Spotify CEO Renews Attack on Apple (reuters.com) 105
Spotify's CEO Daniel Ek renewed his attack on Apple on Wednesday in a series of tweets alleging the iPhone maker "gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting consumers." From a report: Ek tagged a number of sympathetic business leaders in his 21-tweet thread, including Musk, Microsoft president Brad Smith, and Proton founder Andy Yen. On Monday, the world's richest person Elon Musk criticized the fee Apple charges software developers - including his Twitter business - for in-app purchases, and posted a meme suggesting he was willing to "go to war" rather than pay it. Spotify has previously submitted antitrust complaints against Apple in various countries, alleging the 30% charge has forced Spotify to "artificially inflate" its own prices.
Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
No complaints when it works for them but watch those tears flow the second it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How much does the Apple Store infrastructure overhead cost Apple per sale?
Re: Capitalism (Score:2)
My concern is more in using the App approval process as a censorship mechanism. Apple should remove the moderation requirement for apps with user generated content and remove the limitation on apps such as porn, etc. maybe make them
Re: (Score:3)
My concern is more in using the App approval process as a censorship mechanism. Apple should remove the moderation requirement for apps with user generated content and remove the limitation on apps such as porn, etc. maybe make them age restricted, but certainly not deny them outright. That is not advocating free speech.
I don't love Apple's App Store restrictions, but the censorship angle is the part that bothers me least. The government should not be in the business of telling businesses what sorts of speech they must or must not carry. Apple wants to be prudish? That's their business. The US Government has no more business saying Apple needs to carry adult content in its app store than saying that Barnes & Noble needs to stock porn magazines.
For people saying "but Apple has a monopoly!" I call bullshit. Android is ri
Re: (Score:3)
The government should not be in the business of telling businesses what sorts of speech they must or must not carry.
The problem is a couple of companies now effectively control the modern airwaves. Their political whims have more of an impact on free speech than any law. They should be held to a different standard.
Re: Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
This is literally not true. i can post on Twitter from my iPhone without the app. I could look at porn or anything else I choose to on the web on my iPhone.
Re: Capitalism (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with all of that. I just get bored by people spouting rubbish about how Apple or Google prevents them accessing some types of political speech. It's trivially, obviously, patently, not true.
Re: Capitalism (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can read Parler on an iPhone without the need for an app. So Parler were not blocked.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
It sure as shit doesn't cost 30%. Why is Apple so afraid of allowing app developers to use any competing payment solutions for in-app purchases? Maybe because they know they are overcharging?
How can Stripe do it for 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction? Just FYI:
$1 in app purchase: Stripe would get 33 cents, Apple would get 30 cents
$2 in app purchase: Stripe would get 36 cents, Apple would get 60 cents
$5 in app purchase: Stripe would get 45 cents, Apple would get $1.50
$10 in app purchase: Stripe would get 59 cents, Apple would get $3.00
etc.
It's amazingly anticompetitive and abusive, and you fucking know it. Stop being willfully ignorant, or willfully being an apologist.
Re: (Score:2)
It sure as shit doesn't cost 30%. Why is Apple so afraid of allowing app developers to use any competing payment solutions for in-app purchases? Maybe because they know they are overcharging?
How can Stripe do it for 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction? Just FYI:
$1 in app purchase: Stripe would get 33 cents, Apple would get 30 cents
$2 in app purchase: Stripe would get 36 cents, Apple would get 60 cents
$5 in app purchase: Stripe would get 45 cents, Apple would get $1.50
$10 in app purchase: Stripe would get 59 cents, Apple would get $3.00
etc.
It's amazingly anticompetitive and abusive, and you fucking know it. Stop being willfully ignorant, or willfully being an apologist.
I won't claim that 30% isn't too high a fee, but comparing the to Stripe isn't fair since Apple is doing a lot more than being a payment processor.
First they're providing the platform with the iPhone and IOS (I assume the iPhone is profitable, but they could be subsidizing it with the App Store). And second they're reviewing every app that gets submitted [apple.com].
Now also taking their commission on in-app purchases is controversial. If a developer makes the app free but locks functionality behind in-app purchases to
Re: (Score:2)
I won't claim that 30% isn't too high a fee, but comparing the to Stripe isn't fair since Apple is doing a lot more than being a payment processor.
The payment processing is the only thing they charge for.
First they're providing the platform with the iPhone and IOS (I assume the iPhone is profitable, but they could be subsidizing it with the App Store).
They aren't providing that for free, they charge their customers for that, just like Microsoft does for with Windows. They have to provide it because if they didn't then the devices would be useless and wouldn't sell as they'd have no apps since you cannot install apps on them from any place other than Apple's app store.
And second they're reviewing every app that gets submitted [apple.com].
They do that for apps that they don't charge the payment processing fee for as well, that's part of the assurance that customers who
Re: (Score:2)
I won't claim that 30% isn't too high a fee, but comparing the to Stripe isn't fair since Apple is doing a lot more than being a payment processor.
The payment processing is the only thing they charge for.
[...]
And second they're reviewing every app that gets submitted [apple.com].
They do that for apps that they don't charge the payment processing fee for as well, that's part of the assurance that customers who buy and iDevice are paying for.
Apple still needs to cover their other costs regarding app review. Why is it legit to subsidize app review with the purchase cost of the phone but not to subsidize it with the payment processing?
I'm not an Apple fanboy, and 30% sounds high, but I don't think it's fair to use a payment processor as the comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple still needs to cover their other costs regarding app review. Why is it legit to subsidize app review with the purchase cost of the phone but not to subsidize it with the payment processing?
They can structure it however they like but the fact is you don't have to pay for the app to get reviewed, that's part of what the customer expects when they pay for the iDevice. Whether or not Apple takes a cut of subscription/purchase - and in the case of something like Netflix it only depends on whether they are the ones processing the payment - makes no difference there.
Think about the eBay app, it gets reviewed and people buy things using it but Apple doesn't get a cut because they aren't processing th
Re: (Score:2)
This is all true, but it's still not the main thing Apple is doing for devs. The main thing it's doing is gathering more than 1bn customers together in one place, who are characterised by a high propensity to spend, not least because they trust the payment mechanism and that the app won't break their device, and making it super-easy for them to buy a dev's app. That all costs a lot of money. And that's why Apple charges what it does.
Re: (Score:2)
First they're providing the platform with the iPhone and IOS
And they are paid for iPhones and the accompanying OS via the purchase price of the phone. Which, if you haven't noticed, isn't exactly a low price.
And second they're reviewing every app that gets submitted
... which they choose to do, and don't charge squat for if the app is free. And, they charge an annual fee to developers for access to the App Store - don't you think that maybe that fee goes to paying for this service?
The 30% fee for in-app purchases with no alternative is anti-competitive monopolist rent-seeking behavior. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like Apple's behavior on the store, however, as a consumer, the Apple system is the EASIEST by far to see and cancel my subscriptions on.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you, but only because what Stripe would charge is unknown if they had to maintain a mobile OS and mobile app store to serve for billions of iPhones and iPads and who-knows-how-many app developers.
Can an argument be made for Stripe to do all that, and *not* raise their current fees?
I've never owned an Apple product, simply because I *do* believe they charge a hefty premium for their pretty walled garden. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument, because on the surface,
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Stripe have to maintain a mobile OS? They're not selling phones, or mobile operating systems. They're a payment processor, selling payment processing services. Except, you know, when an anticompetitive monopolist locks them out. Literally thousands of web developers have successfully done payment card processing with Stripe on their web apps - are you telling me that somehow this integration becomes far more complex and expensive just because the point of sale happens to be a mobile phone app
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you, but only because what Stripe would charge is unknown if they had to maintain a mobile OS and mobile app store to serve for billions of iPhones and iPads and who-knows-how-many app developers.
Isn't that what users are paying for when they buy an iPhone? Pretty sure they wouldn't be able to charge those prices if there were no way to get apps on the phone and no maintenance for the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
The app store is more than a means of payment. It doesn't make it worth 30% of the cost, but it makes your argument futile wince you're comparing two different services.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the Apple app store provide Spotify, Twitter, and Fortnite that they could not provide for themselves with their own servers and networks they already operate anyway? They are more than capable of hosting app downloads, and their users don't need Apple to connect them with Spotify, Twitter, or Fortnite - they are already users.
Apple is providing no value, while fleecing them for 30% when they could easily write their own payment processing integration with Apple's competition in almost no time at
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right. Please point out any alternative app stores for iOS that didn't involve bending over backwards and jailbreaking the device to use it, past or present. And then you wonder why there aren't any. It wouldn't possibly be because of anti-competitive behavior, would it?
At least with Google I have the option of using others. F-Droid and Amazon Apps exist, as well as individual sideloads of apps.
Why is Apple so afraid of their users being able to have choices?
Re: (Score:2)
Note that only two extremely large companies, Google and Apple, have successfully created a mobile platform and the ecosystem like a storefront around it.
Sure but that has nothing to do with the 30% payment processing fee. That's part of the cost of the device that you pay for, that's why you can use the phone, get OS updates and get all the free apps you like without having to pay that 30% payment processing fee. What do think that $1200 is for? Just the hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30% also gets you
* basic technical support - if a user can't install your app, do you want to answer hundreds of emails, phone calls, and other support avenues teaching people how to do this, or do you want to farm it out to someone? Run a forum and now you have to police it for spam, people who don't get the answer they want and spam your forums with hundreds of identical post
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Spotify, Twitter, and Fortnite already do all the things you listed, so they don't need Apple to do it for them. So why do they have to pay extortive fees for a bunch of shit they're already doing better than Apple ever could, just to get payment processing that they could get much cheaper without any additional development effort since they already have non-Apple payment processing for web sales?
If small guys want to pay the 30% for all that, then have a good time with it. But there
Re: (Score:2)
It sure as shit doesn't cost 30%.
The 30% isn't the cost of the transaction. It's the cost of the service of a billion users provided to developers. Stripe doesn't bring you any additional users.
There's a reason people *want* to be on the App store.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a reason they *don't* want to pay 30% when they only need payment processing.
Re: (Score:2)
The 30% isn't the cost of the transaction. It's the cost of the service of a billion users provided to developers.
And how much does eBay, for example pay Apple for this? They have a free app on the app store, they sell goods through the app but because they don't use Apple's payment processing system they don't pay anything.
So why doesn't Apple charge them? Well because that's how they make billions of dollars in selling their devices, they aren't just selling hardware but selling an application platform and an application plaform with no applications is hardly going to be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much does the Apple Store infrastructure overhead cost Apple per sale?
It's part of the costs of selling devices, they would be completely useless without apps. That's why the "free" apps don't pay anything (even the free apps that only exist to buy stuff like Ebay, Amazon, etc because the payment doesn't go through Apple) and it is only charged as a payment processing fee. Further, this is also why subscription apps like Spotify, Netflix, Prime, etc don't pay a fee to Apple for iOS app users that didn't subscribe using Apple's system, because it's simply a payment processing
Re: (Score:3)
At a bare minimum if Apple has an app that competes with a company in the app store, that company should pay 0% fees IMO (ignoring the argument about what everyone else should pay).
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a monopoly and abuses it to stifle competition. 30% fees to handle a transaction is bullshit.
So, Apple makes apps like Twitter, etc... and wants to stifle their competition? Or Apple charge so much to host apps on *their* App Store that they scare developers off to Android and Google's Play Store and diminish their own offerings?
Not justifying Apple's policies, and 30% obviously seems high, but blanket statement like they're "stifling competition" don't really make much sense. They have a vested interest in being able to offer apps for their devices.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't see how Apple forcing the only app distribution game on their platform to be Apple's app store isn't stifling competition, then you really have no bearing to be speaking in this conversation.
If you don't see how Apple's terms for the app store which say that you can't have apps that offer duplicate functionality to things built into the operating system (see: browsers) isn't stifling competition, then you're just fucking blind or willfully stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't have apps that offer duplicate functionality to things built into the operating system (see: browsers)
So... Firefox isn't available on the App Store?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All web browsers on iOS are required to use webkit as their engine, essentially making the only difference between them is the user interface that they provide, rather than the engine that renders the websites.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a walled garden and a selling point people willingly pay for. If there was no other phone competition then I'd say this argument holds. However there is an entire ecosystem of android phones and no requirement for businesses to do business with apple. If apple doesn't have the "best apps" then the users will move to android phones.
There isn't a monopoly here, this is just plain old capitalism at play. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, removing Apple's ability to create a walled garden *reduces* choice for consumers:
- Today, consumers can choose between a walled garden or open ecosystem
- In the future, if these people have their way, consumers will no longer be able to choose a walled garden ecosystem - despite the fact that a billion-plus people have done exactly that when they could have chosen open instead. Lots of people *like* walled gardens, including me, for mobile. They like security, simplicity, privacy, trust etc. They t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've got your incredibly witty insult out of the way, you wanna come up with a substantive disagreement with what I said, or is that too much like hard work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you've really missed the point. At the moment there is a choice between walled garden and open. If you had your way, there would be no choice of walled garden. Lots of people prefer walled gardens. You say "that's stupid, there's no benefits". SFW? At the moment, it's their choice, their money, their life. Why should they not be able to buy a walled garden? Why should you be able to take that choice away from them?
I'm saying you, because you appear to back this change. Obviously, it's not you personall
Re: (Score:2)
Walled gardens are not effective walled gardens if devs can go outside the walled gardens, because when big apps do this, users are no longer able to get the value from the walled garden for those apps.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not a prison, because, and I realise this is a very tough thing to understand, *you don't have to buy an iPhone*.
And an iPhone has the walled garden and the Mac does not because iPhones are used by many more people and in ways that are inherently much more risky (did you know that people carry their iPhones with them everywhere but don't do that with their Mac? What an amazing revelation it was to me to learn that different devices have very different use cases, and that some use cases are riskier
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
Not justifying Apple's policies, and 30% obviously seems high, but blanket statement like they're "stifling competition" don't really make much sense.
Apple prevents competing app stores and/or sideloading applications. QED, Apple stifles competition, because you cannot compete with them in any way. You cannot use the device without their say-so. Replace "Apple" in this context with "Microsoft" and "iphone" with "PC" and I daresay you would not find the situation so hard to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is required to open up their own device to competition. That's nothing more than a business decision they can choose to make. Now if on the other hand you don't actually produce said device then you have a very different competition argument.
- Apple demanding only Apple's App Store gets used on Apple's iPhone = okay. That's how products work.
- Google demanding only Google's Play Store gets used on Google Pixel = okay. It's their product.
- Google demanding only Google's Play Store gets used on Samsung
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A monopoly on what?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize apple uses it's position as a phone company to stifle any other companies from releasing phones to compete against them. Interesting. I thought they only had roughly 40% of the market.
Apple has decided that to use their services, this is the price. They calculated what they believe the market is worth and there is nothing in the world stopping companies from simply only targeting their competition.
The app store is not a monopoly simply because the google play store exists and has roughly th
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has a monopoly and abuses it to stifle competition. 30% fees to handle a transaction is bullshit.
I won't give Apple much love either, but this is really the pot calling the kettle black. Spotify has it's own... checkered relationship? I'm trying to be polite... with artists.
Does he also hate the abusive nature of delivery services? They charge serious transaction fees. I got my regular hoagie from my favorite place today. I decided to "sideload" (pick it up myself) rather than use a service. Why? You pay extra, it varies a little depending on the service, for the food. How much extra? Add anywhere
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Apple is going into the smart-generated-playlist-that-turns-into-every-song-sounding-the-same-after-twenty-minutes market.
However will we choose?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see that at all.
If I start with the Gilberto/Goetz Girl from Ipanema on Spotify, I'm going to get hours of Bossa Nova, Samba and mid-century Jazz.
If I start with Philip Glass's Knee 5, I'm going to get hours of contemporary serialist/minimalist classical music, maybe crossing over into classical choral and ambient music.
If I start with Kim Petras' Throat Goat, I'm probably going to hear the playlist from my local Deja Vu.
At no point do any of these things converge. From a listening experience, I'd s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the main user but I've tried it for a bunch of different things:
1) can't make a mix tape to save its life - if I seed it with a popular music genre of a given period, it will give only heavy-rotation "greatest hits" i.e. things that got a lot of air play
2) it seems to find no 'deep cuts' - if I choose specific 'best of' type songs, it acts as if it was a generic song from that band/genre and seems to have no quiet sub-grouping of cult hits (I'm not expecting magic, just stuff that fans would know) a
Re: (Score:2)
And what the likes of Epic and Spotify conveniently leave out with their whinging about Apple, is that 30% is a pretty standard App Store commission. PSN Store? 30%. xBox? Also 30%. Google Play? Again, 30%. Samsung Galaxy, Amazon Fire, Steam... yup... 30%
Some of them have tiers, where the percentage goes down with time or volume, or new developers get a discount at first. But 30% is the predominant industry default. And if you want to monetize your streaming content at the likes of YouTube or Twitch
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That difference should only matter to the consumer when there are so many not apple options on the market in terms of phones. Consumers either don't care or like it that way. In either case there is nothing for the government to step in and solve until apple has a monopoly on cell phones.
Re: (Score:1)
Use the Netflix model (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix avoided the app store tax by requiring payment(s) directly on their web site, and recently started using the "reader" app redirect payment option. Spotify can choose to do the same (or continue to pay the middle man (Apple)).
A little more than this . . . Netflix took their f*****g ball and went home on the AppleTV hardware so you can't search, manage viewing history, etc. Their AppleTV app also only gets featureless updates.
Just to spite Apple. Taking functionality away from the viewers. Excluding themselves from any benefits from their exclusive titles from coming up for the user.
But hey, we're getting commercials soon . . . at least that's some new content since they apparently gave up giving us new things on a monthly basi
Re: (Score:3)
But hey, we're getting commercials soon . . . at least that's some new content since they apparently gave up giving us new things on a monthly basis.
They're going to be really, really good commercials though. Promise.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon does the same.
Apple says "who"? (Score:2)
On Monday, the world's richest person Elon Musk criticized the fee Apple charges software developers - including his Twitter business - for in-app purchases, and posted a meme suggesting he was willing to "go to war" rather than pay it.
World's richest ($206 Billion) guy threatens world's richest ($2.65 Trillion) company over free app guy bought for $44B that's losing +$3M/day (by his estimation). I wonder how that will go...
Re: (Score:2)
$3M * 365.25 = 1.09575B / year
$206B / 1.09575 = 187.999 years of runway without ANY OUTSIDE INVESTMENT.
If Twitter is losing $3M a day, then Musk can only afford to keep it afloat for another 188 years by himself. Oh no!
Never mind that Twitter is burning all that money because of Musk walking in and fucking the place up in a matter of weeks, after buying it with a leveraged buyout that practically guarantees unprofitability. What was Twitter's burn rate previous to him buying it and fucking up their incomi
oh look another crybaby ceo (Score:1)
don't like apple's rules for THEIR platform that they created and operate at their cost? Don't use it. Same applies to Google.
Boo-Hoo; we tied our income to another companies products because we can't operate without their products/platform but now we demand the run that platform for free so we can make even more money.
fuck off with that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman. You really knocked the hell out of it too. Unfortunately, you answered a question that nobody asked.
Nobody is saying Apple shouldn't charge something for payment processing in the app store. Everyone except Apple, their apologists and fanboys, and the wildly uninformed is saying that 30% is ridiculous. Stripe charges 2.9% + $0.30 for a transaction - what do they know about this shit that allows them to perform the same service at 10% of the cost of Apple?
Sure seems like Apple is just juic
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you reveal the critical information you seem to have that proves that Apple indeed only provides a payment processing service?
Sure: For large customers like Spotify, Twitter, and Epic; the only reason they pay Apple 30% of in-app purchases, is because APPLE FORCES THEM TO IF THEY WANT TO BE ON IPHONES.
These organizations are more than capable of making their own integrations with other payment processors, because they already have for their web platforms. They don't need any of the other "value" that Apple presents, because they already do it better than Apple does for them, such as support, advertising, and distribution of cont
I Don't Think Spotify Cares About Consumers (Score:1)
I was a paying Spotify customer who left when I got sick of scrolling past a host of content I wasn't interested in to get my music. Spotify tried to coerce, cajole, and then bully people into consuming podcasts to help subsidize their bottom line. It's not my fault that Spotify can't be profitable (enough?) on music streaming alone. So I guess I'm confused. Does Apple's app store fee actually cause Spotify to artificially inflate their prices? If so, why was it necessary to ruin my paid experience to impro
Re: (Score:1)
(Streaming services pay out around 80% of gross revenue for music, labels take like 73% of that and giving artists around 11%, it's highway robbery and many people still complain about what streaming services pay for music - artist payout could and should be quadrupled without streaming services paying more, just labels ta
Re: (Score:1)
Apple isn't taking 30% of every subscription though, they only get that cut from subscriptions through the iOS app. I started my subscription on the web and don't use Apple products. Yeah, I know that the music industry is dysfunctional and broken, and everyone but the middlemen get fleeced. You're not going to get any argument from me on that point. I'd like to see just how much actual money Apple's cut of Spotify's iOS subscriptions actually amounts to. Currently, the iOS app won't let you upgrade to Prem
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This still doesn't resolve the conflicting statements... so which is it? Are the record companies taking so much of their earnings that they can't make a profit on music, or is Apple making them artificially inflate their prices when you can't even buy Spotify's product on iOS? The answer is that it's all lip service, this is a CEO trying to maximize earnings and maybe trying to garner some good will in the process without, you know, doing something for consumers at all.
Spotify forced to artificially inflate prices? (Score:2)
Spotify has previously submitted antitrust complaints against Apple in various countries, alleging the 30% charge has forced Spotify to "artificially inflate" its own prices.
Not justifying Apples policies/fees, but doesn't everyone pay this? If so, then it's a level playing field. Why is Spotify "forced" to "artificially inflate" it's prices? And is that opposed to inflating them otherwise? Everyone knows about Apple's fees, so Spotify should simply be able to justify things by pointing the finger at Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Not justifying Apples policies/fees, but doesn't everyone pay this?
Not Apple Music.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not justifying Apples policies/fees, but doesn't everyone pay this?
Not Apple Music.
Thanks, didn't think of that (though don't know what their internal financials are like) but, if so, then Spotify's complaint is much better example than Musk and Twitter.
Re: (Score:1)
then Spotify's complaint is much better example than Musk and Twitter.
Agree
Re: (Score:2)
What would this even mean? If Apple Music had to pay fees to Apple, wouldn't Apple be getting its own money?
Are you saying that Apple should increase their Apple Music price 30% and... do what with that higher revenue?
The only argument Spotify et al have is that the storefront owners collude to keep the storefront fees at 30%.
I would be interested to see what happens if one of the storefronts voluntarily reduces their fee to 20% - would Spotify et al leave the higher-priced one? Or would they realize that t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was never profitable on that platform, I'd say that's wholly on Spotify - why'd they ever even go there? Apple has never increased their fees, so if Spotify's not profitable now and they were in the past, isn't that Spotify's poor business acumen?
I guess if I was a Spotify shareholder, I'd be happy to shed market share and be in the black, instead of "oh hey we have huge market share but lose m(b?)illions!"
Spotify does the same. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see why (Score:2)
Something like this always ends with (Score:1)
Another Viewpoint (Score:2)
Company A has a successful business model
Company A wants to put their business model on Company B's platform
Company B's business model does not let Company A's business model work on Company B's platform
Company A complains that Company B is being unfair and the government needs to step in and force Company B to let Company A make money on Company B's platform
Know how you know Spotify isn't acting in good faith? They explained that web-streaming Spotify over Safari broke because Apple didn't support Widevine
Re: (Score:1)
Business Model (Score:2)
As for "company A's platform", there is legislation on this for multiple reason, but from your viewpoint, if it is a Telco that has 40 percent market share, they are free to restrict access to their network and users as they see fit?
Not necessarily. It's more along the lines of Company A's business model depends on making phone calls at a particular price point. If Telco B charges more than that price point, it's not Telco B's duty to change it's business model to accommodate Company A's business model.
The way around this is simple. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)