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 Says Spotify Only Pays 15% Fee on About 0.5% of Subscribers in Response to App Store Complaint
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Apple only charges a commission on in-app purchases tied to digital goods, which is why apps like Uber and Deliveroo are exempt."
Why not just go the Nintendo Amiibo route? $9.99 gets you a [bulk rate] post card every month along with a FREE premium subscription. Now your purchase is for a physical item instead of a digital good, or am I missing something obvious?
Why not just go the Nintendo Amiibo route? $9.99 gets you a [bulk rate] post card every month along with a FREE premium subscription. Now your purchase is for a physical item instead of a digital good, or am I missing something obvious?
I prefer EU style privacy and end-user rights over that which is available in the US.
App Store is a website. There is nothing inherently wrong with installing apps from the websites. If anything, there is a greater chance of installing some trash from App Store (with millions of apps) than from Spotify web site which would have just one app.
[doublepost=1561422928][/doublepost]
Yes they can, but they would need an Android phone. Some people find it inconvenient to buy a new phone for each app hence we have a matter for regulation. The lawmakers may help the customers ensure that when they buy a phone/computer they can install whatever software they want on it from wherever they want.
App Store is actually not a website anymore. It's a native app.
No, there's a far greater chance of installing trash from a website than an App Store. Like, you know, someone can create a false Spotify website and register spotiyf.com. By chance, someone might type in "spotiyf.com" by accident and install a malicious Spotify app. In fact, someone already registered that name and is earning ad revenue because so many people have typed it in incorrectly. Imagine if that person created a fake Spotify look alike website.
With the App Store, the reviewers will reject your app if you used a trademarked name that isn't yours in either the title or the app description. I worked with a client of a big make-up brand and submitted an app to the App Store. They rejected it and asked for proof that I have the authority to submit apps under that brand name.
I hope apple is forced to allow alternative 3rd party payment processing options for in app purchases. Let the developer decide which payment processor to use, apple or someone else. Apple still is in charge of the app store and can "keep out malware" and take 30% of the app price.
Apple forcing devs to use apple as the cc# payment processor for IAP is like Walmart forcing magazines to have their customers use a Walmart credit card when mailing in those cards to subscribe.
Apple forcing devs to use apple as the cc# payment processor for IAP is like Walmart forcing magazines to have their customers use a Walmart credit card when mailing in those cards to subscribe.
Last edited:
But the addition of more users does. Regardless, why can Spotify monetize their service but Apple can't?
Spotify collects over $1 billion a month from subscribers. $10 million is not even 1/10th of a percent.
[doublepost=1561431434][/doublepost]
The answer is yes, you are missing something obvious.
[doublepost=1561431487][/doublepost]
Apple is not a payment processor. You can pay for apps with any credit card, a gift card paid for with cash, and even Pay Pal.
[doublepost=1561431524][/doublepost]
Spotify has lost money every day it has been in business. That's not "monetization."
[doublepost=1561431656][/doublepost]
Trying to analyzes whether Apple makes a profit on the $99 a year is pointless and irrelevant. It is one revenue stream of thousands.
The bottom line is the App Store costs money to run, and that includes money spent on reviewing apps, among hundreds of other line items.
[doublepost=1561431745][/doublepost]
It actually says absolutely nothing.
[doublepost=1561431950][/doublepost]
By your analogy the local gas station should not be paid anything since you do and the refinery do all the "heavy lifting," and the gas station is just an intermediary. They didn't make the gas or pump it into your car.
Last edited:
That sounds like a lot but looks correct.
680,000 subscribers x 12 months/ subscriber x 9.99 premium/month x 0.15 %. = 12,227,760
An employee making $32/hr cost their employer more than $32/hour. Don’t forget employer taxes and other benefit costs.
Do you even know what a payment processor even is?
You are right you can pay with it with multiple credit cards but that is not what a payment processor is.
A payment processor is the company that takes all those random different ways of paying and collects the money from each vendor and pays the company.
Most charge 2-3% of what is charged. Apple for being a basic payment processor is charging 15-30%.
[doublepost=1561433900][/doublepost]
20 years ago when we hired in CA, we used a rough “double the amount”. So we would then say that employee is costing us $64/hr. I’m willing to go with that being on the high side and go with $50. But then that is still not taking into consideration building costs in an expensive area. We might be back up to $64.
Regardless, paying an employee $32/hr does not mean that is all they cost you. Just like a free app has overhead for Apple that likely isn’t covered by their $99/yr fee.
Don't forget Apple benefits from having a "safe" store. Apple should be the one to pay for any associated costs for that benefit. It's part of the cost of the iPhone.
Hope you paid these music artists a lot by going to their shows and buying their merch
“Apple only charges a commission on in-app purchases tied to digital goods, which is why apps like Uber and Deliveroo are exempt.”
Seems arbitrary and discriminatory. Say I am a judge....the first question I am going to ask Apple’s lawyers is on what basis is one exempt, while the other is not?
Seems arbitrary and discriminatory. Say I am a judge....the first question I am going to ask Apple’s lawyers is on what basis is one exempt, while the other is not?
Hope all you want but it will never happen. As a customer I would never use a third party payment processor even if it was available. I don't need my payment/credit card details spread out among dozens of Apps, each with their own security risks of my personal data getting leaked.
And your Walmart analogy is stupid. Walmart does, in fact, sell subscriptions/services through their stores and they collect a percentage of those fees. Partly for handling the payment and partly because that subscription was sold by being in a high traffic location (inside a Walmart). Pretty much exactly the same as The App Store - high traffic location to sell your goods (Apps) and handling the payment. However, Apple does more than Walmart. They review Apps (goods) before customers are allowed to buy them and they also provide part of the delivery system (the original App itself plus all the updates basically for life).
[doublepost=1561439643][/doublepost]
Hardly arbitrary. It's actually black & white:
If you buy something that's used WITHIN your App (game credits, subscription to media, software add-ons or plug-ins) then you pay the 30% fee.
If you buy something that's used OUTSIDE the App (food from DoorDash, goods from Amazon, a ride from Uber) then you don't pay a fee. Further, these Apps don't even use Apple to process payments and you set up your payment method directly with the company offering the App.
Look, I'd really really like to hear your answer to this, because I'm curious. I don't think it's going to be sensible, but I'm open to changing my mind.
Let's say I'm an app developer. I have my own web site, of course, which advertises my game, but that's not where 99% of people find it from. They find it from review sites, or searching on the app store, or whatever. Now let's say this app is $4.99, or perhaps free-demo-$4.99-to-unlock-everything.
Now, let's say Spotify can get away with this. They can put their app up on the app store for free, and then put up splash screens inside the app that say 'click here to pay for our service on our web site'.
What's top stop me from putting up my app for $4.99 on my web site and putting up a splash screen saying to go there and unlock it there? I can use Apple's store for distribution for free, and my own 3% credit card processor for payments, and pocket $4.85 per purchase. Pretty significant savings for me!
Literally there is no difference here except that spotify is big and people like it, and I am small. You can say 'well theirs is a subscription' but what's to stop me from saying 'well mine is a subscription, for $4.99 you can subscribe to this app for 5 years'? And maybe offer a free extension if it's still around in that time? Trust me, if Apple let Spotify do this by making a subscription exception in the T&C, there would be a thousand lawyers licking their chops ready to defend me in court if I wanted to use them.
Perhaps your argument is that because spotify is available on other platforms, it's different? Well, there are ten thousand things that are available on the android store and the ios store. Are they different too? What about the finance app I have, which I bought from the company directly for the Mac and from the app store for iOS? Should I be able to buy the iOS and the Mac app as a bundle from them for one low, low price, and Apple doesn't get anything for distributing it although I'm making money off their distribution? What about if there's a half-assed web site that integrates with the iOS app. Perhaps the app is a game, and the web site organizes your saved games, and without it you can't save a game. I can sell a subscription to that, advertise it from inside the app, and collect the money. I get free distribution through the app store, and I can sell saved games and only get charged a credit card fee! It's like free money!
Apple is offering an amazing service to its developers: in exchange for them providing free apps to their community of users, Apple is providing curation, search, and distribution. I have some minor issues with the way they do it, but make no mistake: this costs Apple a huge amount of money, and for those free apps it earns them zero. What you are saying is 'because Apple does not charge developers for this amazing service unless the developer is making money, Apple should not charge them for this amazing service even if they are making money, unless they voluntarily choose to give Apple money.' You don't know that's what you're saying, because you don't know how fast a business would come out that would set up a subscription model, charge app developers 5%, and sell 'subscriptions' for apps for you. (Hell, I could write a site like that in maybe eight weeks, and I know a dozen people who would just looooove to 'disrupt' the iOS store.) And Apple would be stuck with the entire upkeep for the app store as overhead and no revenue whatsoever.
I see Apple's point. Diverting users to hacky solutions will impead on the quality of the platform and ease of use.
Not because Spotify is some random half shady dev.
As The Verge has pointed out, these figures Apple is spouting are meaningless, they mean nothing because it’s based on figures from when Spotify offered you to subscribe through the App Store, which was only between 2014 to 2016:
http://www.theverge.com/2019/6/24/18715719/apple-spotify-eu-antitrust-complaint-response
http://www.theverge.com/2019/6/24/18715719/apple-spotify-eu-antitrust-complaint-response
