Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's possible that Steve Jobs would have gone that way. But it is also just as likely that he would have told every government and regulator that wanted to "force" him to do something he thought was not in Apple's interest to go f themselves, I mean literally call a press conference and tell them to F OFF.

He certainly mellowed with age, but remember, this is a guy who lived in his own reality, he denied his daughter was his, but then named a computer after her. Not really predictable behavior.
He is also the guy who was happily going to "... spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product...". That is until some level heads (Tim Cook amongst them) convinced him not too. He was always open to scorched earth methods if he thought he was wronged somehow.

SoldOnApple, I'm suggesting that you believe you know what Steve would have done in this situation. But it is mind boggling that so many people seem so confident about what Steve would do today, when his closest friends seem to concede that it was often difficult to know what he was gonna do in any situation.

It would certainly be entertaining to see what Apple would be today under his helm. I don't have a problem with Tim Cook at all. But he does seem to be much more polite and bottom line focused than Steve (on most days).
Love this. People often Say Jobs would handle things differently, but we really have no idea. Let us not forget that the never ending pursuit of endless growth (which I would argue violates the laws of physics) will often steer people’s priorities the wrong direction.
 
Another thing to consider, as Google is about to discover the hard way, the rules of what a company can and can’t do in the United States chages when said company is deemed to be a monopoly. No exactly relvant for this specific topic, but applies to the broader conversation of regulating Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcortens
I agree, but I also agree that maintaining the status quo of 30% flat fee (15% small business) is a bit absurd.
15% for subscriptions after the first year. 0% for ad supported apps. 0% for apps that don't allow in-app purchases and have customers go online to pay (Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Kindle etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: HylianKnight
15% for subscriptions after the first year. 0% for ad supported apps. 0% for apps that don't allow in-app purchases and have customers go online to pay (Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Kindle etc).
Is it after the first year, or any year where a developer makes less than $1 million USD?
 
Apple is not anti steering. They simply aren’t wanting corporations to use their access to customers to market their product.

Same way you don’t go into Wendy’s advertising McDonalds.

Your example is great Apple is like Wendy's that allows McDonalds to sell their burgers with a 30% cut.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: davide_eu
lol what are they going to do?

Abandon iOS where they make money because iOS users actually buy apps and only focus on android apps where android users don’t lol and piracy is far more rampant

It is music streaming app for god’s sake. What people gonna pirate? Pirate music subscription?
 
Just to reiterate, this will make zero difference to Spotify. Because they dont offer in-App Subscription anyway. It will make it potentially easier for customers though.
 
If a user gets to Spotify though Apple they should get their commission. Stop trying to freeload Spotify.
 
Speaking of helping yourself to money that was rightfully earned by other people, Daniel Ek makes more money from Spotify than Taylor Swift and Drake - quite possibly the most streamed artists in the world - made combined: https://www.gearnews.com/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-more-revenue/

And that's to say nothing of the thousands of other artists without whom he would literally not have a service.

Daniel Ek has made more money from Spotify in the last twelve months than any other artist on the platform. While artists such as Taylor Swift, Drake and Ed Sheeran have racked up billions of streams on Spotify, Ek’s earnings far outstrip theirs. According to royalty accountant Hunter Giles, Ek has earned a whopping $345 million since July 2023 through the sale of shares. This sum is hypothetically equivalent to 115 billion streams, which would make him the world’s most streamed “artist” – if he were one.


Not trying to defend Daniel Ek, but that is so misleading. Like Elon Musk, Ek does not get a salary, just stock options. You can see this in Spotify's annual SEC filing (attached image). Ek hasn't taken a salary since 2017 and held off on selling Spotify stock until recently. So when he sells a large number of shares, of course that will distort things.

Ek.png




Would you have considered Tim Cook the world's most streamed artist in 2021 when he sold Apple stock worth $355 million? And that's excluding Cook's annual base salary and other compensation.


Oct 4 (Reuters) - Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook made $41.5 million after taxes in his biggest share sale in two years, a U.S. securities filing showed. Cook sold 511,000 shares, which were worth about $87.8 million before accounting for taxes, according to the filing Tuesday. He made $355 million from a stock sale in August, 2021.


Over the past year, Tim Cook has sold over $100 million in Apple stock.

Oct. 2023 = $87.8 million
Apr. 2024 = $33.3 million

Add in his annual salary and other compensation and he would be a top 5 streamed artist.

I get it though. The rule around here is to blindly hate on Spotify and Epic Games because they dared to challenge Apple.
 
I get it though. The rule around here is to blindly hate on Spotify and Epic Games because they dared to challenge Apple.
No, most of us hate on them because they're terrible companies that exploit artists (Spotify)/their customers (Epic), not because they challenged Apple. Doesn't help their case that they're trying to freeload off of Apple, but that's not why we "blindly hate on" them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wieslawo
Apple is not anti steering. They simply aren’t wanting corporations to use their access to customers to market their product.

Same way you don’t go into Wendy’s advertising McDonalds.
That analogy only works if Spotify are trying to advertise to customers through the Apple Music app or some other music app. That's not the case.

Spotify wants to advertise to their own customers through the Spotify app.

Spotify says it has received approval from Apple to display pricing information in its iOS app for users in the European Union, following its years-long legal struggle with the company.

Spotify says that from Wednesday, iPhone users in the EU will be informed of pricing information in the app and the fact that they can go to the company's website to purchase items directly.


The analogy here would be McDonald's not being able to show McDonald's customers their prices.
 
It's like I'm selling my product in Costco and I put a sign next to it saying hey btw don't buy it in Costco come to my store and buy from me instead.
Always the same false comparison.

But if you only read a third of the news even on MacRumors, you're bound to come up with an opinion like that.

A little hint:
Apple doesn't care about you. You're dirt to them. You may love the company and have an emotional attachment to it. But it doesn't care. And if they can take all the money out of your pocket or sue you for a mistake, they will.
 
No, most of us hate on them because they're terrible companies that exploit artists (Spotify)/their customers (Epic), not because they challenged Apple. Doesn't help their case that they're trying to freeload off of Apple, but that's not why we "blindly hate on" them.

Do you not think Apple are exploiting artists too then?

Apple are ten times the size Spotify are by revenue but pay half a penny more per stream.

What with Apple's history with suicide nets and slaves mining for their phones this seems like more odd logic.
 
It's like I'm selling my product in Costco and I put a sign next to it saying hey btw don't buy it in Costco come to my store and buy from me instead.
But, as long as it’s something being said about Apple, some will twist their brains into thinking that it’s perfectly fine for Apple AND ONLY APPLE to be forced to operate this way. :) (edit: Just checked the posts, already been done!)

Of course, in the end, it’s all Apple’s fault. If they weren’t so darned focused on creating things that people with disposable income trust and want to make purchases on, they wouldn’t have the most valuable consumer base in the world! Darn them and their (seemingly) unique ability to focus on customers with a modicum of wealth!!!
 
No, most of us hate on them because they're terrible companies that exploit artists (Spotify)/their customers (Epic), not because they challenged Apple. Doesn't help their case that they're trying to freeload off of Apple, but that's not why we "blindly hate on" them.
For understanding, that means if it was a company that had a positive image, then you would no longer defend Apple with its highway robbery?

Then you and everyone else would accept the facts?
I don't think so.

You and many other have an emotional relationship to a company(!). It's not about facts, it's about a construct of offices, legal contracts and employees, which you and many others just love like a friend.
But Apple is not your friend. It is a legal contract between shareholders.
 
It's like I'm selling my product in Costco and I put a sign next to it saying hey btw don't buy it in Costco come to my store and buy from me instead.
Magazines have done if for decades. Remember those magazine subscription inserts that direct customers to buy from the magazine publisher directly and if they do they'll get a significantly discounted price vs the cover price?

Grocery stores and big box stores like Walmart have allowed this and continue to allow this.

mag.png
 
And Spotify will still pay artists pocket change.
Spotify is swirling around the drain. They’re the only streaming music company that’s not part of a large company or group of investment companies that can spread potential losses. After all the changes Spotify claimed Apple NEEDED to make, they’ll still be losing money year after year.
 
For understanding, that means if it was a company that had a positive image, then you would no longer defend Apple with its highway robbery?

Then you and everyone else would accept the facts?
I don't think so.

You and many other have an emotional relationship to a company(!). It's not about facts, it's about a construct of offices, legal contracts and employees, which you and many others just love like a friend.
But Apple is not your friend. It is a legal contract between shareholders.
I don't think Apple is my friend. They are a company who make products that I like, but I certainly don't agree with every decision they make. I also don't think I'm defending Apple here, as I clearly stated that I support Spotify's right to tell its customers in its app that they can subscribe for cheaper online.

I also don't think Apple's charges to developers is "highway robbery" - I think Apple deserves to be compensated from others' use of its intellectual property, and if developers don't like it they can develop for Android.
 
Grocery stores and big box stores like Walmart have allowed this and continue to allow this.
But, and I think this is an important point, they don’t allow other “big box stores” to advertise in their stores and continue to not allow this.
 
Grow up Spotify. You have a place in the world's largest bazaar, which you didn't contribute a penny to, and you still have the nerve to demand privileges. Your position is so strong that now complaining that evil Apple is doing something wrong to you is pathetic. This evil Apple probably helped you a lot to be the number 1 choice for music streaming services today. You have a strong brand, you have a great position, you have excellent UX and a lot of cool solutions. But you have no decency for that, you don't pay artists and you constantly demand more from others.
It's the record labels that choose to stiff artists, keep going up the chain of command and it is ultimately apple stealing from the artists.
 
If a user gets to Spotify though Apple they should get their commission. Stop trying to freeload Spotify.

Absolutely no one found Spotify via Apple. Apple's App Store is nearly a gateway for people who are specifically picking Spotify.

Grow up Spotify. You have a place in the world's largest bazaar, which you didn't contribute a penny to,

Spotify didn't pay for Apple's developer licenses?
 
Subscriptions are always 15% after first year regardless of revenue.
Yeah, but churn is so high in this business, I bet only a small percentage of subscriptions ever qualifies for the lower fee. It's a very clever way for Apple to claim good will, while knowing that most subscriptions will pay the 30% commission anyways.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.