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.
Apple Accuses Spotify of 'Resorting to Rumors and Half-Truths', Sets Record Straight on App Rejection
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been saying it for years... While unfortunate, Spotify's days are numbered; they have no discernible advantage and a business model that won't allow them to make meaningful profits. They're clearly looking for a handout from the government because they know this too.
And despite what their PR team has been saying about AM helping them to grow, they're obviously feeling the pinch of iOS users switching to AM.
The "market" is not iOS, it is mobile computing. With the market Apple only has roughly 20% of the market, that is not dominance. Vastly different situation from the desktop OS market at Microsoft's prime. Under the definition you use any system that implemented a walled garden approach would be considered monopolistic, that is not the case.
Apple has no transparency with respect to the app store processes, and they have a history of anti-competitive behaviors. Of course apple is abusing the app store, its just a matter of whether anyone will ever be able to prove it. That's not likely, given apple's highly secretive and paranoid nature.
I never said it was fair. I just said it wasn't made to stifle Spotify. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if you're even reading my posts.
And we are back to sue if you don't think its fair, that's how those types of disputes are solved.
YOU and Spotify defining it as "unfair" doesn't make it so.
This brings up a great point. You can buy a $50 iTunes gift card from Walmart. Walmart gets a cut. Sure, you have the option of purchasing that gift card from Apple directly, but you didn't. If Apple put on their gift cards in Walmart "Please return this gift card and buy one online because we lost some profit," then Walmart wouldn't sell iTunes gift cards anymore. But Apple understands they are getting more customers because of Walmart. There isn't a sign up at Walmart that says "iTunes gift cards available at Apple.com and Apple stores!" Why would Walmart waste that space on something they aren't getting a cut of?
Sure, you can buy a gift card from Walmart then buy all your subsequent cards from Apple directly, but you can bet that Walmart won't let you advertise that in their stores.
Except Apple gets to decide whether an app qualifies for subscription model or not.
If an app removes IAP (or never has it to begin with) they should be able to tell the customers where to go to sign up or buy things. Maybe it's not an actual link but just a splash screen that says ' go to xxx to sign up or purchase content'. No mention of pricing or saving 30% or anything like that. Just a simple here's where you go to sign up message box. But of course I'm saying this from the viewpoint of good customer UX not what's best for Apple financially.
What idiot would switch to Android just to have Spotify hahaha yawn.
Yeah, apple's attack on spotify is hypocritical in my opinion. Apple is the master of marketing and spin, and has a history of using half-truths to push their side of the story
Not everyone has your kind of brand allegiance, and many of us are fed up with apple on other fronts. Just one little push can be enough for some people.
Stifle Spotify specifically, no. But this isn't just about Spotify. This is about Apple's ability to stifle any business it chooses to compete with on their app store.
"fairness" is a judgement call, not an absolute.
Even then, in business there are plenty of "unfailr" (sic) practice that are perfectly legal.
Apple's ecosystem is not society, it doesn't have to strive for "fairness" whatever the definition of it is.
Apple will have an advantage on its own platform that others don't have, that's a given.
If Apple controlled all the market, and not 15% of it world wide then maybe anti monopoly laws could apply, but they don't. That they control the high end of the market (that Spotify wants) is not enough to make this a monopoly in the eyes of the law.
But you and Apple defining this as fair makes it so? Let's make one thing clear, I'm not on Spotify's side, I'm against Apple.
Spotify is behaving like a petulant, spoiled child. Every developer that is on the App Store has to abide by the revenue share guidelines. The App Store provides tons of visibility and brings millions of users to a company's app. I don't know of anyone other than Spotify who tries to pile costs onto their customers' backs by raising the price of their service via iTunes. Hulu, Netflix and others don't do this. I'm glad I don't do any business with an anti-consumer company like Spotify.
Hello, the App Store is OWNED by Apple, they have the right to say what is sold and not sold in their store for whatever reason. Next you'll be upset because they don't sell Android phones in an Apple store. If Spotify doesn't like it they should build their own App store and not allow Apple to sell in it.
Lots of replies, so sorry if this has been said and I missed it. But is there a successful service provider who doesn't do what you're describing? Search "tablet" on Amazon.com, and Amazon's tablet comes up first. Search "free email service" on yahoo.com and Yahoo Mail comes up first. Spotify is within their right to say they wish the rules were different, but Apple is equally within their right to say "no." It's not deceit, it's business.
People really aren't reading.
That doesn't really matter from the perspective of the legal argument. What matters is whether the "rules" as you call them are anti-competitive. And in the context of a duopoly, which is basically what we have, a reasonably strong argument can be made that the rules are precisely that.
No, I did not say that. I feel like I need to explain this again. This is not about what you or I consider "fair" or "right." All I am discussing are the possible legal arguments to be made. (And to be perfectly clear, a lot of the assumptions you seemed to think I was making are not required for the affirmative argument here.)
This isn't my reasoning. I was explaining the legal argument, which of course a case can be made for and against.