Sidebar Sidebar
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

Apple’s arguments forgot to address that it is also a competitor. Apple talks as though it is only the App Store company, but it has a conflict of interest when it is also the music competitor. If Spotify is successful, Apple will have to compete harder which is good for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
Veinticinco said:
Exactly. Some short memories here but then everyone has good intentions until the money starts pouring in.

Only problem is Jobs is dead and Schiller is effectively retired. Meanwhile, the guy in charge is a beancounter and has repeatedly demonstrated he values profit above all else. He'd probably pick up the coin tips from a restaurant plate if that outdated practice was still alive and he thought he could get away with it.
Click to expand...
Phil Schiller is still in charge of App Store. The press release that accompanied the EU changes had a quote from Schiller. Sadly I think he’s a big part of the problem.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: strongy, wbeasley and AppliedMicro
coolfactor said:
It's become clear that Apple doesn't want to let go of the commission per purchase. If they process the credit card transaction, they are entitled to get that covered, but that's like 1-2%?

Apple is entitled to compensation for services that they render, which includes App Store marketing and distribution of apps, but not for *every single* in-app purchase.

I think the best solution is to RAISE the yearly developer fee for those that don't want to pay the commission.
Click to expand...
How about they eliminate the commission for everything but games. Games is where they make most of the IAP money anyway.
 
truthsteve said:
then Spotify should have no problem selling the membership before the user downloads the app

if the user downloads the app and converts to a paying customer after, apple deserves the cut.
Click to expand...
Why? What does downloading the app have to do with converting a customer? As was said, nobody who is downloading the Spotify app is wondering who they are or what the app does. There may be some apps which are a success because of App Store promotion by Apple but Spotify isn’t one of them.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DEMinSoCAL, strongy, cupcakes2000 and 2 others
truthsteve said:
"general compute platform" is not the same as a company that "exerts too much power"

the argument OP was making was that Switch is not a "general compute platform".
Click to expand...
You did not get it. The link here is that government may regulate "general compute platforms" to make sure nobody exerts too much power. This is less important and usually is not done for the specialized devices.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
falainber said:
The cost of this is included into the price of the phone and the price of the developers tools. How do you think computer manufacturers get profits without having their app stores? The fact that Apple has such high profits indicates just that - they overcharge (double dip if you wish). Also, everybody should be paid only for what they do. If Apple wants to charge for tool development and app hosting -that's fine. But why should they be paid based on the content distribution? Content is paid for and hosted/distributed by Spotify. Apple contributes exactly nothing to it, yet they get paid for it anyways. They are the parasites.
Click to expand...
Apple is basically saying anyone who owns an iOS device is their customer so the IAP ‘commission’ is the fee they charge to access their customers. But how far do you take this? Could AT&T or an ISP say anyone who has cellular/internet service with them is their customer and they deserve a cut because without cellular/internet service an iOS device is kinda worthless?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula, macfacts, AppliedMicro and 1 other person
falainber said:
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.
Click to expand...
A). Depends on where you live. When there is only one grocery store in a food desert they have undue power.
B) what on earth could you have a dependency on a smart phone that would keep you from switching. And the cost of switching to android could be as low as $29 so that’s a lame excuse. If you want to talk about apps that you’ve paid for, why is there no regulation on when I buy a loaf of bread and don’t eat it all before going bad. Once you buy something and use it, there is an expectation that you may need to buy another version.
 
dmylrea said:
Terrible analogies. No other search engines, social media sites, TV networks or watch makers are FORCED to ONLY advertise and distribute their goods on Google, Meta, NBC, or Samung (respectively). Spotify is a competitor to Apple. You left that out of your analogies.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Spotify can market their app through various mediums. They are not limited to the App Store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy, wbeasley and Mescagnus
Student of Life said:
No it's called smart tax planing. This was perfectly legal and devised by Tax Attorneys. If one is a big corporation, it behooves you to pay top dollar to international Tax Attorneys and Accounting firms. It's not just Apple that did this.

What Apple and other corporations did is perfectly legal to the point that new regulations are being proposed to mitigate this. In the world of global taxation, think of it as a game of cat and mouse. One thing closes, another thing opens. Before Ireland, we had the Swiss, Bahamas etc. Its all a game.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't legal. Spotify hasn't done anything illegal either.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: strongy, wbeasley and Student of Life
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back