[doublepost=1552657647][/doublepost]
They make 30% off anything bought in the windows App Store
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 Seeks to Keep All Benefits of App Store Without Making Any Contributions to Marketplace
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do they make 30% off everything sold in the app-store version of iTunes?
"From our earliest days, we've built our devices, software and services to help artists, musicians, creators and visionaries do what they do best."
..."These days, we make fashionable toys that allow hipsters, soccer moms, and middle-schoolers to do whatever it is they do."
..."These days, we make fashionable toys that allow hipsters, soccer moms, and middle-schoolers to do whatever it is they do."
Apple isn’t processing your payments to Uber unless you use Apple Pay which they do make fees from
[doublepost=1552657967][/doublepost]
No they don’t but Apple also doesn’t make anything sold on steam on Mac either. However Apple pays a cut of subscriptions to anyone who signs up for Apple Music on an android device
I think Apple isn't referring to the 30% cut here.
Apple likely wants to have as much control as possible over the end user experience, which probably means telling app developers to "know their place" and design their apps in a manner that is in line with Apple's vision of how they want these apps to be consumed by the end user.
In short, Apple wants the App Store to be a destination. They want users to keep coming back to the App Store instead of going somewhere else and shopping from that business instead.
Or to use an analogy, imagine Apple is this departmental store which wants you, the customer, to continue returning to its store and getting everything you need from there, rather than simply being a front for the display of goods, with consumers ending up doing their shopping online (where Apple doesn't get a cut) and end up not being exposed to other products as well.
It basically boils down to each company wanting to do what in each of their best interests respectively.
So it should be the same, Netflix, Spotify etc should be allowed to give their customers information regarding how to sign up through their website. Not force IAPs on them.
Doesn't matter whether it's physical or digital.
This issue has been solved on Android, now time to solve it on iOS.
But Apple's argument is that the AppStore is what is providing the value. Why the arbitrary decision to mandate in-app payments for digital goods and not on services or physical goods? Uber is getting all the benefits for free that Apple says Spotify wants. What rational justification is there for carving out digital goods as an exception? Apple isn't providing anything other than app distribution to Uber or Spotify, why treat them different?
That's going to be the problem for Apple when the EU Commission is looking at the complaint. They are putting in place restrictive rules that only affect markets in which Apple is a direct competitor. Make the rules uniform for all developers and things would at least look better, but the customer experience would go down pretty quick.
Could you imagine if the choice in using the Uber service was to pay either $10 for the ride plus an additional $3 to Apple by using the payment method in the app, or having to log into a separate website and pay Uber directly every time to save that $3 fee? The confusion would be rampant and the anger widespread as people suddenly saw their $10 ride cost $13 just for using the app. That is exactly what Apple expects anyone making a digital purchase from Amazon, Spotify, Netflix, etc. to do.
On the other hand, allowing Spotify and other retailers of digital goods to use their own in-house payment system through their app (just like Uber does) would be a fair option that would cause the least amount of disruption.
Spotify isn't asking for special treatment, just the same treatment as other providers who sell goods and services through apps distributed through the AppStore.
Last edited:
Apple isn't processing Uber payments because they don't allow people to use App Store payments for physical services.
As for Apple Pay fees, they're definitely not charging 30%, or even 15%. To my knowledge, it's built into the card processing fee from MC/Visa. Which amounts to what, 3%? Depending on the integrator you work with.
Saying nothing is always an option that most people forget exists.
I don't think there's anything Apple could have said, other can making concessions and changing their policies. Apple is clearly in the wrong here. If Google was fined $2.7B for product price comparison links, and has now made changes despite actively appealing the ruling, I can see this Apple case setting a new record for EU antitrust fines.
They have websites that allow them to do this all Spotify has to do is create a login only app like Netflix and amazon prime. Once you have apps linking to external websites for payments the scammers will make a cleaning
Apple developed a platform that allows millions of creatives including them to bring their ideas and get them in front of hundreds of millions of buyers with linked credit cards. No other platform offered that. They provided a transparent way to participate by paying a 30% commission to partner with them. Instead of the 70% plus a high platform fee to get on Sony or Microsoft platforms or AT&T or Verizon.
That's why there was a backlash against Windows 10-S. Because Windows 10-S prevents people from side loading any apps not purchased from the Windows store. But Microsoft is sure trying hard to win that battle.
It's true - Apple doesn't treat all developers fairly. But, IMO, the real issue here is when Apple makes their own clones of successful Apps and then supplies them at a discount - like "dumping" laws of old. Imagine a very successful grocery chain that was highly profitable, so they could afford to offer their own, generic branded products for free and put the real brands out of business. This typically doesn't happen because grocery stores don't actually make their own generic food, but in Apple's case, they do. However, it's not hard to imagine a world where stores were banned from offering their own branded food. But in Apple's case, is so complex because they ARE an App company, so it's more like if Kelloggs started opening their own stores that only sold Kelloggs brand cereal.
Visibility for small developers is always hard - you have to spend a lot on advertising, but there are known channels to help with this, like review sites, etc. Nonetheless, you start out being a new, small company on the entire internet - how will anyone ever find you anywhere?
You’d be surprised how some companies underutilize static web hosting vs dynamic when it comes to cost. Obviously there are pros/cons, but you can run a successful store with a combination of S3 and lower EC2 tiers for auth and transactional things.
If you continue to rely on gift cards someone continues to take a cut.
Spotify needs to give the user an option to shift to a different billing method. If they can't do it through the app, do it through the web.
Exactly. You can set up an account, including payment methods, within the Uber app itself. When you initiate a payment within the Uber app it goes to their servers and they handle all the processing. There is no reason Spotify shouldn't be able to do the same thing. The whole "external website" workaround is only there because Apple refuses to treat digital retailers the same as other businesses.
Apple should stay quiet? Why? And let a whiner like Daniel Ek intentionally deceive people with a carefully worded blog post that leaves out key details to deceive people?
Apple is clearly in the wrong. Said many “experts” about Apple vs Qualcomm, yet a major decision yesterday went in favor of Apple. You shouldn’t assume your opinions are an absolute truth.
Seeing as how I have had to scrub viruses from almost all the pc people in my family, most of them several times, I’m gong to say your experience is in the abnormal. Most of them had virus installed. The “average” consumer doesn’t know anything about being safe online. A phone would be even worse.
So you think Spotify should have free access to the App Store it’s not like a majority of users aren’t already only on the free add supported tier.
I never said Apple should stay quiet. But that would probably have been preferable to the response they did put out. They just elevated Spotify's argument. If Apple said nothing, this news would have ended yesterday. Now it's in the news for 2 days, and I'm sure people are going to discuss it again later this month when Apple announces their streaming movie/tv service, which I am sure will suffer from the same antitrust issues.
In terms of being right or wrong, it's not only an opinion. I specialize in IP, it's my area. It's been clear cut to me that Qualcomm was generally in the wrong (also more for the anti-competitive nature of the bundling they did, and less about the patent infringement issue which has always been a sideshow distraction). I'll never claim to predict how judges or juries will rule with any level of certainty, but in that field I am right more often than wrong.
Now, I am not an antitrust law specialist - far from it. But I do read a lot about it, more than just these big flashy Google and Microsoft cases. I just posted here why this is pretty darn clear cut. If you look at the fact patterns which were the origin of antitrust law, it would be difficult to come up with a modern-day fact pattern that fits better than this App Store situation.
This is a very thin ice. Unfortunately I am on board with Apple on this one. Closed and controlled environment is Apple's core philosophy and why it is "working". This some kind of "monopoly" is on par with their ideology. I don't need trillion choices I just need the right one. And that is an essential difference between "Job's" Apple and the rest of the companies capitalist philosophy.
Spotify argues that competition is healthy. I don't think so. More doesn't mean better.
Spotify argues that competition is healthy. I don't think so. More doesn't mean better.
If only there was an easy way to sign up for Spotify without Apple taking a share...hmm.
I think Spotify should have the same access to the AppStore that any other provider of goods and services does. Whether that means everyone pays for access, only those that voluntarily use in-app payments are charged the percentage of revenue, or even everyone that uses an app to make payments regardless if they go through Apple or not pays a percentage of revenue doesn't matter to me. All providers should be held to a uniform set of rules.
Do you think it is proper Uber can have free access to the AppStore?
Last edited:
I'm sorry but how is this any better? There'd be no control over apps, no unified update system and so on.
I'm not saying the App Store is perfect and you can surely argue the 30/15 cut is to much, but I don't see how it would be a great benefit for the consumer.