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”.
How? Special back door secret deals for one and only one company is the definition of anticompetitive.
Competition is defined as more than one lol
Edit: I’m special, I am first place! But if you knew it was 1st place of one… I sure hope you think me as noncompetitive…🤣 It’s strange to me to think I’m competitive if I have no competitors.
The thing is that any other competitor music app (or other app in general) faces the monetary barrier that Spotify secretly doesn’t face in order to process subscription payments through Google Play is anticompetitive.
In this way, Google is also acting more like a market-maker than merely a competitive player or partner in a free market, where they can decide who the dominant music streamer could be.
Stuff like this will be used in the anti monopoly cases going on world wide.
I’m all for reigning in monopolies, but I actually don’t see how this is anticompetitive.
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:
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!”
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.
How? Special back door secret deals for one and only one company is the definition of anticompetitive.
Competition is defined as more than one lol
Edit: I’m special, I am first place! But if you knew it was 1st place of one… I sure hope you think me as noncompetitive…🤣 It’s strange to me to think I’m competitive if I have no competitors.
Two of the largest music services in the world colluding to stay ahead of everybody else?
The thing is that any other competitor music app (or other app in general) faces the monetary barrier that Spotify secretly doesn’t face in order to process subscription payments through Google Play is anticompetitive.
In this way, Google is also acting more like a market-maker than merely a competitive player or partner in a free market, where they can decide who the dominant music streamer could be.