Hey, why doesn't spotify do that? Put an ad campaign into place that pulls you to the web and tells you how to subscribe! Then they'd be paying for the ad and Apple couldn't do a thing about it. See, this is how capitalism works. Gaming the other guy.
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
That is not at all what I am arguing. Nothing in what I wrote should lead you to believe that I was arguing it either.
No, I'm not arguing that Spotify is an exception. I'm pointing out the fact that there is strong legal precedent in antitrust law limiting what a private corporation can do when creating an ecosystem that binds consumers. That people and companies are participating in the existing system actually doesn't have any bearing. In fact, in a successful antitrust case, you'd have to have that!
See Spotify? This is what happens when you try to trick people by being vague.
We all knew in the other threads Spotify was whining and being intentionally deceitful by NOT telling anyone why their App update was rejected. Though many of us guessed (correctly) it was because they attempted to bypass Apples terms regarding links directing people out of the App to sign up for subscriptions.
Stop acting like little whiny btches with entitlement issues and start figuring out how to make your business profitable (instead of blaming the music industry or Apple for your unsustainable business model).
We all knew in the other threads Spotify was whining and being intentionally deceitful by NOT telling anyone why their App update was rejected. Though many of us guessed (correctly) it was because they attempted to bypass Apples terms regarding links directing people out of the App to sign up for subscriptions.
Stop acting like little whiny btches with entitlement issues and start figuring out how to make your business profitable (instead of blaming the music industry or Apple for your unsustainable business model).
So in each of the cases you mentioned those apps are using some other kind of billing system. They can do that because those purchases aren't IAPs. If the purchase is an IAP, then it's required to use Apple's billing system. Is there some way Spotify could develop around that so that the subscription is NOT an IAP? Maybe. I don't know. But it's sure an interesting question.
Did Walmart provide you with the ability to
That's absolutely correct.
However... since you mentioned Apple's billing system... remember it doesn't cost Apple $4 a month to process my credit card. It's around 70 cents or so.
Which means the other $3.30 every month, per user, goes to storage and bandwidth... which is still high since the app is already sitting on a server and I've already downloaded it to my phone.
It just seems like Apple is getting a whole lotta monthly revenue for not much monthly work.
But those are the rules. And I understand why Apple does it.
It doesn't cost Apple $2 a month to process my credit card either.
I know, I know... there's more than just the credit card fees. I'm just being outrageous.
Apple sets the rules and 3rd-parties must abide by them.
I'm on Apple's side.
The part you're missing is what we call in the retail world a "loss leader." Apple distributes millions of apps per day for free to the consumer and developer. Apple pays all costs associated with this distribution. Why? Because it brings in customers. It's a HUGE reason why the App Store, and others like it on other platforms have become a success. How can Apple do this? Because it takes a cut of the profits from other Apps to make up the costs. Just like how Spotify takes the hit on free subscriptions. It brings customers in, and you make up that loss in other ways.
Let's go back to the Walmart analogy everyone keeps making. Walmart runs an ad for $25 off a new video game. Awesome! You just saved money! They lost money on that video game. But Walmart is banking on the fact that you're going to buy your controllers (Spotify) at Walmart, where they will make up the loss.
Sure you may be able to go somewhere else and pay less for your controllers, but there's no guarantee that you would, but Walmart made it so convenient for you, so they should rightfully get a cut of the controllers.
Walmart may also have their own brand of controllers that they sell at a discount or even the same amount of money. HEY THATS UNFAIR! Is Walmart paying an extra cut for their controller? No, because they made it and distributed it. You're more than welcome to sell your controllers only at Winn-Dixie (android), but then YOU are losing customers.
But why should Walmart get a cut of every controller a customer buys from them? They obviously like the controller, because they keep buying them. Walmart distributed it, and is continuing to provide you the avenue to sell them. Pay your share, or go somewhere else. If you started putting notes in the packaging saying "Don't buy another controller from Walmart! Buy it from us online and save money!" Walmart would have every right to stop distributing your product. You have broken a good faith relationship with the company that originally got you that business.
You are clearly not a business person. To use your analogy, your fictitious iOS App would have to be able to FORCE YOU to pay your electricity bill THROUGH THE APP. The Walmart analogy is almost EXACTLY what Spotify is doing. Apple has built the "Times Square" of the App world. Do you think rent is FREE in Times Square to get all of those eyes on those products? HECK NO! Spotify is clearly able to sign up just as many users directly as their efforts allow them to -- what does Apple get to "HOST" all of THOSE Spotify Users? -- NOTHING BUT $100/year development fee. The ones that Apple gets paid for are the ones that APPLE SIGNS UP. (Try to convince landlords in Times Square that you will not pay rent based upon the percentage of your customers that came specifically to you and did not just wander in! Not only would they think you are NUTS but, AGAIN, Apple is only charging for those that sign up directly within the App Store. If someone had even BEEN TO Spotify.com they would know the rate is much cheaper there and would have signed up on the website.)
Spotify also has the option to completely eliminate subscriptions in their App and do them 100% on their website (like Amazon does with Kindle where there's no in-App option to subscribe and they ask you to get an Amazon account before you can use the App).
they're looking for publicity. one thing neither has said is what is Spotify's deal with apple. i bet they're not paying the 30%.
It's subscription based payments they take cuts on or purchases to access different parts of an app you ignorant ****. It's not a "sheeple" argument until you make it one.
they aren't limiting anything. They can make Spotify compatible with Safari and everyone on iOS can use it there. Spotify uses APPLES APP STORE. So they follow their rules. They can use safari and not have push notifications or lock screen controls, but they don't
They have... We buy their crap phones that have access to one monopolized app store. If all developers were to boycott apple nobody would buy their phones because they'd have no ap
For me to consider Apple's stance in the matter as anything other than unfair, there would have to be competing app stores on iOS we could choose to purchase from. There are not. They have a monopoly on app store purchases of all users of the iPhone. Of course they'll charge 15-30%, they can. Spotify is no saint in the world of business, but let's be realistic... Apple charges this because they can, not because it's what it costs to maintain/or make a reasonable profit. Our antitrust laws are antiquated and need to be adapted so that their spirit still encompasses businesses of the current and future era. Lobbying is also bad. Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
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
Close that loop hole?!
You mean remove freedoms from their os right?
Do you guys live in dictatorship countries in your real life too?
It's not so much that Apple should get a large chunk of recurring fees, it's that, if Apple makes one path cost less, millions of apps will change to that path - if the terms were, say, "30% of upfront price but only 1% of subscriptions", then most apps would switch to free-to-download-but-charges-a-subscription, and Apple would effectively be switched from 30% of the money that flows through the store to 1%, which is not a sustainable amount to run the store. And we'd all be stuck with paying subscriptions for calculator apps. That's why their cut of subscriptions is so high.
But Amazon has shown, with the Kindle app, that it's entirely possible to sell your content outside the App Store, give away your app for free, and get tons of business. Spotify can already give their app away for free, and sell their subscriptions outside and keep all the money from the subscriptions - they just can't advertise this inside the app - which is what this is really all about.
You should hire out as a business consultant. "Spotify, I recommend you ditch the platform that has provided you with 160 million downloads and hundreds of millions of dollars and ask for a refund of your $99.00 as you clearly aren't getting your money's worth. " " iOS is on a billion devices and Apple makes over 90% of the profits for phone platforms, but I interpret that as Android is owning the market and would suggest you model yourself after Android, and leave the App store to the other companies that Apple has funneled over $50 billion, yes billion, to."
We're going to go a bit afield here but I've had the opposite experience. I started out back in the day with MythTV, conceptually it was great but it was a pain trying to support relatively recent hardware given the lack of Linux driver support. Eventually I decided that wasn't worth it and moved to Windows Media Center. I bought cases that looked like they belonged in an AV cabinet (not a Dell tower sitting next to the entertainment center) and all components and cooling for silence; basically this wasn't just toying around with the feature for a few days, I gave it a good go. It worked but the experience was still less than ideal. I liked the flexibility but user experience was subpar compared with DirectTV set top boxes and Tivo. There was still a fair bit of tinkering that had to take place with those setups and I couldn't just put the remote in the hands of a house guest without providing a tutorial. I moved to AppleTV with the 2nd generation and haven't looked back since. The "it just works" trope really holds true for AppleTV in comparison to media PCs. It's solid, it's intuitive, it provides everything I need. I really feel appliances like this, ChromeCast devices, and FireSticks (or embedded equivalents) are the future for television, not repurposed computers.
Except those are ads for all sorts of OTHER products. They're not ads that ONLY take you out to purchase content for use inside the actual App itself (like an in-App purchase). Big difference.
you should pitch that idea to Spotify and ask for just a 20 % cut of their current revenue
You seem to have a hard time grasping the difference between:
- Using an App to do "online shopping" (which is what the Walmart or Amazon App are doing).
- Buying content that can ONLY be used in the App (watching Netflix, streaming Spotify, getting upgrades for your gear in a MMO).
I gave you examples:
Home Depot
Walmart
Amazon
ANY OTHER COMPANY THAT SELLS PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS
Apple doesn't get a cut on ANY of them and yet all of them use Apples App Store.
Just because spotify distributes digitally (on their OWN network) is meaningless.
This is a CLEAR case of trying to snuff out competition. I mean only a total FOOL would think otherwise.