Hacker News Reader

Comment by whiddershins | Hacker News Reader

I don’t see Spotify making any suggestion of a solution that addresses their concerns without boxing Apple out of the payment process entirely.

I get why what Apple has in place is onerous. I also see that Apple needs to get paid somehow. So what’s the third option?

Edit: My vote for the third option has always been, and remains, allowing of side loading apps. And this can be only for users who enable it. But it seems like this solves every complaint people have about the App Store.

View on HN

> I also see that Apple needs to get paid somehow.

What makes Apple entitled to a cut of Spotify's revenue?

Because they do the expensive work of marketing and making a phone that appeals to rich people, who actually spend money on stuff.

Spotify isn’t giving Apple a cut of revenue per se, so much as it’s spending money on ads for a specific audience in a specific way.

I suppose Google too could make Android phones more attractive.

I had no idea Apple advertises on behalf of Spotify. Thanks for this. Do you have any examples?

I think the parent was implying that they advertise for Spotify in the same way that your local grocery advertises bags of Doritos, not that there is some explicit advertising relationship going on.

They're not entitled, and neither is Spotify entitled to sell on the app store on terms they want. It's just a business transaction. It either works for both sides, or it doesn't.

It's understandable that Spotify doesn't want to pay that cut, and they can try what they're trying, or also just leave the app store.

Speaking of entitlements, they're also not entitled to influence on small countries law makers, but they can try what they're trying with that too: https://www.bloomberglinea.com/english/spotify-threatens-to-...

What makes Spotify entitled to be on Apple’s App Store?

I think the third way is to allow side loading apps.

don't really see how spotify are different to apple

it's another middleman taking a cut

What makes Walmart entitled to a cut of General Mills revenue?

Walmart is to General Mills as is Spotify to artists.

Apple is to Spotify as is the construction company which made the building Walmart is using to Walmart.

I have not heard of construction companies claiming entitlement to a cut of Walmart's turnover.

Apple is a retail store that charges a fee to place an item on one of their shelves.

Every grocer in the USA does this. Want shelf space? Pay me.

Digital assets don’t preclude this transaction.

Slotting fees are just at contentious as Apple's 30% cut but the comparison is not apt as it would only work if Walmart were the only outlet available to any supplier to sell their goods. Walmart does not have a monopoly whereas Apple does when it comes to selling to Apple users. If Walmart were to demand a 30% cut for your product there are many other venues you can turn to up to and including opening your own store. This does not work in the company town of Appleton where only one retailer - Apple - is allowed to sell goods. Want to sell in Appleton? You'll have to go through Apple who gets to set the rules.

I'm pretty sure retailers pay wholesalers, not the other way around.

Look up "slotting fees".

Behold.

They're a retailer...?

So without Walmart they wouldn't sell as much product? Kind of like Spotify and iOS devices?

And what do you think the App Store is?

It's not a retail store. The App Store does not purchase, hold, and resell inventory from wholesalers. These are necessary functions to be considered retail.

You do not seem to know how retail works, and have created an arbitrary definition of it to exclude the App Store.

What is your definition of retail?

I checked Wikipedia and it had a pretty terse definition: the sale of goods and services to consumers. I have to agree with GP that another definition seems to have been selected for the sake of excluding the App Store.

Whether or not one thinks they deserve a 30% cut, Apple definitely works to make sure the App Store can at least deliver the application to the hardware and their interfaces ultimately bring Spotify's interface to the user. That fairly reasonably fits in with "the sale of goods and services to consumers". In-app purchases are more arguable (keep in mind it necessarily uses Apple Pay) but this thinking that the App Store is not comparable to retail seems to be a little narrow-minded.

I side with you. A bit tongue in cheek, the 3rd option will probably this here: sooner or later this is going to end in another anti-trust trial or at least here in Europe, in a another regulation attempt.

Maybe they can look at how much spotify pays the artists who are literally their only product as well. They want to complain about apple rent seeking with part of their businees when their entire business is rent seeking.

They can fuck off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com