I think you should have paid more attention in that session. Apple is not monopolistic; or if you alleging collusion, with whom?
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 think you should have paid more attention in that session. Apple is not monopolistic; or if you alleging collusion, with whom?
I'm not even a developer Akash. I understand exactly what's going on and it's shocking how people are either just shilling for Spotify or just truly have an ax to grind.
As said before, this marketplace was built by Apple, they have been in the music business way before Spotify was, but that's not relevant as most of you think it is. They upfront tell developers the terms of their contract and you must agree to these terms. Spotify has been taking advantage of IAP and hurting their customer in the process "Apple is forcing us to sell for $12.99 because they take 30%". Forcing? Really? Your business model sucks.
I'm not exactly sure but I think someone earlier said Netflix now does IAP for subscriptions? They do it at a loss, as they realize the customer gain is worth the cut Apple takes. Spotify has razor thin margins and wants to use Apple's "free" marketplace to try to have potential customers pay $3 more to meet their margins on the website side. Apple strictly prohibits you from using the IAP and then telling people to sign up on the website for cheaper.
It's not all that difficult and I have read the whole thread along with all the flawed and honestly **** analogies.
Yeah, you clearly are full of it. There are no "anti-competitive practices" going on here what so ever. Spotify is FREE TO HAVE THEIR APP ON THE STORE AND ACCEPT SUBSCRIPTIONS ON THEIR SITE, without double dipping into IAP which entice people with convenience. If Spotify doesn't want to play by the rules and pay the convenience tax of 30% and 15% after a year, well kick rocks and sell your product on your own site.
Last edited:
Ironically, you can't use Apple Pay to buy content or pay for subscriptions via the iTunes store.
I don't think it's ironic at all, I think it has more to do with on the spot purchases rather than digital purchases. NFC wouldn't be used for subscriptions and music/video/app purchases.
I stand corrected then. I don't use Apple Pay though I should be, does anyone use business AMEX on their Apple Pay?
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple made more money from Spotify than the other way around. Check the list of top-grossing apps in the app store. It also undoubtedly has steered some Spotify users to the iPhone instead of deserting to Android.
And it makes sense, I've been using my iTunes account since 2006 or so for purchases on tens of thousands of things. Similar to how I use FB to login to apps I wouldn't use otherwise by signing up on their services.
It won't go anywhere. Apple isn't pricing anyone out of the market. Customers can sign up at Spotify and pay the lower rate. Spotify sets the prices and they decide where they can allow customers to sign up.
Apple can sell their products at lower price points on their own marketplace. It's like that with every marketplace.
OK. But who is biting the hand that feeds them then, as you wrote above?
Personally, I think whoever creates the service should get the lion's share of the profits, not some middle man.
Spotify and every developer is using a marketplace Apple provides. You aren't forced to use their IAP. Spotify does get the lio share on their site. They violated the rule of having both IAP and an add for a "cheaper alternative" on their site. They are using Apple's services that entice a trustworthy purchase which entices iOS users while trying to get around the rules.
Again, nothing monopolistic or anti competitive about it. You fail to see this.
Spotify can sell their service somewhere else. Apple can provide their service at a loss, that's not predatory whatsoever.
True, and they stopped doing that. Apparently Apple was pissed off enough about it to not approve the app update.
To my knowledge there is no rule that prohibits apps from advertising anything. It's not at all clear to me if the rules were actually broken. Of course, in the end Apple reserves the right to do whatever they please, rule or not.
Why is using a credit card to pay through Apple any more trustworthy than using the same card to pay Spotify directly?
That isn't why Apple rejected their update. Their app is on the app store currently as it always has been.This specific update broke their contractual agreement that Spotify agreed to. If they can't pay the premium to sell their product "on Apple's shelf" then they cant.
People trust Apple more than Spotify, it's true. Apple has more to lose if they cant protect their customers data.
Well here you go again, mentioned earlier in the thread.
Spotify wants to have an "easy way" for customers to pay using their exists iTunes account while directing their customers to pay $9.99 on their own website. Breach of the rules.
One of the challenges is that yes, Spotify "broke" the rule. What appears to keep falling out, even in an Apple owned marketplace, is that Apple is offering a competing product. How they offer their pricing and competitor pricing terms is what needs to be examined. There is a fine line between predatory pricing and monopolistic pricing. This is new ground for a digital type store. I'd rather have the FTC look and publish their opinion, one way or the other.
Not quite the same, but when CostCo had their membership cards linked to AmEx, i used that (non-business) flavor of AmEx with Apple Pay, and it worked fine.
You are still misunderstanding. It is Apple's marketplace. Spotify is free to cease usage of IAP, they can do all their subscriptions through their own terminals. This is allowed. Apple has plenty of cash to continue to lose any losses they incur at $9.99 as that's what Spoify charges through their own channels.
HOWEVER, using the IAP method, you must abide by the rules. There are no restrictions regarding "requiring" an account for a service a company has provided an app for.
Yeah I haven't tried a corporate AMEX yet.
Predatory is very difficult to prove. What is open is if the definition of the App Store is a monopoly in itself. There is an open case in the Appellate Court that is looking at that.
Lots of open / unanswered questions. Your assumption that it isn't monopolistic is unfounded.
It isn't monopolistic as you'd like to believe, I'm sorry if you think that. First of all if you got rid of of a "finders fee" per se, there would be no incentive for Apple to accept any further apps that are "free" without a pricetag. This is how business is and it's been quite regulated on the App store for a long time.