No doubt but the $36 million cost figure you calculated for Spotify just seemed way too high.
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.
EU Plans to Let Spotify Direct Users to Other Payment Options on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No doubt but the $36 million cost figure you calculated for Spotify just seemed way too high.
My point was Spotify’s cost depends on how Apple allocates costs. I could easily see top apps be in the million dollar range, even if 36 mil is way high. Average costs are generally not a good allocation method.
Spotify isn't average.
Then 30 minutes is realistic.
And three rejections in one month is evidence to prove "Spotify‘s proven track record of obeying Apple‘s current rules" is false and highly suggests they're no longer taking just a few minutes to check Spotify's update since they keep breaking the rules.
offtopic
It's not, based on standard S3 pricing.
I've already given reasons. Primarily many users have more than one device + extra bandwidth from other sources (push notifications, on demand resource downloads, CDNs, device restores). 150MB per week is conservative.
And I've already qualified what I said with Apple may have cut a deal + run their own caching servers Apple may not be paying $36 million but point still stands.
As long as Apple
I mentioned some service provider that do offer the tax/invoicing compliance.
You asked if they'd also host the app.
I replied that hosting costs mere cents per app/user/month.
With your question, we've kind of come to a circle here, haven't we?
But yeah, I too doubt that it's going to be as inexpensive for most small developers.
I tend to agree.
Could they save a bit by changing to a different invoicing/payment service? Probably.
But would it be worth to do i?
I think it depends on price of your app/service, the commission rate Apple is charging (there's no minimum per-transaction commission) - and your own reputation as a developer (how likely are customers to trust you to and sideload your app?).
At 30% commission for Apple? Probably, yes (though small developers, as we know, don't pay 30% anymore).
At 15%? Questionable, if we're factoring in the level of trust that many consumers place into Apple and their App Store.
At 10%? I pretty much doubt it.
Within the limits of competition regulation and policy.
As long as there charging small developers at least similar fees, yes. If, however, they began to charge progress per-use fees, i.e. charge developers with more downloads much more per download, that may be hard to justify to competition regulators.
It doesn't. Once you've rejected once, you know exactly at what you'll be looking first into in the next review.
No, it's totally on topic.
Violations of illegal laws don't make a good argument that closer surveillance or scrutiny is needed.
I was making the point that Spotify shouldn't need that extensive scrutiny. They generally play nice with Apple's rules- it's not as if they're distributing malware or cheating users by advertising functionality that's not there.
When the first (and (so far only) alleged violation you mentioned is against an Apple policy that was found illegal in courts of law, there's more than just a certain irony to it.
what you mean it doesn't? it literally goes against your assertion of "proven track record of obeying Apple's current rules"
Nope.
We're discussing Apple's cost in making Spotify available to customers.
Completely off topic.
And that should not include costs to enforce rules that are illegal in the first place.
Since Spotify is a well-trusted global brand without history of violating any legal rules, there's no reason to scrutinise every small of their app updates more closely than other similar apps (hence, not 30 minutes, if the average time is in the single digits). If we calculate Apple's costs in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, it's on-topic.
Thankfully, that's not for you alone to decide.
1. moving goal posts again from rules to "legal rules"
2. lol you don't just get to decide to go off topic and put up a rule "you can't decide if it's off topic"
clearly you keep moving goal posts and going off topic because the side you chose to defend is becoming extremely difficult
I'm moving on.
Well, I guess in this situation, one cannot accuse Apple of giving Spotify any preferential treatment the same way Google did. 😉
...says Mr. "Every-app-update-is-a-full-download-I'm-an-app-developer-so-well-versed-with-this", "when-caught-out-wrong-claims-he-was-only-dumbing-it-down-to-prevent-posts-from-getting-10-pages-long" and "Claiming-someone-else-is-"literally wrong"-on-something-he-never-said" 🤣
off-topic: Look, we could have a reasonable discussion about the costs borne by Apple of offering Spotify in the App Store. For that however, everyone involved should not only be able to reconsider his own words and assertions - but also allow others (!) to do the same. Which may include further elaborating, modifying or qualifying earlier statements. 👉 That is not "moving the goalposts". The repeated accusation of which is especially ugly coming from you, given how you reacted to objections against the figures you provided yourself.
A paragraph you bluntly dismissed as "offtopic" was about Apple's anti-steering policy 👉 literally exactly what the original Macrumors article at the beginning of this thread is about: Apple's anti-steering policy being considered anticompetitive (and therefore about to be prohibited by the EU).
So much for that - glad you've decided to move on.
Last edited: