Yeah. It'd be totally unfair if Spotify was exempt from sharing their app revenue with Apple.
Funny thing is, 30% was a great deal, as getting 70% was a pretty great return for a developer when Apple was handling all the processing and getting the exposure. The App Store became successful because of that 30% appeal to the developers, not despite it. The problem is that it was so successful that no one seems to remember how hard it was to make 70% of your sell price before that. If they had started at 10%, the same people would be wanting 0% now.
If that were the case the EU would have filed cases against them and won. The EU can file their claims with Ireland, the same country most corporations in the EU use to avoid paying taxes.
Just the Facts | Corporate Taxation in the EU - EM Ireland
While taxation is a responsibility of EU Member States, attempts have been made to coordinate corporate tax regimes at the EU and OECD level.www.europeanmovement.ie
Why should they? Apple forces Spotify to use their software tools. Apple forces Spotify to distribute their app through Apple's App Store. Apple doesn't do anything else. They don't host Spotify music. They don't collect Spotify fees. The data is minimal -- just enough to download the small app.
You forgot the Apple fan-boy response to anyone who cries fowl about Apple terms -- "Don't like it, go somewhere else".
Not a single musician have to give their material to Spotify. If they do, they see a benefit in it. Who is fleecing here is Apple because iOS users have no other way to listen to Spotify but via Apple controlled way.
…and there’s no justification to pay more in commissions or have less (external) payment methods than Uber or Doordash, Aliexpress, Booking.com, Expedia,or the Amazon Store App.
Because they spent a ton of R&D money and took on a lot of risk to establish the iPhone/iOS/App Store and to continue to develop them.
It's Apple that insists on Spotify using their App Store. That's why alternative app stores and side loading are important. If they existed, Spotify would be able to distribute their app themselves (as they do for computers) or use alternative app store (with lower fees). What Apple is doing is a typical racket. They come to Spotify and say: "you are going to use out protection (App Store) and you have to pay us that much". Sooner or later Apple will be charged with RICO Act violations.
Apple gets their "cut" by selling the phone. The apps are what give the iPhone ITS value!
Your logic might work for indie developers who need some exposure. Big players like Spotify don't need Apple's App Store. No one goes to App Store looking for a music streaming app and says "I've never heard of Spotify, maybe I'll give it a try"! No one. Instead, I'd be just as happy going to www.spotify.com on my iPhone and downloading their app, completely outside the App Store.
That's not how customer protection laws work. if the cost of switching a platform is high, the governments tend to regulate such markets. Compare this to grocery stores. Switching from, say, Wal-Mart to Safeway costs you nothing. Switching from iOS to Android costs a lot. Besides, there are all sorts of things on both platforms that you might have preferences for or dependencies on. Due to the nature of the service, most people have just one phone. So, once you get the phone, the platform provider has undue power over you (with grocery shopping, one can buy apples in Wal-Mart and pears in the Safeway). That's why the government may and should have proper regulations to ensure the customers do not get abused. That's what you want as a customer. As AAPL shareholder you may want something else but that's exactly why Apple must be regulated.
Mac started open. Closing an open system would destroy major businesses that relied on the open system.
You know the answer, and why does it matter what format the product is in? Every analogy I've read compares the App Store to a real store. If Apple thinks Spotify should pay more because they're successful, then so should Amazon, Walmart, etc. pay for all the sales they generate in their iPhone and iPad apps. Absolutely zero difference in principle.
What kind of pretzel logic is that? You download the app so that you CAN be a paying customer. The fact I have to get it from the App Store has nothing to do with my decision to be a paying customer. It's the ONLY place I can get the app. Sounds more like extortion than free commerce. If I had a choice where to get the app and chose the App Store for whatever reason, then MAYBE you could defend Apple wanting some of that action, but since there is no other place to get the app because of Apple's own rules, Apple either needs to change their terms or shut up.
Yes! I was not advocating closing the Mac, silly!
