Hacker News Reader

Comment by Benjammer | Hacker News Reader

Right, because Apple does not want them using the App Store platform to promote, sell, and execute payment on a premium service without paying a cut of the premium price to Apple, as per their explicit platform rules.

View on HN

That’s what I said in my comment, and what Spotify is arguing. They have to follow rules set by Apple that Apple doesn’t apply to Apple Music.

Honest question. Internally, do you know if the Apple Music division of the business still tracks a 30% payment to the App Store division of the business? If this was the case, does that change your opinion here?

I honestly cannot see the legal footing in this whole thing to claim that Apple has any sort of obligation to be "fair" here.

I don’t know if Apple Music has to pay 30% to Apple, but either way It wouldn’t change my opinion and I don’t think it would make a difference to the EU. It’s illegal in most places to use your dominance in one market to your advantage in another. Google got fined by the EU for doing that with Android and Chrome/other GApps. I personally think Apple should allow developers to link to an external payment system for subscriptions/iAPs if they would rather set all that up themselves, but we’ll have to wait and see what the EU decides.

It seems like you've set up an opinion where Apple Music is not allowed to exist in any form because Apple obeying the App Store rules like any other app is not considered enough.

I have no problem with Google Play Music/YouTube Music because those are treated like equal citizens with Spotify on Android. I think it’s better for everyone if Apple Music’s competitors weren’t at a disadvantage just because Apple makes the platform, and I say this as someone who owns many Apple products.

There are many instances where competitors are more or less disadvantaged because the owner of the platform is also competing. Does your favorite supermarket have a store brand? Are you against that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com