They’re forbidden by Apple from allowing users to subscribe in the app or directing users outside the app (i.e., to Safari) to subscribe.
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.
Congress Reportedly Asks Spotify for Information on Apple's Alleged Anticompetitive Behavior
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s not apples or google fault other app stores failed. They sucked.
If Apple weren’t directly competing with some apps, it’d be a different story. But because Apple gets 15–30% more revenue out of the same price for the same service that Spotify offers, that’s going to raise eyebrows.
Play the game or be the referee. Otherwise, any unfairness — perceived or actual — is going to raise eyebrows you don’t want raised and you’ll be doing one hell of a balancing act.
But this only applies to digital goods. If I buy something from target or Kohl’s using their app I’m not using Apple’s payment system. When I signed up for Netflix I did Sophia Safari. That also wasn’t using Apple’s payment system. The developers one would most likely have to worry about it probably don’t have the infrastructure to use their own payment system so they’d use IAP. The ones complaining are big enough to handle payments themselves.
How is this relevant?
It's not illegal to fairly win a monopoly (or duopoly) over a market, but it is illegal to unfairly leverage that power in market to advantage yourself in another.
No I know that. But you can subscribe via the web on an iOS device. I haven’t been in the Spotify app in a while. Are they allowed to at least have non-linking text that says sign up via spotify.com?
I think you’ll see dozens of other smaller systems popping up and fighting to get developers to use their system. The result will be a bunch of different payment systems.
What app stores are you referring to? Aren’t pretty much all mobile apps tied to the software on the device?
Or they’ll go with existing options that can already do this for physical goods and services like Stripe.
Even then, who cares? As I explained above, many developers may deem it beneficial to continue using IAP because it’s as frictionless as payments can get. But developers, again especially those with whom Apple is competing directly, should be able to choose what works best for their specific needs.
I’m talking about windows mobile, blackberry and others. So called competition was laughing at Apple when they should have been working instead.
Doesn’t bother me. Apple could easily stipulate that their IAP system had to be offered and then let users chose which one they want to use. They can pay extra if they think Apple‘s payment system is more secure or they want all their subscriptions in one spot.
Windows mobile was really the only cross-platform one. The market has pretty much decided two mobile OSes is enough. So it’s a bit ridiculous for people to say Spotify should go create their own store/platform as if that’s something just anyone can do.
Build your business on anticompetitive practices and that’s what happens. You hate to see it.
How is Apple unfair? Because Spotify doesn’t get to use the platform for free?
What about all the free, ad-supported apps from which Apple doesn’t make a penny beyond the $99/yr Apple Developer Program fee? As of now, that’s basically where Spotify’s at because they’ve disabled new subscriptions through IAP on iOS and encouraged their users to migrate to their own billing system. The amount of revenue Apple gets from Spotify by now is minimal if not zero (again, past the $99/yr).
It’s not ridiculous, it shows just how hard it is to do and only literally few have succeeded. Apple is pretty reasonable. The only thing they might have problem with is no sign up link in the app that takes you to apps website. That’s it.
[automerge]1570215494[/automerge]
Great so let’s keep it this way.
Because it is an oligopoly and their are serious anti-trust concerns with the way Apple operates. Were you of the same opinion regarding Microsoft's behavior with Internet Explorer a few years ago?
Because when you make money through ads it doesn't count the same.
All users on iOS and Play Store pay 30% to the developer if they use In app purchases or subscriptions paid through apple or google payment system.
Spotify is being purely a child.
If Spotify doesn't have to pay then, what no one has to pay?
Spotify is upset because Apple is catching up to them in subscriber count, and spotify doesn't have the capital to keep paying artists to stay on their platform without losing too much money. Spotify doesn't have the money to keep paying out the amount of plays for 10 dollars a month.
The point was apps using the platform for free. Those apps do use the platform for free (ignoring the $99/yr fee that most developers must pay) while making money.
Apple is leveraging it's mobile distribution marketplace power to give it's streaming service (a wholly unrelated business) preferential treatment over competitors on the same marketplace.
Users don’t pay the 30% tax. The developer pays to have their product sold on these stores. When an app is purchased 30% of its cost goes to the store and 70% to the developer. It’s been this way since 2008 and is nothing new.
Users would still pay the same price even if 30% didn’t go to the store. These companies are not going to lower their pricing. They just want more of your money.
What preferential treatment? It’s their ecosystem. So it’s only fair of apple puts itself at a substantial disadvantage?
I don't know how it all ends up. But due to this clash between Spotify and Apple I started using Samsung Galaxy Active watch (which is quite cool btw) instead of Apple's Watch. Because there was no Spotify and Spotify works amazingly well on the Samsung's watch.
It was inconvenient in the beginning and in the end Apple lost a customer.
I think instead of these numerous lawsuits and tries to build a cheesy and superficial music service for fans of Miley Cyrus Apple should be more open to consumer.
It was inconvenient in the beginning and in the end Apple lost a customer.
I think instead of these numerous lawsuits and tries to build a cheesy and superficial music service for fans of Miley Cyrus Apple should be more open to consumer.
