|
|
|
|
|
|
by j2bax
3645 days ago
|
|
|
Why should they though? This is their monteization strategy and it seems to be working well for them. Why should they provide a platform free of charge for Spotify to make money off of? After all, they are only charging for Spotify customers that became paying subscribers through their platform (App Store). If Spotify advertised and captured a user outside of their platform they don't charge for those subs. How is this difficult to make sense of? |
|
|
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ because it's anti-competitive and anti-consumer?
There used to be a type of monetization strategy in the USA known as 'company towns': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
The company owned the land, built the stores, so it only seemed right that they payed their workers in scrip and only allowed merchants to accept scrip in the town, yes? Eventually the country decided that such monetization platforms were too controlling and unfair...