> In the end, Epic and Spotify get a fat 30% boost in revenue and nobody notices anything different.
Well, let's be clear here: Neither Epic nor Spotify are selling anything with Apple today. Epic's games are not available on iOS, and Spotify requires you to make all purchases through their website.
Spotify's motivation for wanting change on the iOS platform is primarily due to how limiting Apple's profit share and App Store rules are toward expanding its lines of business. Spotify wants to be able to sell one-off audiobooks; but the margins are already razor thin, and would become impossibly thin if Apple had to be paid 30% of every sale. In the most egregiously and obviously monopolistic thing Apple has ever done, they also sell audiobooks via the Books app, where I'm (wink) certain they're paying the 30% fee to (wink) themselves.
One alternative Spotify hasn't tried is marking audiobooks up 30% to account for the fees. Maybe this is something that is contractually extremely difficult to do? Like, authors and publishing agencies don't assign pricing rights to Spotify, they have to sell the audiobooks at the same price they're available for sale on Amazon/Apple Books/etc. I don't know. But, regardless of that, it's a shit card to deal consumers, anyone with half a brain would just buy the audiobook from Apple Books where its 30% cheaper, and Spotify is very reasonably trying to drive traffic to platforms they have higher agency within.
This isn't really about boosting revenue by 30%. Its about unlocking fundamentally different business models from Apple's grasp; business models which Apple has found extremely profitable for itself, yet refuses anyone else to share in.
No one I know uses Apple audiobooks, I thought it was only Audible in this market.
Spotify is a loss making company finding reasons to blame its problems. What annoys Spotify is that Apple Music exists, this is the age old problem between vendors and distributors, where vendors hate it if Walmart comes out with its own peanut butter jar to sell. The fundamental problem with the vendor here is their product is not differentiated, Apple isn’t worried if Walmart sells other smartphones, they don’t care but Reese’s is extremely worried and will make a huge hula about private labels and such. Spotify as a technology has nothing unique, their audio isn’t even lossless yet, their music is now available through Apple, Amazon, YouTube, Tidal and who knows what else. They basically have some network effects due to social media and are living off a first mover advantage, meanwhile as their see their dominance erode they are trying to find boogeyman’s to blame. If Apple removes 30% tax, Spotify won’t magically become a successful business, Spotify still needs to find something more differentiated than the sea of music streaming apps out there. Netflix kind of did it with originals and superior efficiency, Spotify won’t be able to do anything until they take a hard look at their business and truly diagnose why it’s such a trash heap.
> No one I know uses Apple audiobooks, I thought it was only Audible in this market.
Yes, I'm sure Apple keeps it around out of the goodness of their heart and not because its used and is profitable.
> Spotify is a loss making company
Spotify is profitable [1].
> as their see their dominance erode they are trying to find boogeyman’s to blame
19% YoY MAU growth, 14% premium subscriber YoY growth, 20% YoY revenue growth, 31% YoY profit growth... Spotify is a strong business, in quite a lead over Apple Music [2].
But, none of that matters to you. You've got your narrative you need to construct to support your worldview. Before your misinformation was corrected, it was "Spotify is a trash business, Apple is a great business, go Apple". Now that you've learned that Spotify is a strong business, your narrative will shift: "Spotify pays artists poorly, no wonder their profit is up, Apple Music pays artists more, go Apple". You struggle to imagine a world where Apple might not be the good guy. Metaphor, like mortar on the foundation of your tech worldview.
The Walmart metaphor is interest-- no, I can't even fake cordiality, as proud as you may be to have came up with it, you're roughly fifty-ith in line on claiming originality on that one. My god, Epic sued Apple in 2020, four years ago, your intuition if its worth anything should be screaming at a hundred decibels that there have been infinite conversations on this very site, every argument permuted a thousand times, torn apart, countered and counter-countered, and you trot out something so banal as the "well, Walmart has the Great Value brand" line? Wake me up when Walmart has 60.8% of US citizens exclusively shopping at their stores, and the remaining 39% exclusively shops at Kroger, there's zero other places to buy food (by design, its for Food Security), and as I rub the sleep from my eyes I say "Wow, I guess that guy on HackerNews was right. I bet the food economy Walmart and Kroger gatekeep is a super fair and balanced market which suppliers super-enjoy participating in! Man, I bet there's so much sick innovation happening!"
Do you just blatantly lie thinking no one will click on your links or are you just absolutely ignorant and have no understanding how to read company financials? Here’s the net income on statista : https://www.statista.com/statistics/244990/spotifys-revenue-...
They’ve lost 532 million in their most recent year, the lowest they’ve lost is 32 million. They’ve not had a single profitable year in their entire public history and it seems to only be getting worse for them. I just cursorily follow the stock market and the second you told me Spotify is profitable all the red flags in my head blew up, glad that you confirmed my bias, they are even worse than I thought.
Then you talk about Spotify user metrics, either you are willfully ignorant with no understanding of how to read metrics or you’re just hoping I won’t respond? The obvious metric that you need to judge Spotify by is market share, which Spotify has been on a slow decline on since at least 2019 where they went from 34% to 31% according to tech crunch. The internet is growing, their MAU, revenue etc will all grow, most internet companies can boast that. I literally don’t need to shift my narrative, I know Spotify pays artists poorly, Apple Music does too, any system that pays by stream count is a winner takes all that benefits the biggest artists in my view, Tidal does a much better job.
Probably the fact that I actually know what I’m talking about, and am not falling for your ignorant citations and stats, might be a crack in your world view, you might have been under the comfortable delusion that everyone who doesn’t agree with you has not done the research and is not smart when it turns out that you are actually incredibly ignorant in your research. In fact if you take this as a learning lesson for your life and maybe probe further you will find that for most complex issues, at the highest levels everyone deeply understands the facts, but still can turn out with radically different interpretations of them, consensus on anything other than pure math is hard to achieve. I reckon you’ll be stuck in Plato’s cave forever though, I heard it’s quite comfortable down there.
Net income on Statista? You know you don't need to rely on that shoddy site, right? Spotify is a public company. I linked their Q1 2024 public disclosure. Did you even click on it?
Statistia is more accurate in this case. You didn’t link to a public disclosure per se, you linked to an investor marketing statement formatted like a financial statement. Spotify’s 20-F at the SEC shows that any “operating income” is more than offset by share-based compensation expenses which your investor presentation doesn’t adjust for at all. When counting the liquid stock Spotify pays employees as an expense, they are unprofitable.
Well, let's be clear here: Neither Epic nor Spotify are selling anything with Apple today. Epic's games are not available on iOS, and Spotify requires you to make all purchases through their website.
Spotify's motivation for wanting change on the iOS platform is primarily due to how limiting Apple's profit share and App Store rules are toward expanding its lines of business. Spotify wants to be able to sell one-off audiobooks; but the margins are already razor thin, and would become impossibly thin if Apple had to be paid 30% of every sale. In the most egregiously and obviously monopolistic thing Apple has ever done, they also sell audiobooks via the Books app, where I'm (wink) certain they're paying the 30% fee to (wink) themselves.
One alternative Spotify hasn't tried is marking audiobooks up 30% to account for the fees. Maybe this is something that is contractually extremely difficult to do? Like, authors and publishing agencies don't assign pricing rights to Spotify, they have to sell the audiobooks at the same price they're available for sale on Amazon/Apple Books/etc. I don't know. But, regardless of that, it's a shit card to deal consumers, anyone with half a brain would just buy the audiobook from Apple Books where its 30% cheaper, and Spotify is very reasonably trying to drive traffic to platforms they have higher agency within.
This isn't really about boosting revenue by 30%. Its about unlocking fundamentally different business models from Apple's grasp; business models which Apple has found extremely profitable for itself, yet refuses anyone else to share in.