That's a hoot. No developer has had any sort of success from their app on the App Store? That's completely false.
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 Rejected Spotify's App Update Adding Audiobook Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a hoot. No developer has had any sort of success from their app on the App Store? That's completely false.
I hate Spotify for buying up and locking podcasts behind their app but Apple really should just allow apps to direct people to a website to purchase something.
I have evolved on this and I do think both that Apple should get a cut of what is sold on the App Store and Apple is engaging in Anti Competitive behavior. I have a solution that will make everyone unhappy.
An app which is free should always be free which is the current model.
An app that is purchased, should be subject to the terms and conditions of the App Store which is currently 30 percent.
An app that has subscriptions it cannot be offered on an App Store for free it must be sold for at least the price of a single months subscription which is subject to the App Store fee. In addition, half of any in app purchases made during a given month are subject to the 30 Percent fee the other half are not. No ongoing subscription costs are subject to the 30 percent fee.
So on the Spotify example: a consumer would have to purchase Spotify app (after any free trial) for 9.99 of which Apple would get 30 percent, but after that, Spotify keeps the 9.99 per month.
For the game example, of a person buys $50 in life potion, half gets charged the fee, half is kept.
An app which is free should always be free which is the current model.
An app that is purchased, should be subject to the terms and conditions of the App Store which is currently 30 percent.
An app that has subscriptions it cannot be offered on an App Store for free it must be sold for at least the price of a single months subscription which is subject to the App Store fee. In addition, half of any in app purchases made during a given month are subject to the 30 Percent fee the other half are not. No ongoing subscription costs are subject to the 30 percent fee.
So on the Spotify example: a consumer would have to purchase Spotify app (after any free trial) for 9.99 of which Apple would get 30 percent, but after that, Spotify keeps the 9.99 per month.
For the game example, of a person buys $50 in life potion, half gets charged the fee, half is kept.
Exactly. I had YouTube premium on my Apple account and and cancelled it. Google offered me it cheaper (even cheaper than normal) going through them. So I took it.
Some things I wouldn’t care about paying the extra 30%
Apple's been accused of being anticompetitive so many times. Because they are. You don't become a $3T company by being fair to any of: workers, clients, customers, and competitors.
www.macrumors.com
They're like the US of the world, and they're ready to decimate anything that gets in the way of their interests--if they can. Giants like Amazon may not be worth a direct fight. Small countries are.
Apple's In-App Purchase Rules Are Anti-Competitive, Rules Dutch Antitrust Watchdog
Apple's in-app purchase requirements are anti-competitive, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has decided, reports...
www.macrumors.com
They're like the US of the world, and they're ready to decimate anything that gets in the way of their interests--if they can. Giants like Amazon may not be worth a direct fight. Small countries are.
I haven’t looked into this too much but I’m just wondering, what is it that Spotify wants to do that doesn’t seem to be an issue with literally every other audiobook app in the App Store?
Not seeing the relevance here, Apple likely pays well for that Ad space like a number of product makers pay for space in retail. Win for that store, no supply chain, no need to stock Apple products.
They want to have a direct relationship with their own customers. They are rejecting Spotifys implementation of this.
The court ruled after the Epic trial that Apple must allow this by the way.
Of course it's fair. They're trying to sell something in a store against the store owner wishes.
T
From the article:
Dodgy. It is a deliberate work around for the AppStore rules. You can argue Apple Made Them Do It, but it is a deliberate attempt at violation.
We can argue what is an appropriate fee forever. Personally I think for in app purchases from what you already pay a subscription, like prime for example, the discount after a period (it’s 10% for the subscription after a year isn’t it?) could be removed after a period. Maybe shorter than a year. But initially Apple should be able to get some consideration for running the AppStore.
Last edited:
Amazon has a sweetheart deal on digital content
Why Amazon got out of the Apple App Store tax, and why other developers won’t
It’s leverage. The reason is leverage.www.theverge.com
Just for videos. It's open for some video providers.
Your analogy is wrong. Spotify isn't advertising audiobooks in Apple's App Store. Spotify is trying to sell them in their own app and Apple is making it as difficult as possible for Spotify's customers to do so.
Spotify has appointed Apple as their commissioner and agent for those apps. And Apple is taking a cut in that role which is normal when you are a commissioner or an agent.
I feel the same. Love most of their hardware, like some of their s/w but I just hate all their services.
Sheesh these comments... 😅 Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this anti-trust?
Apple sells an audiobook for $14.99; $10.50 goes to the publisher and $4.49 goes to Apple.
Spotify sells the same audiobook for $21.40; $10.50 goes to the publisher and $4.49 goes to Spotify -- the exact same as Apple!! (Apple also collects $6.42)
What's so wrong with that?
Spotify would only raise prices in an already expensive world. I don't know about you, but I'd gladly pay $14.99 over $21.40 any day! If anything, we should be thanking Apple for keeping prices so low!
Apple sells an audiobook for $14.99; $10.50 goes to the publisher and $4.49 goes to Apple.
Spotify sells the same audiobook for $21.40; $10.50 goes to the publisher and $4.49 goes to Spotify -- the exact same as Apple!! (Apple also collects $6.42)
What's so wrong with that?
Spotify would only raise prices in an already expensive world. I don't know about you, but I'd gladly pay $14.99 over $21.40 any day! If anything, we should be thanking Apple for keeping prices so low!
I feel like Spotify will eventually release a device similar to their " Car Thing ", and Call it " The Thing " or "Phone Thing".
Especially since Apple no longer sells or makes ipods.
Especially since Apple no longer sells or makes ipods.
Yep, the problem is, this anticompetitive decimation put the economy in danger, the overall growing mobile importance is being precisely observed by many eyes. It's the core of every nation to have as much competition as possible, this makes the overall economy flourish and stable.Apple's been accused of being anticompetitive so many times. Because they are. You don't become a $3T company by being fair to any of: workers, clients, customers, and competitors.
Apple's In-App Purchase Rules Are Anti-Competitive, Rules Dutch Antitrust Watchdog
Apple's in-app purchase requirements are anti-competitive, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has decided, reports...
They're like the US of the world, and they're ready to decimate anything that gets in the way of their interests--if they can. Giants like Amazon may not be worth a direct fight. Small countries are.
Apple is building an anticompetitive imperium with dependancies that is hard to lean and compete against, and that will have a serious aftermath for Apple around the world.
The thing is, Tim & Co. don't care, their bank accounts are already full, they don't care for Apple as a company, they are not emotionally tied to Apple in any way, they are just playing the game to fill their pockets quick as possible and as long they can and retire. Anyway, they have to be very careful, this can be turned quickly into a matter with personal punishments/arrestments, even after their retirement, would be not the first time that such things happens. They are playing a dangerous game by being stubborn, anticompetitive and damaging the economy.
Last edited:
Because Apple said they would and the court in the Epic trial also ruled that this should be allowed
Apple concedes to let apps like Netflix, Spotify, and Kindle link to the web to sign up
A real concession?
www.theverge.com
Yes and that is being the authoritarian government if u only accept business which suits u.
Because Apple said they would and the court in the Epic trial also ruled that this should be allowed
Apple concedes to let apps like Netflix, Spotify, and Kindle link to the web to sign up
A real concession?
Which allowed apps to share a single link. Back then, it was obvious what Apple had in mind when they agreed to said concession.
Spotify is clearly doing a lot more than that, in a bid to see what they can and cannot get away with.
We can argue about whether the rule is reasonable or not, but it’s pretty clear what Spotify is (and isn’t) allowed to do.
Well that doesn’t matter. If u are multi platform then depending on the platform u have to follow the platforms rules but only for the specific app for the platform. What Spotify does on android platform has then to follow thair and round play store roles