Google admits Spotify pays no Play Store fees because of a secret deal | TechCrunch

umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.world – 850 points –
Google admits Spotify pays no Play Store fees because of a secret deal | TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
126

You are viewing a single comment

A business paying zero fees is not anticompetitive. One specific business paying zero fees when everyone else has to and doesn’t know about it is.

This old saying feels more relevant than ever in this context:

Mind your own business.

As I see it, there can be various good reasons for striking a "better" deal with some than others, depending on who benefits from who etc. Just like how a retailer wouldn't just pay all the suppliers the same, since they're supplying different amounts of different products that don't all have the same value to the retailer nor customer.

Let's ignore who are the parts in this specific case, but rather discuss the broader principles of free trade. Why would a business have any right to know what their competitors are paying/earning? They can definitely ask as a part of a negotiation process, but in no way can they expect to get an answer. Instead, they can decide not to do business with one who won't share this information with them. This is a good thing.

They've rigged the system so that nobody can compete with them. YouTube music and Spotify pay nothing and everyone else has to pay, meaning smaller business attempting to compete is starting with a severe disadvantage.

This is not your uncle selling an old TV to your neighbour, this impacts lots of consumers and other businesses.

As a consumer I'm a part of the business , so you are actually advocating people to be involved, even though you are contradicting your self because I don't think you understand the implications of "minding your own business".

bro would be catching up on FTX news and their takeaway would be “damn rats snitched on SBF!”