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
Before Apple had a service, Spotify was complaining that Apple was taking advantage of them. When Pandora was bigger, people felt sorry for Spotify, but now that they're the biggest, why feel sorry for them?
Apple shouldn't be making money on subscriptions, since they're not involved in the creative process, the hosting, or the management.
So Apple basically says that it owns its users. So the users are Apple's product. Isn't that something that Apple always criticized about Google and Facebook?
The flat developer fee is no where near close to being able to cover the cost of a 150MB app, being downloaded by millions of users even once per year. And Spotify does weekly updates. That annual fee isn’t even a slight drop in the bucket.
Each major release of iOS comes with a slew of new features, that Apple added and essentially created an api for us developers to use. This work comes at a major expense to Apple. So there is a ticket / entry fee to help mitigate that cost.
It also helps prevent it from being more of a Wild West, which it would be if there wasn’t a fee that would deter many from trying to create even more stress on the App Store process.
The App Store is an incredibly expensive thing to run, staff, etc. even the app review process is very expensive.
As a developer of big data applications, I understand first hand how expensive it can get. I look at Apple’s fee as a cheap. And I don’t see any reason why it should be free for me, especially if I’m profiting from it, and even if I wasn’t.
Last edited:
Yes.. access to the "amazing" system, ****** build system and opaque, stupid and injust review process making development experience just stellar... anything to prevent any competition, often "just in case"... of course if someone even suggests alternatives (like alternative stores) then Apple is again up in the arms throwing another tantrum...
API wise - they do sell the OS (tie with the phone) so that should cover development costs.
And distribution - let there be alternatives, completely independent stores (without notarisation and additional fees) but no... it wouldn't be apple extorting every penny...
I think Apple should make the developer fee progressive; maintain the 99$ developer fee for developers having less than 1 million installs, and making less than a certain amount; then charge their .50$ per install to the likes of Spotify as developer fees. Do away with their new fees and also consider doing away with the 30% cut.
The irony of your statement is that if it were true, then Spotify could just have enabled subscription purchases within the app and never given Apple a cent for it because no one would have used it. As for downloading Spotify's app off the web, Apple made no money from any of the downloads off the App Store and Spotify still complained. Complaining is what they do best.
Yes, you nailed exactly the fact I find frustrating in these threads... that the big companies that don't need the exposure are the ones doing the complaining, because they just see an opportunity to make more money (and Epic sees it as an opportunity to charge others their own commisions and create their own monopoly of "exclusives"), but for some strange reason, they have some rabid fans here complaining about Apple seeing an opportunity to make money from an ecosystem they at least created and continue to develop. Apple may be no better than Spotify for wanting to make money, but they certainly are no worse, and are at least doing the hard lifting of creating the environment that everyone wants to be able to charge others money in, but never be charged themselves. The hypocrisy is actually quite sickening.
I don’t disagree with the distribution alternatives point. Indeed if there were it would be a less expensive proposition.
However on the API front, a company as large as Apple … when undertaking a new venture, while such venture can indeed be funded by a prior one … the goal of a company that size is to compartmentalize and allow that venture to self-sustain / pay for itself. Its success or failure should not be dependent on prior business, since it’s new business.
Think of it like this … if a company like Red has been making camera equipment for years, without an API, and some users say they want greater access to the hardware … so Red decides to create an API, that is a new project. You’re basically saying that the previous and existing camera sales should cover that cost, and Red shouldn’t be charging developers for doing what they asked Red to do.
Users weren’t paying for that API, they were paying for the hardware, R&D, etc. what developers are getting, isn’t what users are getting. To me it makes sense that if someone is asking for greater acccess to a platform I created, it should come at an additional fee. Especially if providing that access comes at an additional cost and effort to me.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why the app would be an issue for listening, but you can listen using the Spotify website.
…like Uber? Booking.com?
iOS is one of the TWO only platforms in its category. That’s why Apple can‘t just anticompetitively run their business how they want.
Artists can just switch to another platform!?
That’s why Apple‘s business is subject to competition law and will further be regulated by the DMA.
Are you saying that it doesn't cost Apple anything to develop all those tools?
Yeah I have an Android phone like that (with only certain apps allowed). I’m talking about the consumer usage of the iPhone as Apple are primarily a b2c company
In the early years of the iPhone / App Store, it absolutely was.
Now it just feels as if Apple are skimming money off ‘just because’.
a more personal example:
A guy takes a model out to dinner. It’s an expensive dinner. So he thinks he has earned the right to peek under her skirt. But she tells him, greater access will come at an additional cost.
Is she wrong for that? Or is he wrong for thinking entitled?
Both sides can be argued and many guys think that way. But imagine Guy #2 comes along and says, though he didn’t take her out, she has earned enough that he shouldn’t have to pay to access.
Users are guy #1, developers without iPhones (there are many) are guy #2. Should guy #1 be paying for guy #2? What she got from guy #1 has nothing to do with guy #2, and in either case, she wouldn’t be wrong for thinking they both should be paying for greater access.
It comes down to entitlement. Your paying for a phone doesn’t grant you more than the ability to use and resell that phone. Some companies might let you do more, but that doesn’t mean all companies “should”.
If so, then Sony shouldn’t charge developers since the purchase of a console should cover that. But the Dev kit costs $2,500. Costco shouldn’t charge for membership, since buying groceries covers that. The developer is basically paying for an exclusive “additional” service. Not what everyone else is already getting. And there is no reason why everyone else should get access to that exclusive service.
But I’m sure there are many people who think, “I buy so many groceries here, I should be a member automatically.”
That’s entitlement. Doesn’t make it valid.
Last edited:
Apple embraces competition, and there are many choices on the market. I personally choose Apple, because they offer the highest quality and make me feel secure.
Last edited:
Ok that’s one way of looking at it. Another way is that Apple could charge users for iOS upgrades, as this cost of developing iOS etc costs money.
But they don’t for some reason (because they choose to charge devs).
Another way of looking at it is that this is simply a cost that Apple could bear given that it sells so many and makes at least a 30% profit margin on each new iPhone.
My point is is that Apple feels that it should maximise the profit on e dry aspect of the iPhone. Ok that’s how capitalism works, but state regulation and checks are part of this too.
I’d always ask people to refer back to the original antitrust legislation vs standard oil and read about the justifications and then think about Apple (and Google).
The most you can say is that users are, but there are many developers who aren’t Apple / iPhone users. What about them? I know many iOS developers that are actually Samsung users.
So because Apple has engineered the best phone, the best OS and APIs for developers to build apps, they are “skimming money”?
You make no sense.
What “essential” service is Spotify providing again?
The App Store fees have only been reduced since it opened, so how are people being “taken advantage of” today vs 15 years ago?
You make no sense 😂
Pointing and laughing at ridiculous posts?
Sure, it won’t change YOUR mind, but the rest of us can laugh 😂