• Ghostalmedia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1481 year ago

    I’m not a big fan of the high fees, but I’m even less of a fan of big developers being treated differently than the little guy.

    • Einar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      361 year ago

      Some banks do this *** too. The more money you deposit, the less fees you pay. Because ‘premium customer’ and all this.

      • squiblet
        link
        fedilink
        291 year ago

        Yep Chase for instance: over 75k on deposit, no ATM withdrawal fees anywhere! You know, helping the people who need it the least.

          • squiblet
            link
            fedilink
            191 year ago

            From your bank in person, no. From your bank’s own ATM, no. From an ATM run by another bank out of network, yes, there are often fees and your bank will waive them under certain circumstances.

            • @Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              If it’s run by another bank out of network, your bank cannot waive them. The fees are set by the owner of the ATM and that fee goes to them.

              Your bank can just cover/refund the fees for you.

              • squiblet
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Yes, I understand that, since obviously they’re two separate entities. Often banks themselves have a fee, which they waive. Then they reimburse the fee the other party charged.

            • umami_wasabiOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not if you withdraw from a store. I forgot the exact term. Just grab a drink or snack and select the withdraw amount on the card reader.

              Yes. Technically paid extra but at least I get something back. Not ideal but better than using an ATM and risk a out of network fee.

              • squiblet
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                that’s true, there’s no fee withdrawing money at a debit point of sale.

          • @bdonvr@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            Not necessarily. Usually your bank will have ATMs you can use fee-free. And often partner bank ATMs as well.

            Out of network ATMs can charge fees, which you will prompted to accept before withdrawing, but that’s not from your bank. That’s the company running the ATM. Generally $3-5

            I guess some shitty banks could charge fees on top of that…

            Mine charges no fees and actually reimburses ATM fees (a certain amount per month)

            • @EineCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Chase absolutely charges you for using a non-network ATM. I have a friend that has Chase for their bank and will not withdraw from a non-chase ATM even if the ATM has no fees because Chase will just charge him after the fact.

              Makes me wonder why he still bothers keeping Chase.

              • squiblet
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Same here. I have a bank that charged their own fee in addition to whatever the ATm owner charges, so any withdrawal ends up being $8-10.

          • @mellejwz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            In the Netherlands as well, as well as when you buy stuff at a store. There’s always a small fee when you use a debit or credit card.

        • umami_wasabiOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          And charge you a monthly service fee unless you have a job (regular transaction into the account per billing cycle), which isn’t a thing in other places.

          Ripping off poor and jobless people. Yes.

          • @TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Not sure if it’s still a thing, but PNC would charge you a few for their Personal Wallet if you don’t have direct deposit of a certain amount each month.

        • I mean I can’t believe I’m about to defend a bank, but it makes sense no?

          Banks want people to deposit money, rich people have more money. So it tracks that you would offer better incentives to get those people to be your customers.

            • Saying corporations are making dick moves under capitalism is like saying when rains things get wet.

              Like do we expect anything different at this point.

              The world is run by greedy self serving asshole, more news right after these dystopian ads.

              • @ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Sooo, we’ll call me an optimist, I believe people can be, and for the most part ARE better than that.

                My concern is that the psychopaths always win. At the top of the companies and countries, we mostly have psychopath leaders. These are people that treat society as a game to be won. To the best of my ability and reasoning, I can’t find a way to avoid that. Socialism, communism, capitalism, etc….

                There’s no system they won’t exploit because they all have exploitable holes. Normal people won’t sacrifice what’s needed to be a CEO, because it’s not worth it to them. They value their own life and family more than the power and money. They want enough control to feel like they can run their own life and enough money to eat and sleep. That’s a reasonable life.

                But in order to get ahead, you have to want that money and control almost as much as breathing. The system BREEDS psychopaths. They ALL do, because as time goes on, the requirements to get elected or promoted get harder and slimmer and require greater sacrifice. So only the people who care about NOTHING but getting that power will make it through eventually.

                …… and I can’t solve that riddle.

      • @7u5k3n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        If you owe the bank $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem

      • Ghostalmedia
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Agreed, but at least that is an upfront rule that technically applies to anyone with X amount of money. This is some back room handshake shit.

        I’d be better if Apple / Google lowered their fees based upon how many installs anyone hit. At least it would apply to everyone, not just a couple of billionaires scratching each other’s backs.

      • @Undaunted@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Yes. I know a bank where you’re trading fees are lower or even zero, depending on the size of your share portfolio.

    • @ButtDrugs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      I’m gonna go out on a limb and say I think this is done to prevent anticompetitive issues. If Google were to profit off of both its own product (youtube / yt music) and also require its competitors to pay it a % of revenue, it would potentially open them up to more anticompetitive lawsuits.

      • @essteeyou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        They don’t do the same for ebooks with Kindle, which is why Amazon has removed the ability to buy them from the app. I’d be surprised if that was the reason for Spotify.

  • tinsukE
    link
    fedilink
    English
    711 year ago

    No fees when users choose to pay via Spotify (which had been the case and only option since the beginning, until User Choice Billing was implemented).

    If users choose to pay with Google Play Billing, Google keeps 4%.

    Even so, what I find hypocritical is that Spotify got this deal and seemingly agreed to keep it under wraps, without advocating for it to be extended to all other music streaming services in the platform.

    Because… having a deal with the platform holder that gives it unfair advantage over the competition is exactly what they accuse Apple of doing with iOS.

    Sauce: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-android-billing-commission-secret-deal

  • DrSleepless
    link
    fedilink
    English
    351 year ago

    We’re totally screwing the artist, so we’ll give you a cut if we don’t pay any gees.

        • Eggyhead
          link
          fedilink
          261 year 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
            -91 year 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
              10
              edit-2
              1 year 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
              5
              edit-2
              1 year 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”.

        • @nixcamic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 year 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
            51 year 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
                11 year 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.

                • Herbal Gamer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Microsoft didn’t make the other browsers pay for the privilege of being a browser though.

        • @thenightisdark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

        • Rentlar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year 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.

    • sebinspace
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

      Netflix makes heavy use of Amazon Web Services, specifically S3 Buckets. I’m sure there’s a special deal worked out with them as an anchor client.

      Malls do the same thing. While they’re not in direct competition in the same sense as Google/Spotify or Amazon/Netflix, some stores don’t even pay rent in a mall because it’s expected that they’ll drive traffic to the rest of the stores. 90% sure Victoria’s Secret, Macy’s, etc are some of these anchor stores that very often pay little or negative rent due to the sheer revenue generated by other avenues.

  • @thepiguy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    Yea no shit, idk if it’s just for my region or what, but Spotify does not manage their subscription through the play store. Makes it more annoying to cancel it too, which the execs at Spotify probably see as a plus.

  • andrew_bidlaw
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Idk if Bandcamp is better, but there I buy my beloved albums with a big tip. The only thing I dislike is many artists default to PayPal for their merch. Ah, and they got owned by someone like Tencent or Epic?

  • @Guster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    As someone who have distributed on all platforms, Spotify is still the best. Sure it doesn’t pay that well, but it does enable your songs to get discovered and played

    • nik0
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      This is incredibly off topic here considering the fact we’re mostly talking about Google and the company giving a market advantage to companies that could cut them some “deals”

  • @Dulusa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So they don’t pay fees, they dont pay artist and they never made a Profit. But for some fucking reason are allowed to dictate the music industry.

    For anyone reading this, that still uses Spotify, a big fuck you from the heart of an artist!!! You’re the reason that abominations like Spotify are able to continue…

      • @Dulusa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        This will continue, as long as people dont stop using the products of this shitty companies. So yes, everybody who uses Spotify made the choice to give them their money, so that they can continue with this bs.

        You can blame the Management or whoever as much as you want, but as long as you dont change your behaviour and stop using their products, they dont have a reason to stop.

        So yes, its your fault too!