Apple Accuses Spotify of 'Resorting to Rumors and Half-Truths', Sets Record Straight on App Rejection

[gotluck]

Legally, it is. Legally, Appoeis in the right. If people don't spend money on other platforms, why should Apple be penalized for it? They have no monopoly. They're doing everything by the letter of the law.

But having exclusive control wrt apps over a user base generating a (vast?) majority of profits in mobile is very significant (unprecedented I believe?). Vendors cannot ignore iOS so they sign on the dotted line because there really is no choice. Not servicing iOS is not really a choice, there is too much money.

 

[Michael Goff]

But having exclusive control wrt apps over a user base generating a (vast?) majority of profits in mobile is very significant (unprecedented I believe?). Vendors cannot ignore iOS so they sign on the dotted line because there really is no choice. Not servicing iOS is not really a choice, there is too much money.

True, they'd lose a lot of money if they ignored iOS. Is it right that they charge 30% given that fact? That's a subjective question, really. That's why I'm talking so much about legal. And, once again, it goes back to the idea that nothing they're doing doing is illegal. Should it be? That's a different discussion.

 

[gotluck]

True, they'd lose a lot of money if they ignored iOS. Is it right that they charge 30% given that fact? That's a subjective question, really. That's why I'm talking so much about legal. And, once again, it goes back to the idea that nothing they're doing doing is illegal. Should it be? That's a different discussion.

I think that is the real discussion here! Spotify has no real options here, just complain. I'd argue most devs are afraid to complain with them, because apples reach is long and they can kill your app easily. So much power and control..

 

[Michael Goff]

I think that is the real discussion here! Spotify has no real options here, just complain. I'd argue most devs are afraid to complain with them, because apples reach is long and they can kill your app easily. So much power and control..

Spotify has a choice. Refuse to do IAP. Make people have a Spotify account that they have to make on the site. On the site, make them have a subscription.

 

[gotluck]

Spotify has a choice. Refuse to do IAP. Make people have a Spotify account that they have to make on the site. On the site, make them have a subscription.

Yes that's true I am wrong there for sure.

The situation on iOS is still complicated though because you either accept apples terms or go away. It is not like that elsewhere (non game console). That , IMO important, check and balance does not exist on ios

 

[Michael Goff]

Yes that's true I am wrong there for sure.

The situation on iOS is still complicated though because you either accept apples terms or go away. It is not like that elsewhere (non game console)

It is complicated, that's for sure. I doubt that's going to change. I kind of fear what would happen if it did. Let's say they allowed subscriptions for free, in terms of % they take. That's basically incentivizing subscriptions. If they allowed outside of the store, that'd destroy any sense of being able to police the apps that get on the OS. There should be some rules.

 

[gotluck]

It is complicated, that's for sure. I doubt that's going to change. I kind of fear what would happen if it did. Let's say they allowed subscriptions for free, in terms of % they take. That's basically incentivizing subscriptions. If they allowed outside of the store, that'd destroy any sense of being able to police the apps that get on the OS. There should be some rules.

I dont think people give the sandbox apple created enough credit wrt security. Side loading does not mean root and the apps would be subject to the same security features as they are now. There may be a spike in people finding vulns, but they will be patched and iOS will be stronger for it. At least IMO apple is capable of it, it just doesn't make them the most money compared to forcing it though the store (let's not forget that the forced store approach is a bit heavy in security by obscurity , but yes that is a useful layer of security )

If side loading an app with a developer account was so dangerous (the currently active form of side loading) we would have many more jailbreaks!

 

[Michael Goff]

I dont think people give the sandbox apple created enough credit wrt security. Side loading does not mean root and the apps would be subject to the same security features as they are now. There may be a spike in people finding vulns, but they will be patched and iOS will be stronger for it. At least IMO apple is capable of it, it just doesn't make them the most money compared to forcing it though the store (let's not forget that the forced store approach is a bit heavy in security by obscurity , but yes that is a useful layer of security )

If side loading an app with a developer account was so dangerous (the currently active form of side loading) we would have many more jailbreaks!

I'm not talking about security for now, I'm talking about UI and UX.

 

[akash.nu]

Give developers a way to distribute and sell non web apps without apple, like every other non game console os, and all the complaints fall apart. There should be an option for devs who don't want to accept the store terms (and users who want apps for purposes or with features apple has decided to ban)

Why SHOULD there be an option other than AppStore?! If I build something then I set the rules. There's no SHOULD BE in this case. As a business they can do whatever they feel like as long as they're not doing anything unlawful and in this case Apple is not doing anything unlawful. Nothing whatsoever.

 

[akash.nu]

You're right. Spotify and others have to pay 30%. They should be allowed to sell heir wares off site, maybe people could even be allowed to side load apps. That's worked well for Android developers , right? No rampant piracy problem there.

And none of the Android paid apps ever make as much money as their iOS counterparts.

 

[sudo1996]

To make a further example, I am both an Amazon Prime and Netflix subscriber. I have an iPhone and have the apps installed. Apple has, objectively, nothing to do with my decision to start subscribing to those services because they were on the web before the iPhone app was released. So Apple hardly gets to take credit there, right?

As long as you don't sign up through the app, Apple doesn't get anything. Sounds like you signed up on the web already.

 

[kdarling]

Apple is still better for both the developers and end users than the carriers were pre iPhone. If you think the split is bad now, just remember that 30% is less than what the carriers. took at the start.

Carriers didn't restrict where you could buy and download smartphone apps from. So they didn't take a split at all (unless they made or sold the app themselves).

Heck, if someone like Microsoft had tried forcing Windows Mobile users to only go through a Microsoft store back then, the cries of greed, control and censorship would've been heard around the world.

Most people got their apps from non-carrier app stores like Handango, or from individual websites, or from a Java app collective.

For instance, that's why Slingplayer took so long to bring their app to the iPhone. For years they had sold their player for other platforms via their own commerce website. No one had to search it out, since the website URL came with each Slingbox. So they had absolutely zero reason to want to pay Apple a relatively huge royalty to host their app.

Now, is 30% a better deal for individual developers? Yes, it can be. The upside is a huge potential audience. The downside is figuring out how to stand out from the million app crowd, and how to make money once the dozen quick clones of your app show up, as they always do. Very few devs can make a living doing apps. IIRC, something like half of iOS app revenue goes to about twenty top dev makers.

 

[akash.nu]

Carriers didn't restrict where you could buy and download smartphone apps from. So they didn't take a split at all (unless they made or sold the app themselves).

Simply because carriers were never in the position to be able to do that. They're network bandwidth selling companies. Not mobile manufacturers or even software development companies. Completely different interests and business models.

Heck, if someone like Microsoft had tried forcing Windows Mobile users to only go through a Microsoft store back then, the cries of greed, control and censorship would've been heard around the world.

I don't know why it's looked at as negative. Microsoft couldn't do it and Apple did it. Different businesses, different objectives and different goals. Microsoft couldn't do a lot of things that Apple did. This kind of comparison is pointless. Every company is different and they deal with technology differently. Microsoft had a monopoly with Windows and their office package. Apple didn't have a similar situation on that aspect. There's just no comparison.

Most people got their apps from non-carrier app stores like Handango, or from individual websites, or from a Java app collective.

It's actually a good thing that's not the case anymore. Average users don't know much about security and where they should get their apps from and an open situation like that means ****** apps, ****** code and shifty experience. At least with a curated AppStore you can be certain that you're not installing a damn virus.

For instance, that's why Slingplayer took so long to bring their app to the iPhone. For years they had sold their player for other platforms via their own commerce website. No one had to search it out, since the website URL came with each Slingbox. So they had absolutely zero reason to want to pay Apple a relatively huge royalty to host their app.

I just don't understand why people are against paying for services?! Nobody's forcing any developer to go develop for iOS. Everyone is making a conscious decision.

Now, is 30% a better deal for individual developers? Yes, it can be. The upside is a huge potential audience. The downside is figuring out how to stand out from the million app crowd, and how to make money once the dozen quick clones of your app show up, as they always do. Very few devs can make a living doing apps. IIRC, something like half of iOS app revenue goes to about twenty top dev makers.

I agree with this comment, but there's nothing Apple could do about it. If a platform is popular there will be competition. That's the basic nature of running any business. It's down to the developers or the companies to come up with a model that will make them money, not the responsibility of the platform provider.

 

[gotluck]

I just don't understand why people are against paying for services?! Nobody's forcing any developer to go develop for iOS. Everyone is making a conscious decision.

Because some devs, particularly big ones, don't need the app store... but they do need to be able to distribute their app on iOS.

Sling player is a great example of someone who would rather do it themselves. The app store doesn't add any value to their service.

 

[tjleonard]

you know, in hindsight, Spotify has nothing to lose by publicly making these claims...if you didn't know you could go to their site, you do now.
[doublepost=1467681521][/doublepost]Also, I know there are several apps that you download and it just asks you to login... And if someone unfamiliar with Spotify were to see this, would they not look into where to get a login? I do think it's funny when you search "music" you have to scroll to find Spotify.

 

[akash.nu]

Because some devs, particularly big ones, don't need the app store... but they do need to be able to distribute their app on iOS.

Sling player is a great example of someone who would rather do it themselves. The app store doesn't add any value to their service.

And why should Apple care about that?!

 

[gotluck]

And why should Apple care about that?!

Well you asked why people are against paying for services.

 

[4jasontv]

Because some devs, particularly big ones, don't need the app store... but they do need to be able to distribute their app on iOS.

Sling player is a great example of someone who would rather do it themselves. The app store doesn't add any value to their service.

I don't understand this example, though I admit to having abandoned Sling a long time ago. So I did due diligence and looked it up before responding. Sling Boxes are $200 to $300 a box. There app only works if I have that box. Why would I pay a dime for the app? As far as I am concerned I would have already paid of the app when I bought the box. If I didn't then shame on them for failing to account for it. It kinda made sense to charge for the app when the app first came out, because people who bought a box before that point hadn't paid into the mobile ecosystem. That however is no longer an excuse.

EDIT: Reading more into it I see they added adverts within the app. An app you paid for, twice, now charges you every time you use the app by forcing you to watch ads? Maybe pick a different example and try to restate your point?

 

[rdlink]

No, what Apple is doing is asking for 30% on your electricity bill from your power company, because you downloaded an app on Apple store. basically if you sign up using an app, apple wants 30% of what-ever for providing nothing else than the initial download. And you can't add a signup here in your app.

You clearly have no grasp whatsoever of the facts here.

 

[tennisproha]

It sneakily opens and logs in in the background. Not like it's doing any damage, but it shouldn't be opening itself

Oh that. That's not even close to malware. Just go to settings and disable it. Plenty of other software, including the OS, do the same.

 

[akash.nu]

Well you asked why people are against paying for services.

This whole thread is about companies though. Not individuals. I think you got it all mixed up.

 

[imnotthewalrus]

No, what Apple is doing is asking for 30% on your electricity bill from your power company, because you downloaded an app on Apple store. basically if you sign up using an app, apple wants 30% of what-ever for providing nothing else than the initial download. And you can't add a signup here in your app.

Um...this is why it's called the App Store. If YOU owned a store, how would you feel about selling products at cost? Just because Apple is successful doesn't mean they owe anyone a free ride.

 

[Compufix]

I originally signed up for, and used Spotify on a computer, as well as upgraded my account because of it's integration with the DJAY program I use....I also downloaded and installed on both my Android and iOS phones/tablets....never once did I use the "in-app" purchase model for this....just don't offer the subscription in-app....on your website Ioffer the link for subscriptions...end of issue...and in an FAQ state...."Signing up for subscriptions and account maintenance is not available on the iOS application." If you want to still offer in-app...then meet the terms....70-85% of a potential income is better than no income.

 

[kdarling]

Simply because carriers were never in the position to be able to do that. They're network bandwidth selling companies. Not mobile manufacturers or even software development companies. Completely different interests and business models.

On the contrary, carriers did (and still do) control apps for dumbphones, at least in the US. Where are you located?

If you wanted a navigation app, or Shazaam, or a game, then you have to use the carrier's store.

Smartphones, on the other hand, did not have such a restriction. The iPhone was like a throwback to dumbphones in that respect.

I don't know why it's looked at as negative.

I don't think the store itself is seen as too negative (although certainly Apple has proved that it's open to censorship and abuse, like when they denied a Pulitzer winning app, and tried to delay Google Voice).

What's seen as ridiculous is the idea that Apple should take a cut of media that's downloaded outside of their store.

That's like a smart TV manufacturer wanting a cut of every TV show you see.

I just don't understand why people are against paying for services?! Nobody's forcing any developer to go develop for iOS. Everyone is making a conscious decision.

They have NO OTHER CHOICE, because Apple only allows their own store.

This whole thread is about companies though. Not individuals. I think you got it all mixed up.

Slingbox is a company.

 

[akash.nu]

On the contrary, carriers did (and still do) control apps for dumbphones, at least in the US. Where are you located?

I'm in the UK. Dumb phones are completely a different situation and the market back in the dumb phone days was different altogether. It's more of carriers tried to give you some extra features, which they still do with Android phones with bloat wares but that doesn't mean they "controlled" it. With dumb phones there wasn't any option of free app installation anyway.

If you wanted a navigation app, or Shazaam, or a game, then you have to use the carrier's store.

Simply because before Apple nobody bothered to streamline the apps experience and the ability for customers to get what they want that easily. This is one of the reasons the AppStore is the most successful platform right now.

Smartphones, on the other hand, did not have such a restriction. The iPhone was like a throwback to dumbphones in that respect.



I don't think the store itself is seen as too negative (although certainly Apple has proved that it's open to censorship and abuse, like when they denied a Pulitzer winning app, and tried to delay Google Voice).

What's seen as ridiculous is the idea that Apple should take a cut of media that's downloaded outside of their store.

That's like a smart TV manufacturer wanting a cut of every TV show you see.

Where are you getting this logic from? Apple doesn't take a cut for anything if you've downloaded it from outside.

They have NO OTHER CHOICE, because Apple only allows their own store.

Apple have every right to control their platform how they want and you can't dispute that. They developed and own the platform.

As said before, if one don't like the way it's dealt with then one can choose not to develop for the platform. Apple as a business is successful at this point and that's due to their controlling nature.

Being in the industry for over a decade now I can safely say from my personal experience that more choices make users confused. In fact there are multiple researches on this specific thing and it all proves that consumers are poor decision makers.

The bottom line is they can do whatever they want with their platform and what they've done with Spotify has always been the case since the beginning of the AppStore. It's the same terms and conditions for the millions of developers using their platform.

Slingbox is a company.

Yes and as a company they should figure out how to deal with their business. Not blame other platforms when they're clearly using the platform for their own gains.