Hacker News Reader

Comment by simion314 | Hacker News Reader

The issue I see is this, Apple Music does not play fair, it is similar priced with the competition but it is in fact subsidized by Apple, any application or service it is in danger because if Apple wants and it is competent it can create an Apple version of it and give itself smaller prices(or free), native integrations that the competition does not have. This is not fair for the users (it may be fair f5rom other POV but not for the users, fair competition is better look like IE as an example)

View on HN

Apple Music is priced about the same AND they pay the artists more. Sorry but what's the scam?

Consumers pay the same price. Artists earn more. Who cares how Apple shuffles fictional numbers in their internal accounting?

The thing is obvious and I will explain it again, using a made up example so less emotions are attached

1 I have an app or service say X and I sell it for 5$ and this is the lowest price I can afford

2 Apple wants a 30% cut, so I will have to make my app 7$ .

all is fine so far, the problem is at step 3

3 Apple clones my app names it iX(my original app was named X), makes it 5$ (or bundles it with some gift cars or other deals if you give them more money).

4 Apple's iX gets access to private APIs, is cheaper(or free) since is subsidized, Apple also forces me not to remove from my X app any links to my webpages if I sell things there

Now, please, consider THE USER, what does the user get:

- the user gets less options if my app X is killed or I remove it from the store

- the user pays more if I raise the prices

- the user does not see m,y sale pages because I can't show it in the app

- the X app that some(a big number of ) users consider it better can't access native features like iX can

So, get 30% or whatever you want but compete fair.

With that idea, we should forbid grocers from charging less in-store for their brand name items that compete directly with mainstream brands (Safeway Select, WholeFoods 360, etc)

Can you comment on my point and not add an "What about x" ? My point is about the user, do I benefit is a supermarket makes it own products cheaper, Yes , but if it makes my preferred product more expensive to force me to buy the product they want, this does not benefit me,

again, tell me about what the benefit is for the user/consumer not what about x, the market shares, the laws in US, free market ....

The consumer gets an equivalent service for cheaper, that is like literally the definition of consumer benefit in economics. If you truly believe that X is better than iX than you can pay the extra money for X, but if iX is just as good and is cheaper than X the consumer benefits because they can spend less to get the same service.

This is wrong, because you get it cheaper because the better product price was inflated.

I get your point. I got your point the first time. But there are a lot of "ifs" in your hypothesis.

Meanwhile Apple is not attempting to undercut Spotify in the retail space. And they are paying artists substantially more than Spotify for the music so they're clearly not attempting to run a more profitable business.

There is no IF, all Apple apps have unfair advantages, not only financial but I also mentioned access to private APIs.

The user looses when there is not enough competition, like you get stuck with a worse browser (but in this case this may be a deliberate thing to protect the app store)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com