Thanks! That's what I was wondering
Does Spotify get your email address from Apple? If so... could Spotify email those customers and send them the link you posted?
An email with the subject "You're Paying Too Much" might help
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
Thanks! That's what I was wondering
Does Spotify get your email address from Apple? If so... could Spotify email those customers and send them the link you posted?
An email with the subject "You're Paying Too Much" might help
Thanks! That's what I was wondering
Does Spotify get your email address from Apple? If so... could Spotify email those customers and send them the link you posted?
An email with the subject "You're Paying Too Much" might help
Way ahead of you .
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-store-email
I'm not a Spotify fan, though if Apple buys tidal, we as consumers need Spotify to push Apple through competition . The consumer is the looser if Apple buys or eliminates competition. Does not need to be spotify, but there must be a worthy competitor
Last edited:
One more thing to note here. Developing a full fledged payment system from scratch is actually pretty complicated and has serious security threats. Also don't forget the meddling around with legal stuff for countries all over the world and then handling the exchange rate and all. It's always better for developers to use a service that's specifically developed for such purposes.
You don't actually develop the payment system, you use an off the shelf solution to do the payments processing . you build the store.
But established developers, especially the size of Spotify already sell products via thier websites, they have an off the shelf payments processing solution.
Devs are not using apple for payments processing, they are using Apple because of the access to millions of Apple customers . Most users will search on AppStore instead of Google
Developers are using it for both to be honest. Big companies with existing subscription based payment system are using it for the user base and smaller companies use it for protection, convenience, cost and also the user base.
However, the original issue is not to do with the payment system. Apple has no issues if Spotify stops using their in app payment system. They're saying you can't advertise within the app to encourage people to not use Apple's payment platform for a cheaper option outside. That's fair enough.
It's like selling something in Tesco store and promoting the fact that you can buy the same product from Sainsbury's for cheaper. Nobody will take that BS.
The payments processing issue was my example of support issues I ran into, not related to this case, agreed.
Not quite, the issue here is Apple is now longer the store manager, but also a seller not having to pay the Apple tax. It would be a complete non issue of there was enough margins in the profit to absorb the 30% and still match Apple music at 9.99.
How would all the manafacturers react to Tesco if thier goods in Tesco stores where charged 20% vat , and Tesco got to sell their goods without VAT cause they owned the store.
The AppStore is a wonderful thing, and I fully support it, but it all becomes questionable when Apple starts selling services that the opposition just cannot match without loosing money.
I like the irony that Spotify cannot advertise a cheaper alternative, and I keep getting spammed by AM advertisements constantly. Apple is really having a case of "having their cake and eating it"
That is why I was a big advocate of Apple just running the store and not competiting . Win win for all
And that's exactly the problem. Can you imagine if Microsoft started enforcing a rule where anything you bought using your Windows PC gave them a 30% cut? If you were to sign up for an Apple Music subscription through iTunes on Windows and were forced to use a special "MS in app payment system." And even if you're listening to it primarily on your phone, or Sonos, or any other platform, Microsoft still gets a 30% cut every single month? It's ridiculous. And that's exactly what Apple is doing here.
I'm fine with them taking a small processing fee if it's handled through their payment system. That makes sense. But 30%? No way.
Yeah I realised that. Hopefully you won't have payment issues anymore.
What other businesses do with their payment and customers shouldn't be Apple's headache really. As a business they're allowed to do anything they like as long as they're not being unlawful about it. It's just called simple business and competition. Apple has always been about music anyway.
This is actually the case already with the Tesco's own branded products that are much cheaper and available within the stores as well alongside other branded similar / same items.
That's a risk when selling in a marketplace. Amazon uses all marketplace sales data to see if they should seek the items themselves. And they do that a lot. It's not like Spotify never ever expected apple to get into music subscriptions.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter because Spotify will always run at a loss until they revisit their model of giving away so much to free users as well as what they pay out vs what they charge customers.
And they've already admitted it being a good thing because they got more customers out of it.
Completely agree with this point. Spotify's business model is flawed.
Thanks! That's what I was wondering
Does Spotify get your email address from Apple? If so... could Spotify email those customers and send them the link you posted?
I'm not sure but I think that's what they've done in the past. The problem is that in such a case Spotify must rely on the good will of their customers, because there are no economical incentives to do so: If Spotify charges the same price on their website as through the inapp purchase, why should I bother to go through all the hustle when they already have a working account. If they charge more, why should I go for Spotify, when Applemusic is providing a comparable service for less money.
The fact is that Spotify's recent actions are mostly skilled PR manoeuvre to raise awareness of the problem. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, which is why I don't use the word "PR stunt" which smacks of intrigue. I try to keep an open mind and not to be prejudiced against any company, but I do have to say Spotify has a point here.
Spotify's point is as follows: Since Apple owns the iOS platform, it enjoys unfair competition through the following 1) technical advantages due to a degree of the integration with the device made consciously unavailable to 3rd Party Developers (consciously, because it's not a matter of technical know-how but restrictions imposed by Apple's approval process); 2) offering their service at what is effectively dumping prices. Spotify is right to lambast Apple here: Until Apple Music took of, Spotify had to compete against other streaming music providers on the same rules - all were facing the same fees and restrictions as any other player in the game. When Apple Music was introduced, Apple has an unfair advantage over other competitors, because it can effectively offer the same service 30% cheaper not because they are better negotiators of licencing fees, or because their programmers are more cost effective, or any other such reason, but because they marketing strength to force other players to pay a share of 30% of their revenues (effectively rising their costs) on pain of being kicked off the ball park altogether. This is why Spotify is raising the subject of anti-trust laws.
A few things to bear in mind:
1) When dealing with anti trust laws, it is irrelevant whether the potential monopolist "deserves" or has "earned" his/her position in the market. Apple has spend millions of dollars in the past on improving their products and building up a platform, but that is irrelevant from today's point of view. From today's point of view the only relevant question is whether their current position allows them to bar the access to the market for their main competitors. Yes, yes, I know "If Spotify doesn't like it, they can jolly well go and offer their service Android, or better yet, build their own phone and operating system," which brings me to the next point.
2) You don't have to be a monopolist for antitrust laws to apply to you. A market dominated by a few large companies is an oligopoly and deserves the same degree of scrutiny, because normal economical forces do not regulate such markets well. Apple is the second largest player on the smart phone market, and as such enjoys a high degree of control. Moreover, a smart phone allows to install a number of different applications, so it is unlikely that the average smartphone buyer will choose a phone based on the availability of Spotify on the platfor, especially if other substitutes like Apple Music exist (yes, yes, we all know stories about people who dropped a product just because a certain application was no longer available, but they are the exceptions to the general rule). On the other hand, Apple profits from Spotify, because it's the innovations of 3rd Party developers such as Spotify that have made the iOS such an attractive platform. If it weren't for those apps, your iPhone would be just a glorified phone / video / camera / calculator / web-browser / navigating device / etc. The out-of-the-box functionality of the iphone is impressive, but it's laughable compared to what the iphone can do once we download other apps, and "Clock" or "Stocks" are definitely not the main reasons we all pay Apple premium price tags in the first place. Still the power of the iPhone relies on a multitude of independent developers, while all those comparatively small independent developers rely one large company, with close ties to the government, an army of lawyers and billions of dollars in their bank account, Apple is in the position of power here, and needs to be regulated.
3) The iPhone with its operating system iOS is one service that Apple offers, Apple Music is another. They need to be viewed as separate entities. If Apple Music is enjoying additional advantages over its competitors just because it's affiliated with the maker of the phone without paying a consideration for the advantage, said advantage is unfair. Here in Europe, taxing authorities will question any affiliated companies which sell their products to one another at prices which violate the "at arm's length" rule. The rule means that prices paid to a company within the same group have to be paid as if they were paid to a 3rd party. This clearly does not happen here.
4) The brick-and-mortar store analogy is flawed here, as many have pointed out. For one, a if my faviourite supermarket no longer stocks my favourite brand of beer, I'm much freerer to pick it up on my way home from another location than I am to change a phone. I don't need to buy another car to do it, but I'd have to buy another phone. Another thing is that the supermarket has to store, handle and bill the beer when I buy it, for which they take a share. The service of downloading the app is provided once only, but Apple demands a share of any subsequent payment. If the customer is using in-App purchases, then Apple does handle the payment, but Spotify actually wanted to bypass the whole in-App purchases problem altogether, so that no additional payment handling cost for Apple would apply, but wasn't allowed to place the link to a registration webpage. Moreover, manufacturers will often pay a "shelf fee" to the supermarket for displaying their goods.
5) AppleStore is a digital store, and apple charges a subscription for hosting the app online from each developer. Whether or not it covers the bandwidth and storage cost is a matter Apple needs to decide when it sets the subscription price tag. It probably does not, but Apple is fine with that, because the variety of apps is the reason why people buy its hardware and it still can capitalise on the premium they charge on each sale of their iPhones. Once an app is downloaded, it is a simple case of an app running on an operating system. Apple Store does not come into play anymore, until I make an inApp purchase through their payment service. If I make my purchase inside the app but not pay through my iTunes account, why should apple get a share of the revenue? I know we all love Apple here, but Apple is neither the country nor the government, and it should not be able to levy an auxiliary VAT.
6) It's petulant to claim that Spotify's success is based on Apple Store's success. Apple Store does not provide free advertising for Spotify. Spotify had to build its own brand from scratch. As it happens, there is no way to install software on iOS other than through the Apple Store. If a direct install through the 3rd party website would be possible, we could claim that Spotify is trying to use Apple Store as an advertising platform, but because Apple does not allow such downloads, all such claims do not apply. Yes, I know there are valid security concerns to prevent such downloads, but that is not the point here. The point here is that Apple, even though it is motivated by security concerns, can still make use of the fact in other areas, such as protecting its preferential treatment to its own services.
It was the first time I've had issues so extremely rare.
Given the "wholesale" cost of steaming ..... Questions arise of unfair competition advantage, as one cannot absorb the cost and price Match. Go onto google play store , how much does Apple Music or Spotify cost? How much is google music.....
Tesco goods are not 30% cheaper for the same quality . Yes Tesco has some much cheaper goods bit poor quality. A better match is the finest range, which is competitive in pricing.
[doublepost=1467552001][/doublepost]
Amazon is in the business of selling products , they take advantage of their analytics to identify product candidate from the market place. The marketplace is a small side operation for them, they benefit from sales and identification of popular products.
Apple is the business of providing an App Store and not themselves selling apps. Now they are competing
Both Amazon and apple, have taken advantage of their positions to screw over sellers.
So why is this not a problem with google play store?
Also don't be deceived at Spotify running at a loss, it's not thier model, it's thier investment in growing .....
Last edited:
Yesterday, Spotify accused Apple of using its App Store approval process as a "weapon to harm competitors" after Apple rejected a Spotify app update, and now Apple has responded to Spotify's accusations to "set the record straight."
In a letter to Spotify lawyer Horacio Gutierrez that was shared by BuzzFeed, Apple's legal head Bruce Sewell says Apple is disappointed with the public attacks and concerned that Spotify is asking for exemptions to rules that apply to all app developers.
Sewell goes on to say that Spotify's belief it should not have to pay to take advantage of the "benefits of Apple's hard work" is "simply unfair and unreasonable," pointing out that the App Store rules existed long before Apple Music was introduced. He also points out the new revenue split rules for subscriptions, which will see Apple taking a 15 percent cut from customers who have subscribed to a service for more than a year, instead of a 30 percent cut.
Sewell's letter to Spotify ends with some clarification on why Spotify's app was rejected on May 26. Spotify replaced its in-app subscription purchase options with an account sign-up feature Apple says was "clearly intended to circumvent Apple's in-app purchase rules."
Apple notified Spotify about the guideline violation and following discussions with Apple, Spotify submitted a new version of the app on June 10 that incorporated the same sign-up feature asking for customer email addresses to be used to invite customers to sign up for a Spotify subscription on the web, which Apple again rejected.In Spotify's own letter, sent to Apple on June 26 but made public yesterday, Spotify accused Apple of causing "grave harm" to its business by rejecting the app update. Spotify said Apple's aim was to "exclude and diminish the competitiveness of Spotify on iOS," which "raises serious concerns under both US and EU competition law."
Sewell's full letter to Spotify can be read over at BuzzFeed.
Article Link: Apple Accuses Spotify of 'Resorting to Rumors and Half-Truths', Sets Record Straight on App Rejection
Wow. Reliance. Well, when Apple gets hacked, and they will - no one is immune, you can go cry in your corn flakes.
Myself, I have a very specific cc I use just for on-line retention. I use the same for Apple. They are no different.
Looks like Spotify went to the Donald Trump University of public relations. If you can't compete build controversy.
No. Apple is saying if you are selling, your margins have to be greater than 30% if you want use our venue. Greater than 30% because that is what we are taking. You can have the leftovers.
Said that way, it sounds pretty ugly
There is nothing sneaky about it. This background task is the "Spotify Web Helper", which allows to start the player via web links. You can prevent it from running by disabling the option "Allow Spotify to be opened from the web" in the Spotify settings.
And we should never forget that the more cc numbers / accounts Apple can "list", the bigger this can be used as in a negotiation. "We bring "X" number of validated active cc numbers if you use / work with us..."
[doublepost=1467558836][/doublepost]
One thing many forget, there has never been a viable long term successful streaming subscription music service. Spotify is attempting to do something unique. Apple is also with Apple Music. Small things can and will derail these developing business models.
If you look at it from strictly an Apple environment perspective, the Apple "rules" look to be artificially pressuring Spotify's survival. And Apple is anything but a small player.
Where is Apple "undercharging" the competition? The price for Apple Music and Spotify is identical. It's only more if Spotify wants to use Apple to handle the subscription. Spotify is under no obligation to do so.
Spotify had a choice from day one to make all subscriptions go through their website. They made the choice to go in-App - nobody forced them to. And now that a large portion of their customers are doing so, they want to switch back AFTER taking advantage of Apple to get so many users in the first place.
This is exactly a case of Spotify wanting their cake and eatring I too (access to millions of customers AND keeping all the money for themselves).
Then again, unless you are physically traveling to the Spotify office and handing them cash, there are already other companies involved in the process - if you pay by credit card, you're paying the credit card company, who is, in turn, paying Spotify.
They aren't really giving away anything. Thay pay out about 70% of what they get to the rightsholders. That applies to both paying customers and ad revenue for the free tier. Obviously the ad-supported customers generate less revenue, which is why they are trying to convert as many as possible to subscriptions. But arguably they wouldn't have the number of subscribed users they have now without luring people in via the free tier.
I think we have yet to see whether they can make the business model work in the long run or not. It may just be a matter of volume (in which case it would make sense to invest in growth now even if it loses them money in the short term). They also still have various options to monetize the large base of ad-supported customers more.
Not at all. But Apple can claim that there is another streaming music app on the ios device and that apple music is not a monopoly.