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
One little fatal flaw in your reasoning: People aren't "bound" to the App store to get Spotify's music.
Seem like we know who the fool is. It's the one who doesn't understand the point I made literally one post above this tripe you just posted.
Eh? The whole App Store, free advertising, payment and go on. It is not a mere download, Apple created the entire mobile app market.
It's almost as if Spotify thinks users are either too stupid or too lazy to use their web browsers.
They did this before they had streaming music as a service. You have no facts that point to this being an attempt to snuff out competition. And it very much matters that some are physical goods and some aren't. The rules have been like this for 7 or more years now.
They do if the person subscribes through the iOS app...
No, it's not.
All Apple is doing is providing a "store shelf" for the Spotify app.
All Walmart is doing is providing a "store shelf" for let's say World of Warcraft.
When you buy World of Warcraft, it comes with the option of subscription. Would it make sense for Walmart to take a cut of the monthly subscription fees? Of course not, but that's what Apple does. You're really defending a company's ability to claim a portion of all future profits made on a product that was sold by them? So if you rent your Toyota to an associate for $25 a day, you should have to send some of that money to Toyota/the dealership? Ludicrous.
YES. THEY DO. HOLY **** YOU PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS. Never run a business, you'd fail miserably.
Yes they do, since Netflix added the ability to buy a subscription via in-App purchase. How could you not be aware of this?
I'll respond for the "sheeple." Apple is entirely consistent in their application of this policy. Any app making use of In App Purchases (IAP) is charged a 30% cut. Amazon, Walmart, and other retailers selling physical goods are NOT using IAP. All (well there have been exceptions for charitable acts) the apps that do use IAP are charged this fee, not just Spotify. This applies to Netflix and HBO Now for example, both of which are very good analogs to Spotify as they sell subscription services to content on top of a free app model.
The walmart example is crap. It's more like how PS 4 gets a cut of everything you purchase from the PlayStation Network period.
Are you saying Apple is right because they wrote these unfair rules 7 years ago? Hmmm
Walmart doesn't provide the means to distribute payment subscription.vthis Walmart analogy is terrible. They can offer their own subscription payment system if they like, they just can't promote and distribute their app through the app store
LOL. Are you aware that Netflix, Spotify, etc are on TVs, BD players, AVRs, streamer devices, Android phones, etc? Does that change the equation for you at all?
For the sake of argument as I am another "fool" who doesn't agree with you, but what exactly is wrong with Apple or any other company wanting to thoroughly and completely dominate their competition? THat's what Spotify wants, and should want. Spotify is holding on, and indeed running at tremendous loss, to try and outlast the other streaming services. They are number 1, much larger than Apple and want to stay that way.
He implies a conspiracy is at work. Apple and Netflix have a custom agreement according to him.
Say you wrote a software package that requires a monthly subscription and someone bought it at Walmart. The package the person bought and paid for gives them a 1 month subscription. You got your cut from the sale, as did Walmart.
Would you have an issue if Walmart said that you must give them a cut of any subsequent monthly subscription payment, even though they already got paid for the initial sale?
This is exactly what Apple is doing.
Yes. I know. If you don't like the terms, take your product elsewhere.
Amazing how people can defend (what I see as) Apple's anti-competitive App store terms, yet people (and governments) criticized Microsoft back in the day for using their OS dominance to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows. As if Apple isn't abusing their iOS and App store dominance.
At least with Windows, the average user could easily install an alternative browser to I.E. if they wanted to. But with Apple, an average user cannot easily bypass Apple's App store and side load the Spotify app, or any other app for that matter.
Last edited:
If you buy a 60 day WoW time card from Walmart for $29.99, Walmart is getting a cut of that.
Walmart is handling the transaction in this case and they have their own fee's and risks in selling you the card vs buying it from battle.net or wherever. It's also convenient to buy the time card when you buy the game as its all there and you don't have to go out of the store to get it if you don't want to. Blizzard is giving up a cut for this convenience.
You can just as easily go buy WoW from Blizzard directly and they keep all of it. Spotify works the same way (you can go directly to them for the subscription and they keep all of it).
Whether they're right or not is debatable. I'm arguing this isn't some scheme to put Spotify out of business like some people here seem to think.