• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m all for reigning in monopolies, but I actually don’t see how this is anticompetitive.

      • Eggyhead@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • pirat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • nixcamic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

          • desconectado@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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”.

            • rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

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

      • nixcamic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

      • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Two of the largest music services in the world colluding to stay ahead of everybody else?

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.