhone. It’s not like Apple is the only phone manufacturer in the world, and the iPhone is only barely dominant in the United States. There is plenty of competition for the iPhone. If you don’t like the iPhone and its singular App Store, go buy an Android phone. What you want is an iPhone on your terms. Sorry, that’s not how the market works.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> they are forced to pay a fixed 30% to Apple for every transaction done through the spotify app Spotify has never paid this. You signed up online and then logged into the app. To the degree Apple has behaved anti-competitively, Apple Music v Spotify is the clearest case. But it’s not because of payment processing, but that Apple can see Spotify’s data and strategy and then use it against them from a superior marketing position.

darklion 3y ago
If you’re suggesting there’s some sort of data- or usage- mining of Spotify’s app and/or app integrations with the OS going on, you’re going to have to provide much more evidence than just the allegation of “Apple can see Spotify’s data”. The device might be able to see “Spotify’s data”, but the closest thing Apple-the-company has to “Spotify’s data [on iOS/macOS]” is likely to be device/customer profiles on who downloads the app from the App Store. And I’m sure the amount of data that Apple has on Spotify and their business and marketing strategies from non-device sources is both vastly superior and vastly more than what they would get from device-based information.

paulmd 3y ago

> Typically you are not forced to sell your product on just one store, with some exceptions, of course. This is absolutely not true at all, exclusivity agreements are incredibly widespread in supply chains. https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-pieces/grocery/exclusivity%20in%20the%20food%20manufacturer%20grocer%20trade%20reasons%20behind%20the%20marketing-procurement%20practice%20june%202001.pdf https://www.kevingrier.com/uploads/userfiles/files/opinion-p... > Both retailers and manufacturers assert that over the past decade this practice has increased materially. In some retail outlets or corporations, the activity is now found in virtually every category. Based on reliable industry benchmarks from the late 1990's it is likely that as of 2001, at least half of major Canadian manufacturers are involved in some form of exclusivity arrangement with Canadian distributors. “With some exceptions” doing some heavy lifting I guess, considering we’re talking about basically whole industries and product sectors.

Jensson 3y ago
> This is absolutely not true at all, exclusivity agreements are incredibly widespread in supply chains. I never signed an exclusivity deal to only shop from a single grocery store, I don't think that exists anywhere in the world. But buying an iPhone is effectively an exclusivity deal where you agree to only buy from Apples store. This makes it fundamentally different from other exclusivity deals that are business to business, this is exclusivity on individual customers. I think the Apple store is the biggest such exclusivity deal on customers in history for a general marketplace. I can't think of anything else, except slavery or where a company owns the whole town and thus all the markets, but a company town is still way smaller scope than the Apple store.
- darklion 3y ago
  > this is exclusivity on individual customers. Yes, individual customers who choose to buy an iPhone. It’s not like Apple is the only phone manufacturer in the world, and the iPhone is only barely dominant in the United States. There is plenty of competition for the iPhone. If you don’t like the iPhone and its singular App Store, go buy an Android phone. What you want is an iPhone on your terms. Sorry, that’s not how the market works.