Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify and Apple Again Clash Over App Store Rules and Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No because Apple created a special category that allows Netflix to have an app on the store that doesn’t work until you log in. Amazon is able to do the same with Kindle. When Hey tried to do it with an email app Apple refused. Hey ended up having to add a basic free feature just so they wouldn’t have to use Apple’s IAP and pay Apple 30%.
What's the "mall" in this analogy? The analogy is flawed. If the phone is the "mall" then yes, Apple built it and sold it to me. If you are talking about the App Store then, again, the analogy is bad. App Store is not involved in distribution of music. It's all Spotify. If you really want to go with this mall analogy, the correct one would be this one: Apple built a mall and then not only does it take percentage from sales, it demands that when someone buys, say a TV set in the mall and takes it home, they also have to pay the percentage of all the subscriptions they use to watch their TV. Absurd? Nope. Subscriptions are "digital goods" according to Apple.
A tiny number of apps subsidize the majority apps on the App Store. That’s how Apple wants it because they know people won’t pay for apps even if it was just 99 cents one time. Apple should update their policies so the rent seeking only applies to games. That’s where Apple makes most of its IAP money anyway.
What is the difference between Uber and Spotify other than Apple arbitrarily decided to tax one and not the other?
Why should that matter to Apple? Is there any evidence that somebody in 2024 is subscribing to Spotify or Netflix because of Apple? If you use Apple hardware (that you paid for) to watch video content from Netflix does that mean Apple is the reason you’re a Netflix subscriber? I would argue no.
It’s simple. Apple spends billions on their platform build, maintain and marketing to get and keep customers using it. 75% of Apps are free apps paid for by ads or pay apps on the platform. Spotify wants to use app technology and access their Customers for free. Imagine Apple setting up a table in target to sell iPhones, but refuses to pay them for using their store.
It is interesting that Apple is forcing all of these developers to agree to new unfavorable terms to brace for some kind of breach of contract argument. Good for Spotify for reading the fine print. Clearly Apple feels it can take a 27% cut using these new terms even without a link, simply by stating to customers that they can pay on Spotify’s website, or Apple would have approved the update already.
It is also interesting that Apple’s review team keeps choosing to risk breaking the law and cost Apple billions in fines instead of just accepting the law. The ego on the app review team that they know better than the EU is going to take a couple billion more hits…
It is also interesting that Apple’s review team keeps choosing to risk breaking the law and cost Apple billions in fines instead of just accepting the law. The ego on the app review team that they know better than the EU is going to take a couple billion more hits…
Spotify does not need Apple customers. They have their own customers. Apple does not own iPhone users and thus it can't sell them to Spotify.
That thought really is quite funny. For a long time, when talking about companies like Google and Facebook, Apple fanatics were quick to shout, “when using those companies products, you are actually the product.” It appears Apple takes the exact same view. Their users are the product.
Actually, Apple is monetarily stopping Spotify from opening another mall, by charging them half a euro per person per year as the "core technology fee" just to compete.
When are people going to stop repeating this fallacy. If someone wants to distribution their app on Apple's App Store, they have to join Apple's Developer Program. Membership in the Developer Program is NOT free. Only after paying the developer fee are you allowed to use the App Store to distribute your app.
Do you think malls get 30% of everything sold in them?
Hint: they do not. They get a flat rent fee. *Which is exactly what developers have been asking for!!*
I think Apple is owed something, but the problem is that Apple also benefits from this when competing with Spotify. It is a tricky situation that Apple decided to put themselves in when they decide to compete with other services that also utilize their platform. For Words With Friends....pay the piper. For Spotify.....Apple may have to make some concessions if they want to compete in the same space or face anti-competitive inquiries.
Yeah but the mall doesn't rent spaces and then also open a sunglasses store to compete with Sunglass Hut. For the apps where Apple doesn't sell a similar app/service than no one should be complaining. But when Apple starts to compete in those spaces it makes it a much different situation.
It is my opinion that the App Store does play a role in facilitating a transaction between the company and the consumer. Apple put in a lot of effort in getting users to trust in the safety and security of the App Store. They make it easy to pay using iTunes and biometrics and convenient to create a new account via Sign in with Apple.
I am not sure how relevant that still is today. I guess we could debate till the cows come home as to what a reasonable cut entails, but the point is that Apple does deserve something over and above that users have already paid for their hardware.
Deserves is a strange way to put it. Do they deserve a cut for applications installed on macOS? Does MS deserve a cut for Windows applications?
Yeah I'm sure basic OS features are worth a third of Spotify's revenue. Do you people ever listen to yourselves?
Does Nintendo “deserve” 30% of game sales? Or is it their “right” to charge whatever they want by virtue of offering an integrated product where they control both the hardware and software?
I thought I did.
Basically, I have laid out why I feel the iOS App Store is entitled to a cut of app revenue, because Apple does more than simply provide a repository for apps. They aggregate the best customers in the world and grow the overall pie for everyone. 70% of a larger number of sales can still work out to more money than 100% of a smaller number of sales.
For the Mac App Store, I will say there is the convenience of not having to navigate to an external website. Perhaps not enough to justify 30%, but I guess nobody’s complaining because there are other ways of downloading the apps you want.
I am not familiar with the windows App Store. How actively is it policed by Microsoft? What’s the value add? But knowing Microsoft and seeing the state of their windows phone App Store back in its heyday, I will say - not very much.
And you’ve highlighted the crux of the issue. Both macOS and Windows have alternate ways of getting apps onto consumer devices, while iOS does not. Apple’s “deserving” of a cut as you put it, is oh so conveniently a situation of their own doing.
Which is why I posed the Nintendo question to you. Nintendo owns and controls their own switch platform. There is no law preventing them from charging developers more, like say 50%. We just assume that the market will work itself out somehow. Nintendo chose 30% because it felt right at the time and everyone else had copied that “magic number” ever since.
I guess my point is that because Apple owns and controls their iOS platform as well, they are free to charge developers however much they want and I don’t see them flouting any laws (short of the government creating new laws like the DMA).
Unlike on macOS, I do also feel like Apple does do more for their iOS App Store. I can accept an argument that perhaps 30% is too much, but i feel that Apple is entitled to monetise their platform, and they are entitled to something at least.
A reminder of what is happening on Spotify and the contribution to the biggest wave of gun violence in Europe
www.theguardian.com
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com
So the question is…why is everyone currently fighting Apple so badly tainted by crime, corruption and harming society?
Swedish criminal gangs using fake Spotify streams to launder money
Investigation claims networks convert illicit cash to bitcoin to pay people who sell false streams on the platform
Multiple criminal gang members confirm they’ve used Spotify for money laundering in bombshell new report in Sweden - Music Business Worldwide
An explosive new report from Svenska Dagbladet in Sweden focuses on the end purpose of streaming fraud on Spotify for organized criminals: laundering money.
So the question is…why is everyone currently fighting Apple so badly tainted by crime, corruption and harming society?