Regardless of pricing, this is Windows/Internet explorer vs. Netscape all over. Easy to see Apple introduce features tied to Apple Music that Spotify can't because it doesn't have the same control over iOS
That's true it did, but there were perfectly reasonable alternatives such as CDs. That was always the problem with the argument against iTunes Music Store. As time went on other DRM free stores came around like Amazon.
The difference with the App Store (full disclosure: I don't think there's anti-trust issues here) is that it's THE ONLY place to buy apps for iOS. There's no place to get a substitute (HTML isn't competitive).
The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store.
>
The case against the app store is far more compelling in the one against the iTunes Music Store.
Well what makes the case compelling to the original parent point is not exclusive access but market share. Apple's iPod (hardware players) and iTunes Store (digital music store) had a dominant 70%+ USA market share for most of the past decade. In comparison the iPhone has been between 40%-50% USA market share for the past 5 years (the iPad though has 60%-70%+ market share).
What makes a case compelling for Anti-trust issues though is not market share per se but ABUSE of that market share. A compelling case can be made that Apple is using their market share to muscle in from the digital music downloads business to the digital music streaming business (preferential links between iTunes and Apple Music etc) with unfair tactics against Spotify and other competitors (Rdio for one has already been driven out of business)
Apple have 100% of the market share in distributing apps in the Apple ecosystem. If you define the "market" as the ecosystem then Apple is in monopolistic control of it, and by extension violates competition law.
In that case, Facebook has a 100% monopoly on its website, I want it to be opened up so anyone can add pages without oversight! Or Twitter! Or hacker news! Why should we have to follow the rules of the platform as chosen by its creators? (Straw man and all that)
If Microsoft chooses to operate a store on the XBox, it should give its own services and competing services an even playing field. It is anti-consumer to do otherwise, which is why competition laws exist.
A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate.
What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell?
Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal.
In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.
Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment.
As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. So if you're going to disallow a Sony branded music streaming service then you also have to disallow a Microsoft branded music streaming service, otherwise you're using your monopolistic position abusively.
You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market.
Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.
> Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market.
And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market.
> You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market.
Law is expansive. When competition laws were written several securities didn't really exist, but the law expanded to encompass them. There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace.
Ultimately competition law exists as a concept to protect consumers, it is clear as day that Apple is abusing its monopolistic control of its app store in a way that hurts consumers. Even if existing law wasn't able to expand to encompass that situation, new law could and should.
PS - I love the people who turn up late and downvote every comment on one side of a discussion.
> That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market.
Now who's making up arbitrary markets?
> Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace.
Apple allows no other app stores on its platform. There is no competition.
> Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists.
Android is not allowed on Apple's hardware or in Apple's ecosystem.
> I love when one side of a discussion is completely wrong and is not contributing to the discussion.
So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing).
You're right, I'm not contributing to your echo chamber by having the audacity of disagreeing with your baseless opinion presented as fact.
This subthread has turned into a tedious spat and become increasingly uncivil. You particularly have violated the HN guidelines more than once, by calling names in the thread, complaining about downvotes, and getting personal. Please don't do those things on this site.
"So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing)."
No, you're not contributing because you're trying to define arbitrary markets to prove your point. And when told that's not how it works, you continue to base everything off the arbitrary markets that you've defined.
"A better analogy would be if Microsoft opened an app store on the XBox (which they have/do) and then blocked Sony from selling apps there, or charged Sony a premium rate."
Honestly could be. Since Apple is both sides they could decide to find the cost between divisions in such a way that they were still paying the 30% fee. It just happens that 30% goes to them.
That wouldn't prove either way whether Apple is being mean to Spotify. Kind of a moot point.
Last week I officially switched (reluctantly and with a bad taste in my mouth) from Spotify to Apple Music.
Why? Simply because when I'm driving I want to dictate by voice command what song I want to play. I could not do this with Spotify, that's why I switched.
Next time I won't get an iphone because of the bad taste this experience has left me (the worst part is apple's voice transcription technology is so bad compared to Google's... so half the time even that doesn't work)
I'm curious - I see that Midomi Sound Hound now has voice recognition in iOS 9, which I assume it gets from either licensing Google Now, Cortana, or directly from the companies that provide functionality for those. Why couldn't Spotify just do that? Would that solve your problem?
You would still need to find your way to the Spotify app though, so that defeats the point -- because you have to use your hand to unlock the phone, open the app, etc.
Compare this with being able to play a song by simply saying "Hey Siri play Beatles' Rain"... and that is it.
... And then find your way to search icon, click x to clear current query, hit microphone icon to say song name? By this point I've probably killed 9 people on the road while driving.
Compare this with "hey Siri play bob Dylan's blowing in the wind" and it working just with this
Even if Apple did open Siri up and provide a "music playing intent" for Siri like they did for messages, it would still be something like "play something by the Rolling Stones using Spotify". Is that much different from "open Spotify" and once Spotify is open "Play something by the Rolling Stones"?
So, I have an iphone 6s -- and I use Siri a _lot_. Mostly I use it when I'm talking to friends or family... e.g. today someone told me he didn't know any of Dylan's songs... and I went "oh, well let me tell you of some!"
Usually when you're talking to someone, and you spend half the time on your device suddenly disconnected from the person you're talking to, that makes things tough. Generally one should optimize for a friction-free experience. Generally, that means trying to do whatever in the least amount of steps.
When Apple refuses to open up siri, it makes things really difficult.
I mean really, this is from direct personal experience. My decision to quit spotify recently was literally this. (another was driving -- I need to go hands-free and least-steps there too for my own sake)
I imagine it will it some point, but you're right right now that's only available for Apple. That means the question is: is the lack of Siri integration a big enough hindrance that it should be considered unlawful interference with competition?
