Europe has twice as many people as the US, so never.
Exactly. The whole leave the market is a non starter.
Basically the EU wants Apple to inform the users where they can buy an item cheaper AND give them a free taxi ride to the location.
It's even worse. Apple supposedly should also advertise using competing services.
Deevy and coredev:
Exactly. Spotify essentially wants Apple to shoulder all the costs of distribution, signing, etc. for the cost of a developer account and allow Spotify to advertise a competing service for free as well. They really just want to be a free rider.
They already get yearly developer subscriptions of Spotify and any app developer that publishes an app. Don't forget that Spotify is a free app.
yea, that $299 enterprise account certainly covers Apple's costs for certifying and hosting the Spotify app.
I can do it for Apple.
This move would be good for Spotify, but bad for the overall health of the App Store. This would basically allow every company to sidestep iTunes billing while retaining the convenience of letting people register within the app.
I still believe that if we want a thriving App Store ecosystem, every developer who can pay their share ought to do so.
Apple could simply change the way they charge for subscription apps. Let them advertise outside subscription options, but charge them for app store services such as downloads, signing, etc. that is now part of their whopping $299 enterprise developer account.
It is funny how people on here defend Apple no matter what. The EU charge is right. Apple is competing in the appstore and due to the fees, other similar services cost more. Why should Spotify or anybody else have to lower their standard price just so they can make the price look the same due to the Apple fee but get less money than Apple?
For the same reason traditional print magazines have done it via 3rd party subscription sellers such as Publishers Clearing House and others: to gain subscribers that make advertising rates higher. PCH not only charges less for a subscription but no doubt gets a cut. Apple's model is not new. It's Spotify's choice to charge more for IAP.
I think the important part is that Apple takes a cut from companies that offer services that compete with Apple's own services.
So? I sell a product I developed as well as a competitor's product. If a client choses the competitor's I get a cut of the sale and ongoing revenue. That is not an unusual situation, online or in B&M stores.
Regardless, the claim that Apple "didn’t create the App Store to be a charity" is B.S.
So why did they create it? To give stuff away for free and not make any money off of it?
Apple's benefit is they sell more phones. Without third party developers, iPhone sales would be dismal, and the "platform" would be non-existent. Apple may have created the platform, but third parties carry it.
True. The are complimentary goods in many ways, although the physical product is the driver of the digital one.
Apple made the choice to ban side loading on the iPhone so they should have to live with hosting their competitors products on their store without deriving a competitive advantage. In this case, if you want fairness, Spotify should pay Apple for their cost of app hosting and payment processing and nothing more.
They could, and I am guessing Spotify would start screaming if Apple changed the subscription model and charged for hosting, payment processing, signing, bandwidth usage, etc. It would probably cost them more in the end than the current model.
