Re:Addressing Spotify’s Claims
by throwawaymath on Friday March 15, 2019 @03:45PM
(#19403480)
I don't think you've substantiated your first claim just by linking to the Wikipedia article about predatory pricing. Even the Wikipedia article admits that the devil is in the details, as it were; it's hard to distinguish between anticompetitive pricing and competitive pricing.
You're correct that Apple Music may be a loss leader, but even if it is a loss leader, there's significantly more nuance involved before we can declare it to be predatory pricing.
> But since they also get the 30% cut back.
That's not how that works. If you charge $50/hr as a freelance software developer and you work on your own stuff for a day you didn't "get $400 back", you paid $400 in opportunity cost.
That analogy isn’t good because apple doesn’t lose opportunity by charging itself the cut to use the store. There is no indication that apple is limited in how many developers it could take on.
If apple had a limited number of apps and they were declining other apps in lieu of its own, that would be true.
Re:Addressing Spotify’s Claims
by scarface74 on Friday March 15, 2019 @08:44PM
(#19405654)
So if every company that sells that product at a loss to gain market share is guilty of predatory pricing, that would include almost every VC funded company b
Oh the irony! Spotify claim in "Apple Won’t Let Us Share Spotify Deals We Know You’d Love" that Apple won’t let us share awesome deals and promotions — like 99c for three months of Spotify Premium...
Since Spotify have ~36% of the global market (Apple have ~19%) that could reasonably be viewed as predatory pricing.
It's also worth noting that Spotify charge as much as Apple and you can subscribe to the service without using IAP.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing