2 ms·

Not offering in-app signups doesn't seem to make Spotify less dominant. I'm in the Netherlands, almost everybody I know has a Spotify subscription, I know just

by bzzzt 1y ago

Not offering in-app signups doesn't seem to make Spotify less dominant. I'm in the Netherlands, almost everybody I know has a Spotify subscription, I know just one guy using Apple music. The 30% fee also drops to 15% after one year, and there are companies that negotiated lower fees. Also, 'doing it yourself' won't be free, you still need some party to do payment processing, customer service and returns which also can come close to that 15%. The argument you need to make your own phone seems a bit far-fetched. There are multiple music apps making money on iOS.

disgruntledphd2 1y ago
The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money. That's the issue, and it needs to be resolved for Apple to be compliant with EU law. Or they can leave, if they think that makes more sense for their business.
- burnerthrow008 1y ago
  > The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money. On the contrary, Apple does pay the money... to the artists. Which is something that Spotify doesn't do as much. https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a-guide-for-musicians/ https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a... Strangely, despite this rather obvious market power (monopsony) that Spotify has in negotiating below-market rates with their suppliers, the EC has not seen fit to label them as a "gatekeeper". I'm sure it has nothing whatever to do with having their headquarters in Sweden.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    > Apple does pay the money... to the artists. Spotify pay something absurd like 80% of revenue to the record labels (who theoretically pay artists). And obviously Apple will need to invest more into their competing service to get scale. None of this changes the fundamental point that Apple are self-dealing here, which might be fine in a world where they didn't control the app store.

by bzzzt 1y ago

disgruntledphd2 1y ago

The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money. That's the issue, and it needs to be resolved for Apple to be compliant with EU law. Or they can leave, if they think that makes more sense for their business.

burnerthrow008 1y ago
> The problem here is that Apple have a competing service that doesn't have to pay the money. On the contrary, Apple does pay the money... to the artists. Which is something that Spotify doesn't do as much. https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a-guide-for-musicians/ https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a... Strangely, despite this rather obvious market power (monopsony) that Spotify has in negotiating below-market rates with their suppliers, the EC has not seen fit to label them as a "gatekeeper". I'm sure it has nothing whatever to do with having their headquarters in Sweden.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  > Apple does pay the money... to the artists. Spotify pay something absurd like 80% of revenue to the record labels (who theoretically pay artists). And obviously Apple will need to invest more into their competing service to get scale. None of this changes the fundamental point that Apple are self-dealing here, which might be fine in a world where they didn't control the app store.