Google admits Spotify pays no Play Store fees because of a secret deal | TechCrunchumami_wasabi@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.world – 850 points – 7 months agotechcrunch.com128Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentIf you want to start a competitor to Spotify or Google music, you will have to pay those fees making it almost impossible for you to compete.A company giving special access to it's competition on a platform they control is usually used as an indicator of not being anticompetitive. I hadn't considered it from a "collusion" angle.it would be different if it was for all it's competition.Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn't need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome. This could definitely be collusion, but I don't think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.Microsoft didn't make the other browsers pay for the privilege of being a browser though.
If you want to start a competitor to Spotify or Google music, you will have to pay those fees making it almost impossible for you to compete.A company giving special access to it's competition on a platform they control is usually used as an indicator of not being anticompetitive. I hadn't considered it from a "collusion" angle.it would be different if it was for all it's competition.Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn't need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome. This could definitely be collusion, but I don't think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.Microsoft didn't make the other browsers pay for the privilege of being a browser though.
A company giving special access to it's competition on a platform they control is usually used as an indicator of not being anticompetitive. I hadn't considered it from a "collusion" angle.it would be different if it was for all it's competition.Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn't need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome. This could definitely be collusion, but I don't think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.Microsoft didn't make the other browsers pay for the privilege of being a browser though.
it would be different if it was for all it's competition.Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn't need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome. This could definitely be collusion, but I don't think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.Microsoft didn't make the other browsers pay for the privilege of being a browser though.
Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn't need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome. This could definitely be collusion, but I don't think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.Microsoft didn't make the other browsers pay for the privilege of being a browser though.
If you want to start a competitor to Spotify or Google music, you will have to pay those fees making it almost impossible for you to compete.
A company giving special access to it's competition on a platform they control is usually used as an indicator of not being anticompetitive.
I hadn't considered it from a "collusion" angle.
it would be different if it was for all it's competition.
Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn't need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome.
This could definitely be collusion, but I don't think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.
Microsoft didn't make the other browsers pay for the privilege of being a browser though.