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

[samcraig]

Nope. Amazon sells their own crap at a lower price than others can and we just lap it up. Google doesn't get hit for their profits either. I can't think of a time when either have been brought to court about that. Google has been brought up in Europe, but primarily for abusing what an actual monopoly is.

Missed my point - but it's all good. I was talking internally - here - on the forums of MR - the "people's court" where Google is criticized for being extremely profitable with ad revenue and Amazon for having a "monopoly" on books which "forced" Apple to break the law

 

[Michael Goff]

Every other non game console consumer os seems to figure it out. Ui/ux have nothing to do with anticompetitiveness. Osx is plenty secure. Piracy is possible as it is on iOS right now without a jb

OS X is secure because nobody wants to try to crack it. iOS has actual marketshare. Also, no, not every other OS has figured it out. Windows is a mess when it comes to piracy and consistency. Android is a mess at those as well.

As for anticompetitive? Show me how they're breaking any laws.

Missed my point - but it's all good. I was talking internally - here - on the forums of MR - the "people's court" where Google is criticized for being extremely profitable with ad revenue and Amazon for having a "monopoly" on books which "forced" Apple to break the law

Oh, right.

MR doesn't run on logic.

 

[gotluck]

OS X is secure because nobody wants to try to crack it. iOS has actual marketshare. Also, no, not every other OS has figured it out. Windows is a mess when it comes to piracy and consistency. Android is a mess at those as well.

As for anticompetitive? Show me how they're breaking any laws.



Oh, right.

MR doesn't run on logic.

They aren't breaking any laws. I wager it's a major reason they don't release low priced iOS devices. Then they would get too much marketshare and app store exclusivity would get ripped up. 90% + profit share is no problemo

There is still something wrong going on here IMO.

 

[Michael Goff]

They aren't breaking any laws. I wager it's a major reason they don't release low priced iOS devices. Then they would get too much marketshare and app store exclusivity would get ripped up. 90% + profit share is no problemo

There is still something wrong going on here IMO.

I don't think they release low priced devices for a different reason. Why should they when people buy them at higher prices?

 

[gotluck]

I don't think they release low priced devices for a different reason. Why should they when people buy them at higher prices?

Well combine that with definite scrutiny if their marketshare climbs too high and we've got a damn good answer

 

[akash.nu]

OS X is secure because nobody wants to try to crack it. iOS has actual marketshare. Also, no, not every other OS has figured it out. Windows is a mess when it comes to piracy and consistency. Android is a mess at those as well.

Completely agree with that.

 

[mi7chy]

No surprise. Apple has a history of shady behavior like eBook collusion, F.lux, etc.

 

[BaldiMac]

No surprise. Apple has a history of shady behavior like eBook collusion, F.lux, etc.

If f.lux is the second best example of shady behavior that you can come up with, Apple is doing pretty good.

 

[kdarling]

They aren't breaking any laws. I wager it's a major reason they don't release low priced iOS devices. Then they would get too much marketshare and app store exclusivity would get ripped up. 90% + profit share is no problemo

Tech sites have surmised that fear of the FTC is likely why Apple is looking at changing the 30% to 15% for some things. And why Apple decided to allow third party apps to also have a free trial period.

Of course, it's still lop-sided in favor of Apple. Apple's free Music trial lasted three months, long enough for most people to forget about signing up . Third party apps only get a choice of a week or a month for the same monthly subscription style.

Not to mention that Apple Music comes pre-installed, thanks to an "OS" update.

Also, can third party apps set up family plans like Apple can for Apple Music, etc?

To address your argument... Obviously, the platform is more valuable than the apps in the business relationship. That's why the apps pay to be on the platform. Yes, Apple get's value from the apps being on the platform. That's why it chose the pricing that it did and not something higher.

That value trade only works because Apple only allows one store.

If other stores were allowed... and they offered more percentage and less hassle to developers... the value of Apple's App Store to developers would drop.

You're using the same type of argument that people did to justify a 4" screen. People claimed it was obviously what customers wanted, even though it was the only choice... same as there's only one store choice now. Yet when people did have a choice, a different desire was immediately proved.

 

[BaldiMac]

Fear of the FTC is likely why Apple is looking at changing the 30% to 15% for some things. And why Apple decided to allow third party apps to also have a free trial period..

Likely? Based on what?

Of course, it's still lop-sided in favor of Apple. Apple's free Music trial lasted three months, long enough for most people to forget about signing up . Third party apps only get a choice of a week or a month for the same monthly subscription style.

Also, can third party apps set up family plans like Apple can for Apple Music, etc?

Again, so what? Apple built a platform to give it an advantage. There's nothing wrong with that.

That value trade only works because Apple only allows one store.

If other stores were allowed... and they offered more percentage and less hassle to developers... the value of Apple's App Store to developers would drop.

Yes. Developers would favor a cheaper better option. Again, tangential facts. Doesn't address my argument at all.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Tech sites have surmised that fear of the FTC is likely why Apple is looking at changing the 30% to 15% for some things. And why Apple decided to allow third party apps to also have a free trial period.

Of course, it's still lop-sided in favor of Apple. Apple's free Music trial lasted three months, long enough for most people to forget about signing up . Third party apps only get a choice of a week or a month for the same monthly subscription style.

Not to mention that Apple Music comes pre-installed, thanks to an "OS" update.

Also, can third party apps set up family plans like Apple can for Apple Music, etc?



That value trade only works because Apple only allows one store.

If other stores were allowed... and they offered more percentage and less hassle to developers... the value of Apple's App Store to developers would drop.

You're using the same type of argument that people did to justify a 4" screen. People claimed it was obviously what customers wanted, even though it was the only choice... same as there's only one store choice now. Yet when people did have a choice, a different desire was immediately proved.

There is only one App store so Apple can ensure the stability of the device. On Apple computers people are more than welcome to circumvent the App Store.

 

[Phoenixx]

But what you miss completely is that Apple doesn't charge 30% to handle _your_ credit card payments. Apple runs the store, and decided that developers don't pay what they cost Apple, but to simplify things they pay nothing for free apps, and 30% of their revenue for everything else. So Spotify is among others paying for _my_ app to be in the store. Thanks, Spotify!

What you are missing here is that once a subscription has been purchased, all future payments are not a sale, but are payment processing only. This could take place with or without the app store, and has no relevance to it whatsoever. It is simply an automated payment. There isn't any other company that charges the ridiculous amount that Apple does to process a subscription. If you look around at these types of services with companies such as PayPal or the banks, they rarely charge more than 2% to 5% of the amount being processed, and in many cases the fee is set, and measured in cents.
[doublepost=1467756675][/doublepost]

App developer here: It's absolutely clear in the app store rules. No directing people to purchases elsewhere in an app store app. It's the kind of thing where any app developer hearing it will say "there is no f***ing way that Apple will accept this". Sometimes developers have to tell that kind of thing to their marketing people. Marketing says "wouldn't it be great if we did X, Y and Z" which for example violates user's privacy or other rules in the app store, and then the developers have to tell them "there is no f***ing way that Apple will accept this". This may have been one of the cases where marketing is always right and doesn't have to listen to stoopid developers, and that's when apps get rejected.

As an app developer you would only be too well aware of how bigger jerks Apple can be when they want to be. They are perfectly willing to bend, break or change the rules when it suits them, and perfectly willing to target app developers and content creators to bully them out. I've been on the receiving end of this, so I know only too well how unpleasant they can be. I used to be an Apple fanboy, but their treatment of me opened my eyes to how nasty the company really is, when you get past the marketing lies. It was a MAJOR part of me moving away from the platform, and I am now well on the way towards abandoning Apple products for good.

 

[AsherN]

What you are missing here is that once a subscription has been purchased, all future payments are not a sale, but are payment processing only. This could take place with or without the app store, and has no relevance to it whatsoever. It is simply an automated payment. There isn't any other company that charges the ridiculous amount that Apple does to process a subscription. If you look around at these types of services with companies such as PayPal or the banks, they rarely charge more than 2% to 5% of the amount being processed, and in many cases the fee is set, and measured in cents.
[doublepost=1467756675][/doublepost]

As an app developer you would only be too well aware of how bigger jerks Apple can be when they want to be. They are perfectly willing to bend, break or change the rules when it suits them, and perfectly willing to target app developers and content creators to bully them out. I've been on the receiving end of this, so I know only too well how unpleasant they can be. I used to be an Apple fanboy, but their treatment of me opened my eyes to how nasty the company really is, when you get past the marketing lies. It was a MAJOR part of me moving away from the platform, and I am now well on the way towards abandoning Apple products for good.

Do you have any idea of the cost and effort involved in building and maintaining the PCI compliant infrastructure required to store and process credit card information? That's what part of the 30% also goes to. And the convinience of not having to process all those individual payments yourself, etc.

 

[Phoenixx]

If f.lux is the second best example of shady behavior that you can come up with, Apple is doing pretty good.

How about massive tax evasion, blatantly ripping off other companies ideas, blatant lies about what their products are REALLY like (e.g. telling people an iOS upgrade would make their device faster, when it slows it down), building products in sweatshops and pretending to do something about it, lying about how recyclable their products really are, lying about planned obsolescence......

With Apple the list goes on and on. Apple doesn't hesitate to push the boundaries of what is legal and what is not, and consistently does business in a way that many other companies would simply not get away with. They cover for this with a carefully engineered image, but once you get beyond that, they are a very dishonest, unethical, unpleasant, greedy, and ruthless company.
[doublepost=1467758305][/doublepost]

Do you have any idea of the cost and effort involved in building and maintaining the PCI compliant infrastructure required to store and process credit card information? That's what part of the 30% also goes to. And the convinience of not having to process all those individual payments yourself, etc.

So what you are saying is that Apple is either so incompetent as a company that they can't charge what everyone else charges for processing a transaction, or so greedy that they choose to charge anywhere from 600% to 1500% for the same service.

 

[BaldiMac]

How about massive tax evasion, blatantly ripping off other companies ideas, blatant lies about what their products are REALLY like (e.g. telling people an iOS upgrade would make their device faster, when it slows it down), building products in sweatshops and pretending to do something about it, lying about how recyclable their products really are, lying about planned obsolescence......

Well, since you made that all up or exaggerated the situation, I'd say you are more interested in FUD than a real conversation.

 

[Phoenixx]

Well, since you made that all up or exaggerated the situation, I'd say you are more interested in FUD than a real conversation.

Actually I didn't make any of it up, perhaps you should do some research on how Apple conducts their business.

 

[BaldiMac]

Actually I didn't make any of it up, perhaps you should do some research on how Apple conducts their business.

You made all of it up.

Tax evasion is not the same as tax avoidance.
Blatant lies are not the same as not highlighting negatives in marketing.
There are no sweatshops.
Not being perfect is not the same as doing nothing.

 

[NobodyOwens]

Do you have any idea of the cost and effort involved in building and maintaining the PCI compliant infrastructure required to store and process credit card information? That's what part of the 30% also goes to. And the convinience of not having to process all those individual payments yourself, etc.

To be honest, no I don't, but if truth be told, nor do I have to. The best part about competetive markets would be that you don't need to know the cost calcualtion to, because competition would drive the serbice price down to somewhare around the payment service provider's opportunity costs, so it would be representative of the cost itself. In other words, if Apple needs to take a 30% share to keep up the PCI compliant infrastructure required to store and process credit card then it seem to be grossly inefficient at it and should be replaced by more cost-effective providers. If it doesn't need that much, then it shouldn't be so greedy.

Anyway, this is totally beside the point. Spotify is not asking to have its payments processing for free. Spotify has already the infrastructure to process payments. It just wants the freedom to place a link that would redirect the user to a Safari webpage where the payment details can be entered.

 

[BaldiMac]

It just wants the freedom to place a link that would redirect the user to a Safari webpage where the payment details can be entered.

And I want the freedom and choice of a device where I don't have to deal with a multitude of payment processors. Why do you think such a device shouldn't be offered as an option?

 

[samcraig]

Apple knows a bit about half truths.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple knows a bit about half truths.

No argument there!

 

[RonnyK]

Do you have any idea of the cost and effort involved in building and maintaining the PCI compliant infrastructure required to store and process credit card information? That's what part of the 30% also goes to. And the convinience of not having to process all those individual payments yourself, etc.

I think there is value in the fact that via the App Store, it is Apple customers who are necessarily being connected with Spotify. I expect that the data would bear out that the demographics of Apple purchasers include that they spend more and stay subscribed longer. There is an element of a "finder's fee" here, which I see no problem with so long as the rules are applied universally (which they are). If Spotify can harvest users on its own through other channels, then more power to it. In fact, as others have pointed out, there is already a sizeable loophole for customers who download the app but subscribe directly with Spotify outside of the app.

 

[AsherN]

To be honest, no I don't, but if truth be told, nor do I have to.

I do. And you're right, you don't have to. But I can tell you that it is not insignificant. The fee is part cost recovery, but it is also a convinience fee. For not having to maitain your own infrastructure. For not having to process a million CC transactions every month. It is in the absolute advantage for smaller outfits. Does it completely benefit Spotify, who already have that infrastructure? no, it doesn't. But then again, they don't have to offer IAP. When I installed the Kindle app on my iPad, it would not go further than asking for my Amazon ID. I figured out pretty quick to create one. When I could not find anywhere to buy books, it didn't take me long to go to Amazon from my browser and buy the books there.

Spotify could do the same thing. When the app first run, the first config screen just says: "To use this app, you must have a valid Spotify susbscription. Enter your Spotify User ID and password".

Wouldn't take long to figure out to go to Spotify.com and create a subsciption.

 

[akash.nu]

I do. And you're right, you don't have to. But I can tell you that it is not insignificant. The fee is part cost recovery, but it is also a convinience fee. For not having to maitain your own infrastructure. For not having to process a million CC transactions every month. It is in the absolute advantage for smaller outfits. Does it completely benefit Spotify, who already have that infrastructure? no, it doesn't. But then again, they don't have to offer IAP. When I installed the Kindle app on my iPad, it would not go further than asking for my Amazon ID. I figured out pretty quick to create one. When I could not find anywhere to buy books, it didn't take me long to go to Amazon from my browser and buy the books there.

Spotify could do the same thing. When the app first run, the first config screen just says: "To use this app, you must have a valid Spotify susbscription. Enter your Spotify User ID and password".

Wouldn't take long to figure out to go to Spotify.com and create a subsciption.

In this post I've been telling this God knows how many times but some people don't seem to get it & always come back to the same grinding point. I've given up.

 

[knightfolk]

If there is only 1 store, maybe we need that right.

You have the right not to buy an iPhone. Is that so hard to understand?