jonblatho
macrumors 68030
Have they demanded that it be free? All I’ve seen is a request for fairness in competition.
(I already know the answer.)
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
(I already know the answer.)
falainber
macrumors 68040
As an iPhone owner I want Spotify on my device. Apple can go F themselves. It's between me and Spotify.
realtuner
Suspended
You already have Spotify on your device. And account signup at Spotify is easy.
So what are you whining about?
realtuner
Suspended
What “substantial” disadvantage would that be? You sign up at Spotify and Spotify keeps 100% of the subscription fee. How is Spotify being disadvantaged?
Heineken
Suspended
It’s already fair. 15% after the first year.
[automerge]1570235863[/automerge]
Don’t buy iPhone then, it’s not like it is the only smartphone available. Vote with your wallet.
FairlyKors
macrumors regular
There’s an argument to be made for actually paying (or otherwise incentivizing) developers to create apps for Apple’s App Store ecosystem. This is already done sometimes by Apple when they want exclusive access to a hot new app. This is done for a very obvious reason, because apps help sell iPhones and iPads. Apple simply wouldn’t sell as many iPhones and iPads if it wasn’t for companies like Spotify building and maintaining their service for offer on Apple devices.
If Apple had come out and said “We don’t NOT welcome competition” instead, then how we should be looking at this change completely, and the result is autocratically managed ecosystem with unfair and inconsistent incentives and penalties/expenses for 3rd party developers across the board.
I really don’t see how Apple can claim to “welcome competition” while also taking a substantial cut of the profits from competing services—not to mention what they do to block out these 3rd party services from competing fairly. For instance, Apple still won't allow voice control over Spotify in CarPlay... which has a real affect on both the safety of passengers (having the opposite effect of what CarPlay is supposed to achieve) and tainting the entire music listening experience on the road. In no way is Spotify being allowed to “compete” in a fair environment here.
All of us knows exactly why Apple wants their pricing (or taxing) scheme to remain unchanged, since their profits are enormous, but like any market that evolves into a widely accepted method of conducting business (like the Windows OS) unfair monopolistic control and influence upon that market impedes innovation, fair profit-taking and much, much more.
macfacts
macrumors 603
Let's see, apple constantly plays by one set of rules with respect to their apps and another set for 3rd parties.
Example: apple using iOS notifications to advertise apple music. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/18/18229492/apple-music-push-notifications-advertising
Abazigal
Contributor
Looks like Spotify is growing ever-increasingly desperate.
We have come a long way since the critics here claimed that Apple Music had no chance of competing against Spotify. Now, Apple Music has been successful in stealing Spotify’s best customers (ie: users in developed countries where Spotify charges a higher price), and it certainly has the resources to stay in the game for as long as is necessary, unlike Spotify who has never been profitable since day one.
One continues to underestimate Apple to their own detriment.
We have come a long way since the critics here claimed that Apple Music had no chance of competing against Spotify. Now, Apple Music has been successful in stealing Spotify’s best customers (ie: users in developed countries where Spotify charges a higher price), and it certainly has the resources to stay in the game for as long as is necessary, unlike Spotify who has never been profitable since day one.
One continues to underestimate Apple to their own detriment.
falainber
macrumors 68040
Spotify is there but conditionally. They can't bill me directly or even direct me to their website to subscribe. Does it make any sense to you? To me, it looks like a racket.
falainber
macrumors 68040
Spotify, the leading music streaming app, is finally profitable
Unfortunately we can't say the same about Apple Music because Apple is hiding this information from us. Then, of course it does not need to be profitable because Apple makes enough by charging Spotify.
Abazigal
Contributor
Did you even read the article you posted? That was for one quarter, and Spotify expects to slide back into a loss afterwards.
The problem here isn’t Apple, but Spotify. More specifically, Spotify simply does not have a sustainable business model. They face a huge variable cost (the payout to labels rises as more people use their service), which makes it next to impossible to benefit from economies of scale.
Considering that iOS likely makes up a small part of their total subscriber base, I don’t think doing away with the 30/15% cut will improve Spotify’s bottom line in any significant way.
I suspect we will eventually see Spotify be acquired by another company, possible Microsoft or Amazon or some other media brand, and probably sooner than later.
MAXAAPL
macrumors member
I don’t really think it’s messed up at all. When you go to target or shop on Amazon do you notice sellers advertising to Amazon & Targets customers that they can get their product for a cheaper price if they buy it from the seller themselves? No right? Why would this be any different?
What would be the point of offering digital goods on the App Store? So a developer can get access to millions of customers and not pay their fair share?
MAXAAPL
macrumors member
Does Apple donate to charity the 15–30% it gets from Apple Music subscriptions that Spotify wouldn’t? Spotify’s not the one asking for special treatment; Apple’s wishing to keep theirs.[/QUOTE]
Huh? Do you think Amazon basics charged themselves a fee? Or Targets up and up? Or whatever Kroger’s store brand is. Probably not. Why should Apple charge themselves? Spotify is free to build its own market place and not charge itself a fee.
Huh? Do you think Amazon basics charged themselves a fee? Or Targets up and up? Or whatever Kroger’s store brand is. Probably not. Why should Apple charge themselves? Spotify is free to build its own market place and not charge itself a fee.
Heineken
Suspended
jonblatho
macrumors 68030
Wonder if Apple would accept AT&T taking a 30% cut of the revenue for every iPhone sold in an AT&T establishment. It is their store, after all.
In any case, unless Apple’s donating what’s left after transaction fees, etc. to charity or otherwise getting it out of their own hands (they aren’t), it’s anticompetitive for them to take more than a nominal cut of revenue from direct competitors in their store. 15% isn’t nominal.
Skylar.
Contributor
4jasontv
Suspended
Wonder if Spotify would accept the artists taking a 30% cut of the revenue for every song streamed in an Spotify playlist. It is their content, after all.
Abazigal
Contributor
Any carrier who tries that stunt with Apple will find themselves without iPhones to sell and a sudden loss in customers. So yes, I dare them to try.
Spotify is free to try that same stunt. Let’s see how many users follow them to android or if they switch to Apple Music instead.
To be fair, spotify does pay out 70% of their revenue as royalties. It’s just that the labels keep such a big cut for themselves, and there are so many fingers in the same pie that everyone ends up with just a pittance to show for their efforts.
jonblatho
macrumors 68030
Abazigal
Contributor
No, it’s not. The App Store is not a dominant platform to the point that its rules cripple an Apple Music competitor like Spotify. Instead, Spotify has continued to grow just fine even after going around the App Store for payment.
Apple fires back: Spotify pays fees on less than 1% of its members
Spotify has largely opted out of the Apple systems that require fees, specifically because it claims Apple abuses the power of the App Store to stifle rivals.
www.cnet.com
This is what Apple has to say about Spotify.
Spotify hasn’t struck me as being entirely truthful in this whole matter. They paint themselves as some plucky underdog chafing under Apple’s rules, yet they are anything but. They bang the drum about having to pay 30% of revenue to Apple, as though every single one of their subscription went through iTunes, while neglecting to mention how this drops to 15% after the first year.
Apple wields absolute power over their App Store (as they rightfully should). This doesn’t make them a monopoly, merely an aggregator at best.
Like I said, Spotify is growing desperate. I don’t know why they are doing what they are doing, but they are absolutely barking up the wrong tree here. Their energies would probably be better spent looking for someone to acquire them, or perhaps pivoting to a podcast platform (which seems more profitable, since costs are fixed).
If someone writes an application that works on Windows, do they have to pay Microsoft 30% of every sale?
Apple is doing a bunch of nonsense and are greedy as hell.
The App store is nothing new. On Linux you have repositories that is even completely free decades ago.
[automerge]1570255858[/automerge]
That is why people jailbreak their phones I guess, so they have to freedom to install anything they want without being tied to the App store.
And Apple doesn‘t like jailbreakers.
jonblatho
macrumors 68030
Oh, cool! Where can I download the version of Spotify that lets me subscribe in the app? Since the App Store isn’t a “dominant platform”...
Considering that iOS apps are not Android apps, the entrenched value that many hold on iOS (purchased apps, movies, etc.), and the App Store is the sole marketplace for iOS apps, I doubt “get an Android” is gonna fly no matter what Apple’s market share is. Just like Apple will likely try and fail to convince people that only it can run a secure billing system, as some lemmings like to repeat. It’ll be fun to watch them try, though.
Edit to clarify: I’m no fan of Spotify, I don’t subscribe to their service and haven’t for quite some time. They’re a horrible company. (So is Apple and so are many companies.) Doesn’t mean they don’t have a point.
Thats one point of view. The other is that Apple know how anticompetitive their practices are and can tell which way the wind is blowing.
All of a sudden Spotify is available via Siri and App Store search no longer gives priority to Apples own apps and services.
I'm sure that's all a coincidence..
Abazigal
Contributor
What’s stopping you from going to Spotify’s website and doing so? It takes a few minutes tops, and then you don’t have to bother about it for as long as you are subscribed to Spotify?
And I agree with you. Let Apple and Spotify duke it out, and we will see who prevails. It will be fun to watch Spotify try. It’s certainly not some scrappy underdog deserving of any sympathy here. It made its own bed by opting to price its service at a level it knew very well was unprofitable long before Apple entered the music streaming arena, now Spotify gets to sleep in it.
As I have said here and elsewhere numerous times, I suppose if one is convinced that Apple is a big bully constantly out to fix the competition, then I suppose everything they do will seem that way, even when it isn’t.
As to the second issue, it has already been clarified earlier. An app developer tweeted what he believed was the issue (the sheer volume of stock iOS apps being deleted and re-downloaded led to the App Store search algorithm being skewed in its favour). When you think about it, it makes zero sense for Apple to favour its own apps when they come preinstalled on every iOS device, but confirmation bias can be a very powerful thing.
Likewise, Spotify isn’t available on the Apple TV, even though there shouldn’t be anything preventing them from putting it out. Makes you wonder just how much of what Spotify is complaining about isn’t so much that it can’t, but simply that it doesn’t want to, or just hasn’t gotten round to it yet.
I maintain that Apple is well within its right to compete with other apps in the App Store. This is really little different from a grocery store who decides where to stock each item, or to favour its own house brands by giving them preferential treatment.
Because jailbreaking involves taking advantage of security flaws within iOS. Would you expect Apple to not patch known vulnerabilities within their system just to keep a small group of fringe users happy?
Last edited:
StevieD100
macrumors 6502a
There are many, many apps that are in the App Store and use their own card processing totally outside the reach of Apple.
I have a number of these on my phone that enable me to charge my car when out on the road.
These have my CC details (one that is just for this purpose). I Plug the charger in and control the whole operation from the APP.
As for exposure... Well this CC was issued by a bank that I use for no other purpose and is only used for car charging. Any other items on the bill and I'll know that it has been hacked. I don't have a problem with that.