undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfalcolas4y ago0 comments

So, Spotify is allowed to charge 30% for access to the market it has created, but Google and Apple are not?

An app store costs money too - the creation and maintenance of the billing platform/API, bandwidth, human curation, cross-device storage of saved configurations, user acquisition, etc.

What makes musicians so different from software developers that it's perfectly acceptable for Spotify to take such a large share of the revenue their music has earned?

(To make my own position clear, I don't think any of them deserve 30%)

0 comments

thow-58d4e8b4y ago

The problem with this line of argumentation is - why single out phone OS providers as the only link in the very long supply chain that deserves a cut?

Why not internet provider? Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax?

The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those

What about the phone manufacturer - Xiaomi or Samsung would definitely not reject their fair share

None of this would happen without electricity - power transmission companies deserve a portion

There really isn't a coherent moral argument in favor of the current status quo - it's simply about market power, nothing else

yywwbbn4y ago

Because Apple and a Google created a market where there was none. It basically impossible to make money from selling mobile apps to consumers before them.

Had Verizon singlehandedly created the internet and had no real competitors they might have been able to tax it’s usage. Thank God that did not happen, though…

cortesoft4y ago

I am fine with them charging whatever they want, as long as they don't prevent competitors from opening alternative markets. The problem is the monopoly, not the price.

1 more reply

falcolasOP4y ago

My point is: Spotify's 30% is not a fair cut. It's no more fair a cut as the Apple/Google/et.al. cut from developers.

Since HN is a lot more familiar with the cuts the stores take out of developers earnings, it makes for a nice point of comparison.

dchftcs4y ago

Spotify has very low margins so it's hard to say 30% isn't fair. Any lower they'd have trouble paying their costs. Streaming in general helped the music industry revenue grow. You can say Spotify might be bad at business for not making much money on a 30% cut, but overall they seem to be serving decent value for money to the copyright holders and customers. Before streaming, the overhead was a lot higher, with the retail distribution chain taking a comparable cut.

giantrobot4y ago

> Verizon's infrastructure costs money, too - should they also be eligible for a 30% tax?

> The data will be transmitted through Cisco routers or Nokia's BTS - it costs a lot of R&D to develop those

This is a novel idea. Verizon and Cisco could charge a price above their cost. They could call this a "profit margin". You might be on to something here.

JoBrad4y ago

Because those other companies are paid for their service directly. You don’t directly pay for the app stores.

heavyset_go4y ago

Developers already pay Apple $100 a year to publish apps on the App Store. Google charges a fee for access to the Play Store, as well.

ksec4y ago

Access to User, and Specifically Mobile Apps users, are split between Apple "App Store" and Google "Play Store".

Access to listener, or even if you limit to Mobile listener, are not bound to Spotify.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse