Then that's Spotifys problem is it not? Apple just needs to make that possible, then they can place whatever rules they want on apps distributed via their own App Store. Allow Spotify to take matters into their own hands (host the app package themselves so that users can install it from there) then by all means take 60% of revenue via the App Store if companies will pay it.
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 Wants 'Limitless Access' to App Store Tools Without Paying
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But that’s the problem. Yes it would be Spotify’s problem, but that is not what they want. They don’t want to leave the App Store, they want to be on it and not pay for anything other than their measly developer fee. They want to be able to offer subscriptions in app to App Store downloaders, without paying Apple.
The reason this is an issue, is because Spotify “knows” it’s harder to get people to subscribe through their website. That they are losing potential upgrades because people won’t go through the website.
If they weren’t missing out on that money, they wouldn’t care so much about being able to process orders themselves “in app”, if their website was so effective.
this legit proves, that doing things through their website isn’t as effective as doing it through Apple’s system.
They just want to be on the App Store but cut Apple out of the payments entirely, by handling the payments in-app theirselves.
Cause apple wants Spotify to do app distribution and customer billing and still collect 30% https://www.zdnet.com/article/sidel...e-still-plans-to-charge-fees-and-review-apps/
It's not Apples responsibility to appease Spotify in this regard. Apple just needs to make it possible for Spotify to ship their app on their own, without any Apple roadblocks. Once Apple has done this, we can all laugh at Spotify whining about rules on the App Store, they'll have their alternative distribution model that nobody will use, ditto Epic.
But what Apple are currently proposing as a solution to DMA compliance is not that.
Just to summarise my own position:
- Spotify and Apple Music are competitors, Apple being both App Store magnate and Apple Music benefactor means that they are acting monopolistically when they charge any fees on competitors that don't have any other options other than distribution via the App Store in order to provide their iOS users with access to their service.
- Apple needs to make it possible to install applications from downloadable .ipa files, without any review processes (except notarisation, that's fine, but without review, it must be fully automatic), with such downloaded apps given the same API access that their own bundled apps have (not the same as App Store apps, bundled apps like Photos.app have the ability to run in the background, which is currently only allowed for music apps on the App Store).
- This being fulfilled will make Apple compliant with the DMA rules
- This becomes an alternative distribution venue for Spotify, and ends any monopolistic behaviour from Apple with regards to App Store rules
- Apple, providing an alternative way of installing software on iOS (and derivative operating systems like iPad OS, tvOS, watchOS, etc), can put LITERALLY whatever rules they want on the App Store, they can simply point to the alternative that is companies making .ipa files available on their own websites.
Last edited:
that’s grossly misleading and inaccurate … it’s €0.50 per user per “year” for every user over their first 1 million users, side loaded. 17% for users through the App Store.
The Verge covered it more in-depth / accurately:
Here’s the new Apple tax every developer is going to hate
50 cents is the new 30 percent.
www.theverge.com
That would be pointless. The problem isn’t 30%. The problem is there is a fee at all. Remember, before the iPhone App Store, just about every App Store around the world was charging 70% to developers. Back in 2008, 30% was considered groundbreaking, forcing all other App Stores to reduce their fees to 30%. Apple was praised for charging so little to developers back then. Nothing has changed since then except a few companies who want to freeload complained and people have forgotten about a time when 70% was the norm. Change it to 10% and in a few years, the same people complaining about 30% now will be complaining that 10% is too high and Apple shouldn’t be charging anything, despite spending billions on the App Store and developer tools and providing free hosting and marketing to millions of apps. Remember most apps on the App Store pay absolutely nothing and the 30% helps to subsidize a lot of small developers most people have never heard of.
I find it astonishing people are saying 30% is too much when they have absolutely no idea what Apple’s expenses are. If Spotify is too upset about having to pay 30% for in-app purchases, they should then remove the purchase portion completely and never have to pay Apple a dime in store fees, ever, without having to go cry to the government. There, problem solved. But they don’t, do they? That’s because they’re still making a profit off of that in-app purchase. If they weren’t, the feature would have been gone long ago. Those who complain about fees yet have it completely in their power to avoid them have an agenda that’s not what they’re saying publicly. They’re still making a ton of money off of those in-app purchases. They just don’t want to share. I also find it ridiculous that a company with double Apple Music’s market share is crying about the other guy being anti-competitive. That’s like Windows crying that macOS has unfair advantages. I usually sympathize with the little guy. In this case, Apple Music is the little guy and Spotify is the big bully.
No, in the App Store it's both.
If developers choose that option, they are paying both 17% and €0.50 per first annual download per user over 1 million users for their apps distributed through the App Store.
Or if installing from an alternative app marketplace, "only" €0.50 per first annual download per user over 1 million users.
This is probably why Apple thinks they're compliant, because they're saying that ALL apps must pay the €0.50 core technology fee, except that's a lie, their own apps aren't paying that so it's again an unfair advantage, which is why it probably isn't actually compliant with the DMA.
This is FUD spread by Apple. It's in the browser vendors best interest to provide an experience that is at least as secure as Apple's. We have free browser choice on MacOS and many other operating systems. I have never read about this kind of attack or browser vulnerabiltiy, and I follow the news very closely in this area. Maybe you can provide an example.
I don’t get Spotify’s argument. They are trying to say that Apple is an unfair gatekeeper for their business. But Apple only have 20% of the worldwide user base for mobile. So are they saying that because 1/5th of their user base is subject to 30% (15 after 1st year) then Spotify finds it hard to be profitable? I don’t understand this.
Secondly, macOS used to cost $2-300 every few years. Then they made it free to consumers and subsidised the cost into the phones and other services. There is a reason why their are very few commerical
OS’s in this world. They cost bucks and years to build! Only MS, Apple and Linux have OS’s of any note. MS is subsidised by a while load of business services and software (office, sqlserver etc), macOS by machine sales and App Store services, Linux is open source.
App Store sales that are free are also subsidised by apps that are sold. That’s how Apple encourages software development on the platform. So Spotify want to be a free distributor on a huge 1 billion user platform that’s taken 15yrs to build, billions of dollars, with the input of Apple and other devs etc .. and then sell access through that service for 99 dollars a year? Are they insane?
If I were Apple id just say we don’t want to do business with you. Use safari and leave us alone.
Secondly, macOS used to cost $2-300 every few years. Then they made it free to consumers and subsidised the cost into the phones and other services. There is a reason why their are very few commerical
OS’s in this world. They cost bucks and years to build! Only MS, Apple and Linux have OS’s of any note. MS is subsidised by a while load of business services and software (office, sqlserver etc), macOS by machine sales and App Store services, Linux is open source.
App Store sales that are free are also subsidised by apps that are sold. That’s how Apple encourages software development on the platform. So Spotify want to be a free distributor on a huge 1 billion user platform that’s taken 15yrs to build, billions of dollars, with the input of Apple and other devs etc .. and then sell access through that service for 99 dollars a year? Are they insane?
If I were Apple id just say we don’t want to do business with you. Use safari and leave us alone.
I actually agree with what you said, except for that last part.
So not only should Apple open it up / make it possible, without the tax (understandable), but they should also advertise their competitors (not understandable)?
I don’t really see Amazon, Walmart or others saying “you can get this on eBay too.”
It’s just Apple should open it up to side loading without the tax. Nothing more than that. The rest should be on their own, entirely. No pointers, no mentions, nothing.
Where did I say Apple should advertise the alternatives? The only reason that's entered into the debate at all (if you ask me) is because there's been no alternative, so since there has been no alternative Apple have been told they must allow links to external sites where people can pay. I posit that; no, they don't need to allow that (I happen to think they should though, but that's beside the point), they just need to allow alternative app distribution, then they can tell developers that if they don't like the rules of the App Store, they can do it themselves.
So if that was the only thing you didn't agree with, then we are in complete agreement, because that isn't my opinion! 🙂
EDIT: Oh I read my message again and I see what part might have confused you. What I meant with "point to the alternative" was "point developers to the alternative that is making .ipa files available on their website [when they complain about the App Store rules]".
Last edited:
Apple controls the market on its platform. The fact that Apple fanatics can’t or refuse to see that, yet still use ‘let the market speak’ as the counter argument is frankly disturbing. The ‘market’ can’t speak, it’s a market which is being controlled by the producer of the os on which it exists - therefore requiring gov intervention.
This idea seems to be too abstract for some people here to comprehend. They see the iPhone and all the apps on it as one prodcut, which could not be further from the truth. An iPhone without third-party apps would have been far less successful. Apple's management knows this well.
Surprise... it's already been solved!
About eight years ago Spotify started telling their subscribers to stop paying through the App Store and to subscribe through the Spotify website instead.
And just a few months ago Spotify stopped using App Store In-App Purchase altogether.
So yeah... Spotify isn't paying the 30% "Apple Tax" anymore. Problem solved!
And yet... once a week we still get an article about some new complaint that Spotify has against Apple.
I don't think Spotify will ever be happy. 🤣
Yeah maybe some developers would still complain if it was 10%. Who knows.
But I still maintain that 30% is the problem for some developers.
Amazon doesn't sell Kindle books in the Kindle App because they'd have to pay Apple 30% for every Kindle book sold. Instead... Amazon's customers must go to the website to buy Kindle books. It adds extra friction in Amazon's book-selling process. Amazon can't be too happy with that friction.
But if Apple only charged 10%... maybe Amazon would consider using In-App Purchases to make it easier for their customers. It would be nice to actually buy books inside the same app where you read books, wouldn't it?
In other words... if the fees were more reasonable... maybe all these high-profile developers would still be selling content and subscriptions in the App Store and making it easier for consumers.
That's all I was saying.
Of course developers would love it if there were no fees at all. But I don't expect that to happen.
I would love to retain all the money I make but yet I have to pay tax to Feds and State on anything I earn on every single paycheck, even though I can claim I don't use most of the 'services' I am billed for, likes public libraries, parks etc, yet I have to pay for it. Do I get a break for making more, no, I actually get to pay even more. Who can I complain to about that? I seriously don't understand what Spotify is trying to accomplish here. No one is getting any free rides anywhere as far as I can tell.
Apple has a competing product which it favours dramatically its own platform. That’s a cause for not only complaint but also intervention.
I hate analogies, especially car ones, but it’s like Apple selling a car, then only allowing the owner to buy petrol from a specific petrol station. Once at the petrol station, they offer their own petrol, which is ‘optimised‘ for the car in a way no other petrol has the option to be optimised. They offer this special petrol at the top of the list, with other ’gimped’ petrol below. They charge a flat fee to be allowed to offer petrol in the first place (siting special access to specific knowledge of the car, which they hide in the first place) then they charge a fee per litre on top, neither of which is applicable to their own special super petrol.
I think it’s pretty clear why competing products would be unhappy with this arrangement.
Yes, but a 30% cut is completely unacceptable. Always has been. The cut should depend on how much revenue an app generates & how many app downloads it has. It all needs a thorough modern rework.
I agree. A 30% commission might be reasonable for one time microtransactions like they often happen in games. For long running subscriptions it's very close to price gouging.
No it's not. Don't forget browsers have malicious extensions even if they have best intent on security policy.
Autoskip for YouTube Chrome extension was a fine example of that...
You are correct, and we are safer on iOS because of Apple's stance on security.
Last edited:
Why can't Apple sell their own competing product?
Costco sells Kirkland (Costco's house brand) of products next to competing products. Walmart, Target, Amazon. They all do the same.
Apple also sells streaming TV service. I don't see Netflix, Disney, HBO, et al complain incessantly.