What Crapple is doing is is the equivalent of Ford demanding a 30% of the revenue from all gas companies for as long as the owner has the car. I can't even imagine what would have happened if Microsoft tried something as anti consumer like this in the 90s.
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
Spotify doesn't want special treatment. It want better treatment for all.
If we just left things they way they are just because its always been that way we would still have slavery.
Back in the early days all apps were not required to only use the Apple payment system. I left iOS for Android when Apple implemented that policy. On Android my Kindle app actually has a store instead of being crippled by the device overlord who made my phone. Apple could at least not force developers to use their payment system, that is the real problem here. This is why the app model as envisioned by Apple sucks compared to the open web model and why I, a longtime Mac user, do not use an iPhone.
Last edited:
Apple has to run an iTunes and App Store. When iOS Spotify users have problems with billing, cancelling their subscription, installing the app, processing refunds they call APPLE not Spotify. So Apple getting paid every month to help support Spotify customers doesn't seem that unreasonable.I think we're getting off-topic from the App Store and subscriptions. But since we're here... do you think income from the App Store ever reaches the iOS development team?
I don't know Apple's corporate financial structure. I would imagine the App Store is... cough... walled-off.
But that's not what I was talking about anyway.
Here's my point about Apple's cut:
I can buy an app for $10 and Apple gets $3. That $3 is allotted to cover the storage, the bandwidth, the updates, and the credit card fees when I purchase the app.
But with a subscription app... Apple is getting paid every month. They're getting paid 12 times a year... but I don't see that they're doing 12 times the work.
Like I said... genius!
I think we're getting off-topic from the App Store and subscriptions. But since we're here... do you think income from the App Store ever reaches the iOS development team?
I don't know Apple's corporate financial structure. I would imagine the App Store is... cough... walled-off.
But that's not what I was talking about anyway.
Here's my point about Apple's cut:
I can buy an app for $10 and Apple gets $3. That $3 is allotted to cover the storage, the bandwidth, the updates, and the credit card fees when I purchase the app.
But with a subscription app... Apple is getting paid every month. They're getting paid 12 times a year... but I don't see that they're doing 12 times the work.
Like I said... genius!
They're providing access to their clients, who maybe don't want to share their CC info with Spotify, they want Apple to take care of much their customer experience, not just Spotify.
Think about that one. It's also running a store, well more like a country with a mall in it ;-). It provides a lot more services to their clients than just taking care of the transaction.
It also provides the ability to build those services in the first place, and keep them safe.
If an app developer chooses not to use Apple's IAP they should be allowed to tell people where to go to sign up or purchase content. Users have no other way to get that content so the best UX would be to alert people on where they can get the content. Spotify and Apple Music are the same price so the Spotify app telling people to go to spotify.com to sign up isn't promoting a cheaper product in Apple's store. What Apple is counting on is that developers will use IAP and consumers will sign up in-app because it's more convenient. Of course it would be more convenient and a better UX to be able to buy books right from the Kindle or Nook app. But Apple obviously doesn't care about UX if it means they don't get their 30%.
This is such BS. Do you really think anyone is worried about Spotify or Amazon having their CC information? Newsflash: tens of millions of people already have Amazon accounts and there're buying stuff from Amazon all the time. If this is all about safety and Apple taking the care of the customer experience then why doesn't Apple force everyone to use IAP? If Amazon wants a kindle app in the App Store they have to offer IAP/iTunes billing.
Once I download an app on my phone I'm no longer in Apple's store so why should I be paying Apple anything other than credit card processing if the app is using iTunes billing?
This is such BS. Do you really think anyone is worried about Spotify or Amazon having their CC information? Newsflash: tens of millions of people already have Amazon accounts and there're buying stuff from Amazon all the time. If this is all about safety and Apple taking the care of the customer experience then why doesn't Apple force everyone to use IAP? If Amazon wants a kindle app in the App Store they have to offer IAP/iTunes billing.
Once I download an app on my phone I'm no longer in Apple's store so why should I be paying Apple anything other than credit card processing if the app is using iTunes billing?
Last edited:
Apple Music should be spun off as a subsidiary company, and they should be able to demonstrate that Apple Music is only receiving 70 - 85% of the subscription revenue, with the rest going to the store, in line with every other App developer.
Apple Music should not be pre loaded on to any Apple device, and it should be up to consumers to download it, with equal opportunity for consumers to find and download competitors.
Otherwise, Apple is guilty of unfair competition. And iPhones are big enough selling devices that this should be an issue taken seriously by the authorities.
Come on Apple - *you* demonstrate that you are skimming off your own subscription revenue, and can still afford to pay artists / have content on the same basis that you have required for competitors.
Or, better still, for subscriptions, charge a "flat fee" to a developer when a subscription is taken out, and then subsequently only substract a reasonable amount comparable to a website using a regular payments processor.
Apple Music should not be pre loaded on to any Apple device, and it should be up to consumers to download it, with equal opportunity for consumers to find and download competitors.
Otherwise, Apple is guilty of unfair competition. And iPhones are big enough selling devices that this should be an issue taken seriously by the authorities.
Come on Apple - *you* demonstrate that you are skimming off your own subscription revenue, and can still afford to pay artists / have content on the same basis that you have required for competitors.
Or, better still, for subscriptions, charge a "flat fee" to a developer when a subscription is taken out, and then subsequently only substract a reasonable amount comparable to a website using a regular payments processor.
I think the result would be people stop using spotify and use Apple music instead. It happened when comixology was bought by Amazon so I stopped using it as I had a lot of credit due to having a lot of apple store cards. In the end, I just started using Marvel unlimited which you sign up for at marvel.com and you can use the app on ios or android.
My take away from this and other similar articles:
Spotify: this is wrong and needs to change. This is a process issue that affects everyone.
Apple: Spotify just wants preferential treatment. Let's make this specifically about Spotify.
It's all about control.
Spotify: this is wrong and needs to change. This is a process issue that affects everyone.
Apple: Spotify just wants preferential treatment. Let's make this specifically about Spotify.
It's all about control.
I would assume you're not great at business? They would be dumb not to make money from the AppStore...they provide a service, you submit your app for sale in that business, you pay...
You do realize Google charges for advertising right?
They negotiate complicated license agreements with all sorts of clauses. They could ask for that too, but Apple wouldn't agree and would buy chips from someone else, presumably. And if Spotify doesn't like the developer agreement it entered into with Apple, it is free to develop for a different platform.
The business models for Google and Apple are way different. Android makes money by mobile advertising...therefore they don't need to charge. Since Apple doesn't run a (great) advertising source, they need to find some other place to make that money.
This is much the same as you posting something for sale on eBay, then once someone goes to buy it, you tell them to pay you directly so that eBay doesn't get their cut. You are paying eBay for helping you find a customer, same thing with the App Store.
I'm not a Spotify customer but no, I would not want them to have my credit card. Amazon has my credit card but reluctantly. If they supported Apple Pay I would definitely switch. Given high profile hacks in recent years obtaining millions of credit card records from major retailers I want as few organizations as possible to have my credit card information. So yes, I really do think "anyone is worried about Spotify or Amazon having their CC information" because I am.
Fairness in this case is determined by the law (in really bad case were anti-monopoly laws or contracts laws have been broken) and second by the one who defines the rules.
It's not fair in the absolute, but it is in saying everyone inside the system are bound by the same rules even though the ones creating the system can change the rules and do things that others inside this same system cannot.
You as a vendor can decide to not sell there and suffer whatever consequences will come of that. In a case of a something that is not a monopoly or other blatant illegal act. This is your only remedy.
Dropbox offers subscriptions via IAP, and only charge 99c more for a year then the website. They have to compete with iCloud Drive and I don't see them complaining (granted Dropbox is far superior, imo, to iCloud Drive).
Google Drive works the same way and appears cheaper through the app (showing $19.99 for a year vs $1.99 per month for 100gb).
If this is such an issue for developers, then now would be the time for all the companies that do this to start backing Spotify.
It's not Apples fault that Spotify has an unsustainable business model.
Google Drive works the same way and appears cheaper through the app (showing $19.99 for a year vs $1.99 per month for 100gb).
If this is such an issue for developers, then now would be the time for all the companies that do this to start backing Spotify.
It's not Apples fault that Spotify has an unsustainable business model.
Let's say you're buying a software package, you go to Walmart to buy it for $49 but there is a sticker on the box that says "Save $20, buy at softwarepackage.co.uk", would you, as the consumer, have an issue?
that's a ridiculous analogy.
[doublepost=1467480068][/doublepost]
Exactly. Spotify should have two apps in the app store. One for those that have a premium account already and another for the moochers with banner ads some of which are for their premium service and some for aluminum siding.