Comment by lbacaj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbacaj | Hacker News Reader

I love the analysis that Ben does on so many pressing tech related issues.

I agree with the majority of what he said but I disagree that it is that clear cut that Apple’s rent seeking isn’t hurting costumers. While I’m no lawyer either, the Supreme Court case that is relevant here was dealing with the state of Illinois as a customer and the mass consumer markets are two different things and I believe the Supreme Court will deal with this in a separate lens.

Could be very well that Apple does win but the fact that a product like Spotify, to name one, is cheaper when bought through the Spotify website and more expensive on the App Store shows clearly that in fact this does harm customers. I think the Supreme Court could rule in a whole other direction on this because of that fact coupled with Apple allowing no other competition on the platform, meaning no way to download a second App Store or even link to purchasing the product on a website especially for digital goods.

In your own example, you have the option to buy Spotify through other, readily-available distribution channels. That’s evidence against a claim that Apple is abusing its position in an anticompetitive manner. The test for monopoly isn’t what’s best for consumers; it’s whether a dominant player is abusing its position to restrain competition.

I think what you're saying is true for probably 99% of apps on the App Store.

In Spotify's particular case, however, Apple owns the marketplace (App Store) as well as a giant competitor in iTunes/Apple Music (and if I'm not mistaken - I'm not an iOS user- Apple Music is pre-installed on every iOS device).

The music app is preinstalled. It happens to be the method you use to access the Apple Music service (and yes, Apple has been pushing that service increasingly, to my mild personal irritation).

However, it's also the method you use to access music you own that is on the iPhone, whether you've synced it from your computer or purchased it through the iTunes Store.

Now, maybe I'm just a dinosaur for wanting mainly to listen to music I own rather than streaming services all the time, but I don't think you can just claim that use case doesn't exist or matter.

I'm not saying that use case doesn't matter, but one could make the argument that the deep integration between Apple Music/iTunes into the Music app combined with a 30% premium on competitors selling music subscriptions in an app could be a non-level playing field.

Having said all of that, I think that because iOS is Apple's platform, and they should basically be able to do whatever they want with it.

A key element in proving anticompetitive claims is defining the market. Even If the market is defined narrowly as “music on ios”, alternatives to Apple Music exist. But that’s not taking into account the option to buy a non-iOS device. If you expand the market to include other os’s, Apple isn’t even dominant. Back when MS got dinged for bundling Explorer, they were dominant in the broadly-drawn PC os market, across all devices and os’s.

> a product like Spotify, to name one, is cheaper when bought through the Spotify website and more expensive on the App Store

That's Spotify's choice though, right? They could charge iOS IAP subscribers the exact same price as non-IAP subscribers and absorb the 30% loss in much the same way a bunch of supermarkets absorb various unpopular taxes.

Not really. Spotify and Apple Music both have to pay record labels and other rights holders. Spotify’s profits on a subscription are likely much less than 30%. They would go bankrupt if they tried to match Apple Music’s App Store price.

> Spotify and Apple Music both have to pay record labels and other rights holders.

Whereas the products in a supermarket appear from nowhere without any money changing hands?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com