Spotify says Apple a 'monopolist' in escalating war of words

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 146
    tehabe said:
    When it comes to distribution of applications for iOS Apple is a monopolist. You can't buy applications anywhere else. On the other hand, Spotify is not a monopolist, there are many music streaming services on the market, including Apple Music who are competing with Spotify. And currently i it is doubtful if you could charge more than $10 per month for music streaming.
    Actually that’s not true. You can jailbreak your iPhone and use other app stores. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 42 of 146
    tehabe said:
    Abalos65 said:
    urahara said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Which stores can Android users access to download the apps?
    Play Store, Amazon app store, Samsung app store, F-Droid and any application can be downloaded via a browser (see ApkMirror for example or Fortnite), which also means many online app stores
    In theory there are many but in most cases it is only one, the Play Store isn't available on Amazon devices, the Samsung one is not available on Pixel devices. And side loading doesn't work by default. The practical consequence is, that the store for applications is essentially a monopoly you have to use, if you want to sell/offer your application to the consumer of that device. The grocery example therefor wrong.
    There was simply asked if there are other app stores on Android. I agree that for most people there is only one store they go to. Not allowing Spotify to mention their own website for sign up is my main issue with Apple stance here, not the App store or the 30% cut. The grocery example isn't my idea, I also have problems with simple analogies to these discussions.
  • Reply 43 of 146
    tehabetehabe Posts: 19member
    supadav03 said:

    As I said it a reply to someone else? What about video game marketplaces? Should Playstation be forced to allow access to Xbox live on their hardware? No.

    Plus, this kind of strays from the issue anyways. It’s not customers complaining they can only access Spotify via App Store, it’s the seller complaining they can’t direct customers away from the App Store. So I’m not sure why “being the only store” matters when that’s where customers want to shop. We made that choice when we purchase Apple hardware. 
    The stores on the PlayStation and Xbox can be monopolies if the customer can't easily access other stores. Customers might not complain but Spotify does, while they have to calculated the App Store charges into their price, Apple Music doesn't, which resulted in a higher price for Spotify than Apple Music on iOS. So if someone was looking for a music streaming service on their iPhone they would see that Spotify is more expensive than Apple Music and might because of that choose Apple Music over Spotify. That is the gist of it. And I think that Spotify has a point here.

    P.S. Jailbreaking doesn't really count. Only a fraction of iOS users would do that.

    P.P.S. The issue is not really, that the App Store is the only store but how are applications from Apple treated vs. applications from third party developers. I was confused in recent years when news sites reported that another Google application on the Play Store would reach the 1 billion download mark or something like that. Even though it is a pre installed application and those downloads might just be the updates but people never used it.
  • Reply 44 of 146
    Abalos65 said:
    tehabe said:
    Abalos65 said:
    urahara said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Which stores can Android users access to download the apps?
    Play Store, Amazon app store, Samsung app store, F-Droid and any application can be downloaded via a browser (see ApkMirror for example or Fortnite), which also means many online app stores
    In theory there are many but in most cases it is only one, the Play Store isn't available on Amazon devices, the Samsung one is not available on Pixel devices. And side loading doesn't work by default. The practical consequence is, that the store for applications is essentially a monopoly you have to use, if you want to sell/offer your application to the consumer of that device. The grocery example therefor wrong.
    There was simply asked if there are other app stores on Android. I agree that for most people there is only one store they go to. Not allowing Spotify to mention their own website for sign up is my main issue with Apple stance here, not the App store or the 30% cut. The grocery example isn't my idea, I also have problems with simple analogies to these discussions.
    So do you think Ubisoft should be able to include a link on the Playstation Store that takes customers to their own website to buy the digital games instead of completing that transaction on PSN? Ubisoft can direct customers to purchase directly from them all they want, but Playstation is under no obligation to allow them to do that from their PSN store. Same goes for Apple & Spotify. 
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 45 of 146
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Yeah, not perfect parallels so it really doesn’t address your first question. As for Spotify not being allowed to mention their own store: Can I, as Entenmann’s, be mad at Publix if they don’t let me advertise in their store that my donuts can be bought at the Entenmann’s store for less? No. I’m paying for access to their customer base who may not know my product exist if not for being on their store shelf. So to try and direct those customers away from their store to mine so I can make more profit seems more unfair than them telling me I can’t advertise like that in their stores. 


    Side comment to address iPhone users only accessing App Store - Playstation users can only access PSN. Is it right that if I own a Playstation I’m forced to use PSN for digital content? Why can’t I access Xbox Live Market Place or Nintendo eShop? Because if you choose the product (iPhone, Playstation) you do so knowing that you are also buying into their ecosystem and if you don’t like that, that you buy an Xbox or Switch. 
    I do not find the analogy of two supermarkets fitting here. How is the website of Spotify where you can only sign up for Spotify remotely similar to the entire App store? The mentioning here will also not happen in the App store, but in the app of Spotify itself, again making the analogy not really fit.

    I personally am not a gamer. Are the season passes of different games not possible to buy without a significant cut from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo? Is it not possible for game developers to mention their own website to buy these passes? Otherwise the situation is not similar. Furthermore, games are largely unique, which is not the case for streaming services, making the competition directly between two games, even if one is from Microsoft or Sony, less direct. 
    edited March 16
  • Reply 46 of 146
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Yeah, not perfect parallels so it really doesn’t address your first question. As for Spotify not being allowed to mention their own store: Can I, as Entenmann’s, be mad at Publix if they don’t let me advertise in their store that my donuts can be bought at the Entenmann’s store for less? No. I’m paying for access to their customer base who may not know my product exist if not for being on their store shelf. So to try and direct those customers away from their store to mine so I can make more profit seems more unfair than them telling me I can’t advertise like that in their stores. 


    Side comment to address iPhone users only accessing App Store - Playstation users can only access PSN. Is it right that if I own a Playstation I’m forced to use PSN for digital content? Why can’t I access Xbox Live Market Place or Nintendo eShop? Because if you choose the product (iPhone, Playstation) you do so knowing that you are also buying into their ecosystem and if you don’t like that, that you buy an Xbox or Switch. 
    I do not find the analogy of two supermarkets fitting here. How is the website of Spotify where you can only sign up for Spotify remotely similar to the entire App store? The mentioning here will also not happen in the App store, but in the app of Spotify itself, again making the analogy not really fit.

    I personally am not a gamer. Are the season passes of different games not possible to buy without a significant cut from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo? Is it not possible for game developers to mention their own website to buy these passes? Otherwise the situation is not similar
    They cannot link outside stores on PSN although they can advertise the ability to purchase the game or season passes on their websites via other methods (social media, etc). If bought through PSN, Sony takes a cut. Just like Steam takes 30% cut when you buy game from their store. This isn’t an apple only thing. 
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 47 of 146
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Yeah, not perfect parallels so it really doesn’t address your first question. As for Spotify not being allowed to mention their own store: Can I, as Entenmann’s, be mad at Publix if they don’t let me advertise in their store that my donuts can be bought at the Entenmann’s store for less? No. I’m paying for access to their customer base who may not know my product exist if not for being on their store shelf. So to try and direct those customers away from their store to mine so I can make more profit seems more unfair than them telling me I can’t advertise like that in their stores. 


    Side comment to address iPhone users only accessing App Store - Playstation users can only access PSN. Is it right that if I own a Playstation I’m forced to use PSN for digital content? Why can’t I access Xbox Live Market Place or Nintendo eShop? Because if you choose the product (iPhone, Playstation) you do so knowing that you are also buying into their ecosystem and if you don’t like that, that you buy an Xbox or Switch. 
    I do not find the analogy of two supermarkets fitting here. How is the website of Spotify where you can only sign up for Spotify remotely similar to the entire App store? The mentioning here will also not happen in the App store, but in the app of Spotify itself, again making the analogy not really fit.

    I personally am not a gamer. Are the season passes of different games not possible to buy without a significant cut from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo? Is it not possible for game developers to mention their own website to buy these passes? Otherwise the situation is not similar
    They cannot link outside stores on PSN although they can advertise the ability to purchase the game or season passes on their websites via other methods (social media, etc). If bought through PSN, Sony takes a cut. Just like Steam takes 30% cut when you buy game from their store. This isn’t an apple only thing. 
    I do think this Spotify and Apple situation is unique though and simply saying someone else is doing the somewhat similar is not reason to accept it. The fact that Apples controls the platform to such an extend while competing directly in the music streaming service space deserves scrutiny. 
  • Reply 48 of 146
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,918member
    tehabe said:
    supadav03 said:

    As I said it a reply to someone else? What about video game marketplaces? Should Playstation be forced to allow access to Xbox live on their hardware? No.

    Plus, this kind of strays from the issue anyways. It’s not customers complaining they can only access Spotify via App Store, it’s the seller complaining they can’t direct customers away from the App Store. So I’m not sure why “being the only store” matters when that’s where customers want to shop. We made that choice when we purchase Apple hardware. 
    The stores on the PlayStation and Xbox can be monopolies if the customer can't easily access other stores. Customers might not complain but Spotify does, while they have to calculated the App Store charges into their price, Apple Music doesn't, which resulted in a higher price for Spotify than Apple Music on iOS. So if someone was looking for a music streaming service on their iPhone they would see that Spotify is more expensive than Apple Music and might because of that choose Apple Music over Spotify. That is the gist of it. And I think that Spotify has a point here.
    Nothing prevents Spotify from selling its services elsewhere. They are not bound to AppStore. Apple would be a monopoly if it were preventing Spotify by all means, including selling elsewhere. If you sell in the competitor's brick & mortar store you pay at least a rent for that store. "You monopolist ! I will sell my legumes in your store, stay back !" Say that in one of your villages and see the outcome !
    edited March 16 supadav03chia
  • Reply 49 of 146
    bwikbwik Posts: 562member
    tehabe said:
    supadav03 said:

    As I said it a reply to someone else? What about video game marketplaces? Should Playstation be forced to allow access to Xbox live on their hardware? No.

    Plus, this kind of strays from the issue anyways. It’s not customers complaining they can only access Spotify via App Store, it’s the seller complaining they can’t direct customers away from the App Store. So I’m not sure why “being the only store” matters when that’s where customers want to shop. We made that choice when we purchase Apple hardware. 
    The stores on the PlayStation and Xbox can be monopolies if the customer can't easily access other stores. Customers might not complain but Spotify does, while they have to calculated the App Store charges into their price, Apple Music doesn't, which resulted in a higher price for Spotify than Apple Music on iOS. So if someone was looking for a music streaming service on their iPhone they would see that Spotify is more expensive than Apple Music and might because of that choose Apple Music over Spotify. That is the gist of it. And I think that Spotify has a point here.
    Nothing prevents Spotify from selling its services elsewhere. They are not bound to AppStore. Apple would be a monopoly if it were preventing Spotify by all means, including selling elsewhere. If you sell in the competitor's brick & mortar store you pay at least a rent for that store. "You monopolist ! I will sell my legumes in your store, stay back !" Say that in one of your villages and see the outcome !

    Expand on this.  What other place can I download Spotify's iOS app and pay for its use?  
  • Reply 50 of 146
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Yeah, not perfect parallels so it really doesn’t address your first question. As for Spotify not being allowed to mention their own store: Can I, as Entenmann’s, be mad at Publix if they don’t let me advertise in their store that my donuts can be bought at the Entenmann’s store for less? No. I’m paying for access to their customer base who may not know my product exist if not for being on their store shelf. So to try and direct those customers away from their store to mine so I can make more profit seems more unfair than them telling me I can’t advertise like that in their stores. 


    Side comment to address iPhone users only accessing App Store - Playstation users can only access PSN. Is it right that if I own a Playstation I’m forced to use PSN for digital content? Why can’t I access Xbox Live Market Place or Nintendo eShop? Because if you choose the product (iPhone, Playstation) you do so knowing that you are also buying into their ecosystem and if you don’t like that, that you buy an Xbox or Switch. 
    I do not find the analogy of two supermarkets fitting here. How is the website of Spotify where you can only sign up for Spotify remotely similar to the entire App store? The mentioning here will also not happen in the App store, but in the app of Spotify itself, again making the analogy not really fit.

    I personally am not a gamer. Are the season passes of different games not possible to buy without a significant cut from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo? Is it not possible for game developers to mention their own website to buy these passes? Otherwise the situation is not similar
    They cannot link outside stores on PSN although they can advertise the ability to purchase the game or season passes on their websites via other methods (social media, etc). If bought through PSN, Sony takes a cut. Just like Steam takes 30% cut when you buy game from their store. This isn’t an apple only thing. 
    I do think this Spotify and Apple situation is unique though and simply saying someone else is doing the somewhat similar is not reason to accept it. The fact that Apples controls the platform to such an extend while competing directly in the music streaming service space deserves scrutiny. 
    Well I think consumers should decide if it deserve scrutiny, not the business themselves, since they may have alterior motives. And I have yet to see consumers, in large numbers, taking issue with this. Spotify doesn’t care about the consumer. They aren’t doing this for “us”. They are doing it to help their business. So no, to me, it doesn’t deserve scrutiny. But that is just one guy on the internets opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. I speak for me only. 
    edited March 16
  • Reply 51 of 146
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,918member
    bwik said:
    tehabe said:
    supadav03 said:

    As I said it a reply to someone else? What about video game marketplaces? Should Playstation be forced to allow access to Xbox live on their hardware? No.

    Plus, this kind of strays from the issue anyways. It’s not customers complaining they can only access Spotify via App Store, it’s the seller complaining they can’t direct customers away from the App Store. So I’m not sure why “being the only store” matters when that’s where customers want to shop. We made that choice when we purchase Apple hardware. 
    The stores on the PlayStation and Xbox can be monopolies if the customer can't easily access other stores. Customers might not complain but Spotify does, while they have to calculated the App Store charges into their price, Apple Music doesn't, which resulted in a higher price for Spotify than Apple Music on iOS. So if someone was looking for a music streaming service on their iPhone they would see that Spotify is more expensive than Apple Music and might because of that choose Apple Music over Spotify. That is the gist of it. And I think that Spotify has a point here.
    Nothing prevents Spotify from selling its services elsewhere. They are not bound to AppStore. Apple would be a monopoly if it were preventing Spotify by all means, including selling elsewhere. If you sell in the competitor's brick & mortar store you pay at least a rent for that store. "You monopolist ! I will sell my legumes in your store, stay back !" Say that in one of your villages and see the outcome !

    Expand on this.  What other place can I download Spotify's iOS app and pay for its use?  
    Spotify does not sell an application, it sells music streaming. It gives the application for free.

    Besides you don't need to download Spotify's application to purchase a plan, you can manage your paid subscription on the web. Spotify doesn't need to distribute a special application to stream its music, either. It can totally quit the AppStore and stream on the Web to paid subscribers. If you insist in selling in someone else's store you have something to pay.
    chiasupadav03n2itivguy
  • Reply 52 of 146
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Yeah, not perfect parallels so it really doesn’t address your first question. As for Spotify not being allowed to mention their own store: Can I, as Entenmann’s, be mad at Publix if they don’t let me advertise in their store that my donuts can be bought at the Entenmann’s store for less? No. I’m paying for access to their customer base who may not know my product exist if not for being on their store shelf. So to try and direct those customers away from their store to mine so I can make more profit seems more unfair than them telling me I can’t advertise like that in their stores. 


    Side comment to address iPhone users only accessing App Store - Playstation users can only access PSN. Is it right that if I own a Playstation I’m forced to use PSN for digital content? Why can’t I access Xbox Live Market Place or Nintendo eShop? Because if you choose the product (iPhone, Playstation) you do so knowing that you are also buying into their ecosystem and if you don’t like that, that you buy an Xbox or Switch. 
    I do not find the analogy of two supermarkets fitting here. How is the website of Spotify where you can only sign up for Spotify remotely similar to the entire App store? The mentioning here will also not happen in the App store, but in the app of Spotify itself, again making the analogy not really fit.

    I personally am not a gamer. Are the season passes of different games not possible to buy without a significant cut from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo? Is it not possible for game developers to mention their own website to buy these passes? Otherwise the situation is not similar
    They cannot link outside stores on PSN although they can advertise the ability to purchase the game or season passes on their websites via other methods (social media, etc). If bought through PSN, Sony takes a cut. Just like Steam takes 30% cut when you buy game from their store. This isn’t an apple only thing. 
    I do think this Spotify and Apple situation is unique though and simply saying someone else is doing the somewhat similar is not reason to accept it. The fact that Apples controls the platform to such an extend while competing directly in the music streaming service space deserves scrutiny. 
    Well I think consumers should decide if it deserve scrutiny, not the business themselves, since they may have alterior motives. And I have yet to see consumers, in large numbers, taking issue with this. Spotify doesn’t care about the consumer. They aren’t doing this for “us”. They are doing it to help their business. So no, to me, it doesn’t deserve scrutiny. But that is just one guy on the internets opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. I speak for me only. 
    But do you think the average consumer has any idea that this is happening? They see two apps, where the one from Apple is cheaper or where the one from Apple is the only with a subscription option. Will they complain or simply buy the cheaper/only one?

    And of course is Spotify protecting their business, that is kind of important to survive as a business and Apple is doing the same. Do you think antitrust complaints should only be filed by consumers? If so, can you give an example of such a thing ever happening? 
    edited March 16
  • Reply 53 of 146
    “...HomePod owners can't set Spotify as their default music service, for example.”

    So? It’s Apple’s hardware, and it’s deeply integrated with Siri. Is Spotify saying they’d be willing to license Siri to have a presence on HomePod? Or do they want to use some other “always on” system that doesn’t have Apple’s security?

    These dudes want something for nothing.
    supadav03n2itivguycgWerks
  • Reply 54 of 146
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,694unconfirmed, member
    This is why i'm going to vote for elizabeth warren, to break up these big greedy companies like apple
    @grandcherokee29 ; Instead of posting with ZERO information give us a reason WHY you believe that, include factual references and be an adult. Otherwise AppleInsider is not for you. Go to an iKnockoff site and you can bash Apple all day with zero facts.

    tehabe said:
    When it comes to distribution of applications for iOS Apple is a monopolist. You can't buy applications anywhere else. On the other hand, Spotify is not a monopolist, there are many music streaming services on the market, including Apple Music who are competing with Spotify. And currently i it is doubtful if you could charge more than $10 per month for music streaming.

    Funny how you conveniently left out the companies that give away Apples invention for 50 bucks causing Apple to lose a monopoly on the smart phone.


  • Reply 55 of 146
    I understand and appreciate all of the arguments here.  Nothing is ever completely black and white either....SO many shades of grey!

    Having said all that....and with my own opinions on all aspects of this topic....what keeps leaping out at me is how can you call a company a monopoly when it owns much less than 50% of the market??????
    supadav03rainmaker
  • Reply 56 of 146
    Robert BaumRobert Baum Posts: 5unconfirmed, member
    A long time ago Audible removed In App purchases from the App Store because they didn’t want to pay the 30%. And they do give you a link to sign up at Audible.com or Amazon to pay for your subscription.  Spotify has every right to do just that.  Trouble is, then Spotify would have to do a lot of advertising.  And pay for it.  Part of the percentage Apple takes is for the publicity they give any app when someone searches for it.  So Spotify wants to accept payment via in app purchase, and not pay rent in the store where they are selling?  When was the last time a mall just let the Apple Store, for example, just set up shop and not pay rent or a percentage of sales,(which is how many large malls work)?  Every supermarket sells Heinz ketchup but their own brand as well. Should Heinz get all whiny and say they are at a disadvantage to the cheaper store brand?  Oh, and last I checked, Audible is doing just fine, thanks, with their business model. I doubt their would even still be Spotify if not for the billion IOS devices out there. 
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 57 of 146
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Yeah, not perfect parallels so it really doesn’t address your first question. As for Spotify not being allowed to mention their own store: Can I, as Entenmann’s, be mad at Publix if they don’t let me advertise in their store that my donuts can be bought at the Entenmann’s store for less? No. I’m paying for access to their customer base who may not know my product exist if not for being on their store shelf. So to try and direct those customers away from their store to mine so I can make more profit seems more unfair than them telling me I can’t advertise like that in their stores. 


    Side comment to address iPhone users only accessing App Store - Playstation users can only access PSN. Is it right that if I own a Playstation I’m forced to use PSN for digital content? Why can’t I access Xbox Live Market Place or Nintendo eShop? Because if you choose the product (iPhone, Playstation) you do so knowing that you are also buying into their ecosystem and if you don’t like that, that you buy an Xbox or Switch. 
    I do not find the analogy of two supermarkets fitting here. How is the website of Spotify where you can only sign up for Spotify remotely similar to the entire App store? The mentioning here will also not happen in the App store, but in the app of Spotify itself, again making the analogy not really fit.

    I personally am not a gamer. Are the season passes of different games not possible to buy without a significant cut from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo? Is it not possible for game developers to mention their own website to buy these passes? Otherwise the situation is not similar
    They cannot link outside stores on PSN although they can advertise the ability to purchase the game or season passes on their websites via other methods (social media, etc). If bought through PSN, Sony takes a cut. Just like Steam takes 30% cut when you buy game from their store. This isn’t an apple only thing. 
    I do think this Spotify and Apple situation is unique though and simply saying someone else is doing the somewhat similar is not reason to accept it. The fact that Apples controls the platform to such an extend while competing directly in the music streaming service space deserves scrutiny. 
    Well I think consumers should decide if it deserve scrutiny, not the business themselves, since they may have alterior motives. And I have yet to see consumers, in large numbers, taking issue with this. Spotify doesn’t care about the consumer. They aren’t doing this for “us”. They are doing it to help their business. So no, to me, it doesn’t deserve scrutiny. But that is just one guy on the internets opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. I speak for me only. 
    But do you think the average consumer has any idea that this is happening? They see two apps, where the one from Apple is cheaper or where the one from Apple is the only with a subscription option. Will they complain or simply buy the cheaper/only one?

    And of course is Spotify protecting their business, that is kind of important to survive as a business and Apple is doing the same. Do you think antitrust complaints should only be filed by consumers? If so, can you give an example of such a thing ever happening? 
    I can’t speak for the average consumer & neither can you, so I can’t abseer that.  And many antitrust lawsuits have been brought about by consumers, usually through our constituents in the government acting in our behalf. Sherman Antitrust Act was brought on by people/consumers via our governmental reps. States voted these laws in but needed the natl government to make it work since it only applies to intrastate business prior. 
    edited March 16
  • Reply 58 of 146
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,624member
    tehabe said:
    When it comes to distribution of applications for iOS Apple is a monopolist. You can't buy applications anywhere else. On the other hand, Spotify is not a monopolist, there are many music streaming services on the market, including Apple Music who are competing with Spotify. And currently i it is doubtful if you could charge more than $10 per month for music streaming.
    It is wrong to think of the App Store as merely a distributor or retailer.  When you buy a hula hoop from Walmart, you would never worry that the hula hoop might allow unnamed people to access the private information in your phone.  From there, I'm sure you can figure out why it does not make sense to complain that Apple doesn't allow alternative distributors for iPhone Apps. 
  • Reply 59 of 146
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,624member
    Abalos65 said:
    I don't know what Spotify would offer, however I personally do not find it fair that Spotify cannot mention that you could subscribe to Premium via the web and would like Apple to allow this. 
    I'm with you buddy.  I'm also upset that when I walk into a Toyota dealer, I don't see any ads for Honda telling me what promotions and discounts they are offering and where their nearest dealer is.  And then, when I go to Target, they never mention that the item I'm looking for is cheaper at Walmart.  Bastards, all of them.
    supadav03rainmakern2itivguycgWerks
  • Reply 60 of 146
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,624member
    Abalos65 said:
    urahara said:
    Abalos65 said:
    supadav03 said:
    I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me. 
    The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
    Which stores can Android users access to download the apps?
    Play Store, Amazon app store, Samsung app store, F-Droid and any application can be downloaded via a browser (see ApkMirror for example or Fortnite), which also means many online app stores
    And that is the number 1 reason I avoid the security and privacy hell that is the Android ecosystem.
    AppleExposedsupadav03chaicka
Sign In or Register to comment.