That’s fair, I suppose I just have a negative view of Spotify because I just don’t like the app or its user experience much. Epic has rumours of the way they punish devs who want to have their app in multiple app stores and don’t want to be exclusive to the Epic store.
If you say so, Mate. I apologize if my experience and opinions don’t align with yours.
Is EPIC not allowed to do so with the web too? Pretty sure you have to create an account and from that you can sell the customer whatever you want.
Yup. And that's fair. They should be. That's what keeps them in business. Just be real about it. Stop hiding behind false statements like "innovation" and "monopoly's".
Those were the terms everyone agreed to. If at any point they didn't agree with them. They could work with Apple to address them. Pull the IAP out of the app (Netflix and Spotify) and continue to address them with Apple directly or via the courts without making a public stink about it. Just say, we disagree with the terms and we are looking for legal action to remedy it. We will let the courts decide. In the meantime we will pull the IAP portion out of the existing apps, and users will have to continue to subscribe via other means. Nice and simple.
This isn't an entitlement. It's the agreement between Apple and Developers. Apple didn't just show up like the mob and demand a cut of your profits for "protection" against others that will do the same to you.
Why not? How much does a physical store charge its vendors for items on the shelf? Everyone of them have different cuts for different things. It's supportable as long as you agree to it. Stop agreeing to it, and negotiate another rate or follow the above steps for other solutions.
Again why? What changed? None of the prices increased for 16 years. Yet the phone got better and better over that time to offer developers more things they could do with the device. Developer prices went up over the last 16 years for their apps and services. Is Netflix less today than 10 years ago?
Apple until recently (less than two years ago) even prohibited developers from communicating alternative purchasing options with consumers outside of their app.
…and I somewhat support their stance.
Mobile app pricing multiplied and so did revenue. $5 one-time was a somewhat expensive app back then - today that $50. Or $5 a month on subscription. Without much cost increase to Apple.
The entire mobile/computing/technology landscape has changed, bringing Apple to the forefront making one of only 2 viable operating systems for modern smartphones. Don’t pretend nothing has changed. Everything has changed. A smartphone replaces a computer (and lots of other devices) for many people and combined they vastly vastly outsell any other type of computing device.
Yeah good jokes 🤣🤣
Or you know, don’t take ppl criticizing android personally.
That’s an extremely ironic statement to make considering that’s what a lot of posters in this thread are doing with Apple when they’re rightly up for a bit of criticism.
It’s an apple website. I’m not sure why you are surprised.
The recent Spotify win was about anti-steering provisions that Apple had already eliminated as part of its DMA compliance plan. Assuming you are talking about the $2 billion fine.
You’re right in the narrow case of the previous ruling. But I think that this part of Apple’s policies could still get them in trouble if someone bothers to challenge it. It just smacks too much of anti-competitive rent seeking when they already charge the core tech fee.
Again, on the web. I've also stated that emailing customers should be allowed (with consent). Since most apps require some kind of account with them. They would and should (with consent) have the ability to email customers about pricing.
I agree with this.
Of course.
Different product. Yes, it could be made to work. Just that the iPhone/iOS was not built to work as such.
Except that it wasn't made to work that way for the iPhone. If Apple wanted it to be an open platform (aka Android). They would have built it that way from the start.
Apple is a business. Business make money. They sell products at price points that the market will bear for it. No one is forced to use Apple products/services/software/API's/devices at all. 70/30 split was agreed to by these developers.
Tell that to Microsoft. The AppStore commission price was set from start and only went down in price over time. 70/30. If it had gone up, you would have a more valid point IMO, but it didn't. Apple gets to control the platform they successfully created. And again, they didn't make it more onerous as time went on and they became more successful with the iPhone. It's the same price and or lower. Plus, they are not the biggest in the EU. That goes to Google and for music streaming Spotify.
I think they are compensated. 70/30 split on the appstore has worked well. People keep buying new iPhones year over year.
Again, what's fair? I'm only seeing one side complain that it isn't free. Which I can't agree with. And since none of us run a Data Center and pay for network services, and power of the scale to run this store. Or pay the people to keep the systems running and updated, etc. I'm personally at a loss to expect anyone outside of Apple or Google to know what the existing cost break down is and what a fair profit would be.
Informing the end user should be permitted (with consent). I totally agree with that. If the end user wishes to continue paying via IAP. Apple should be able to collect their fee as the terms permit and was agreed to.
We don't know what Apple's costs are in this regard. But I do know that IAP makes more money than selling the app outright. And anyone using it with a popular app is making MORE than ever before.
Very good example of harm to everyone caused by apple forcing everyone to use an inferior service instead of competing on the merits of the service.
For Microsoft they literally owned the market for desktop OS. In this case, Apple doesn't own the market for music streaming or iOS as the dominate player the EU. The laws being violated in Apple's case is new law. While Microsoft was abusing its power.
And that is perfectly OK with me for them to do so. Just keep out the smack talking and public shaming. Stay on the AppStore and work it out in the courts. It's better that way, as
Not if you're just keeping it to the facts. Not like Sweeney did. Who makes a commercial to show how pissed you are at another company? Then when you lose in court, complain further and on and on.
That's a strange way to admit that entire basis for your post was made up.
That's nothing but loaded language. Rent seeking has a specific definition that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The App Store will charge a commission just like an alternative store will. There is nothing unfair about that.
They could and do complain about a lot of things. That doesn't make them right. They have two options for managing subscription in app already. They can move to a third-party app store. Or they can pay Apple a commission for use of their store and platform.
This is just nonsense. The App Store has supported alternative payment processing from the beginning from apps selling physical goods. The idea that the platform isn’t built to support it is just not true.
Actually they don’t, in the EU if something becomes to important (and iOS demonstrably is big given how much commerce happens on iPhones) they don’t get to keep sole control over it anymore. Regulators start asking questions about the public good and whether or not they are operating fairly. Just ask the telecoms, they cant just do whatever they want, they got smacked down when they tried to prevent people from using their cell plans across borders in the EU.
The problem isn’t that they don’t deserve to be compensated, but the app commission on all transactions that is the issue. Even transactions Apple does not facilitate. If Apple wants funding for the App Store that should be separated from the commissions, OR, as I and others keep pointing out, all apps, even those selling physical goods should pay the commission. There are no good reasons physical stores shouldn’t also pay the commission (I am aware of people’s arguments around marginal cost of digital vs physical goods but this has no bearing on whether or not a company can afford to pay apple a commission, which is why it shouldn’t matter if the good is physical or digital).
Yeah. My house would have been cheaper if I didn't have to pay my contractor. But I don't consider that "harm".
Would cost an awful lot more if you had to pay your estate agent a commission on everything you put in it though.
Ironically, I did pay a real estate agent a percentage of revenue based on the sales of my previous house despite the fact that they had nothing to do with processing the payment.
Sort of, my post was me thinking about the ways in which the previous ruling was argued rather than the specifics of that ruling. As I said, Spotify is at a competitive disadvantage vs Apple Music when it comes to account creation and subscription because of this rule. So similar logic to the previous ruling would likely apply.
I think it is a fair critique, they have both the CTF and this commission. They are trying to monetize digital purchases that they have nothing to do with while also monetizing the platform via the CTF.
You didn't criticize Android mate, you just hated on it. Big difference.
That's great taking in consideration it came from somebody that said, he would endure endless torture rather than being forced to use an Android smartphone. Funny how you act like you are on higher moral ground or something 🤣
Of course I disagree with your senseless hate, things that aren't true anyway.
