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.
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 Allows Spotify to Show Pricing Info to EU Users in iPhone App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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?
Your example is great Apple is like Wendy's that allows McDonalds to sell their burgers with a 30% cut.
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.
How much does Apple Music pay and how much would it be paying it it didn’t have pricy hardware sales to subsidize it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
Does that also mean that if a user gets to Amazon, Robinhood, Uber, etc. through Apple, Apple should get a commission too?
You know that Apple doesn't right?
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.
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.
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.
Subscriptions are always 15% after first year regardless of revenue.
Absolutely no one found Spotify via Apple. Apple's App Store is nearly a gateway for people who are specifically picking Spotify.
Spotify didn't pay for Apple's developer licenses?
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.