EU Plans to Let Spotify Direct Users to Other Payment Options on iPhone

[coolfactor]

Apple has had it's way for far too long. It's now a size as a company that's too big to ignore and their constant rules to lock down everything over the years is now coming back to haunt them. Bit by Bit, the EU is now going to force Apple to comply, and ironically it's being met by a wall of silence from both the White House & rest of the world because I would imagine it's hard to feel sorry for a company worth $3trillion.

For now Apple's cash held outside of the US is safe but I'd imagine the EU/US will soon attempt to force Apple to bring it back onshore causing billions to go into treasuries on both sides of the Atlantic.

Why is Apple a $3 Trillion dollar company? Because they continue to invest into building the best consumer experience, and customers are paying for that.

When you walk into a store and buy a jug of milk, has it not been marked up 30%-50% from the wholesale price? Should the store start demanding free milk from the farms?

Spotify is demanding a free platform from Apple. You can't see that?

 

[Rogifan]

Didn't Spotify limit the users choice by refusing to allow the subscription through Apple? The companies that are upset already increase the price for those who want to subscribe through Apple so isn't it contradicting to say basically "we want our customers to have better choice" but then limit the choice because Spotify is upset about the situation.

Like if I am willing to pay the 30% markup for the benefit of being able to control my subscription through Apple why does it matter to Spotify because I am paying that, much like the companies that charge extra like gas stations for gas as opposed to paying cash, basically moving that card fee to the user which us users choose if we want convenience or money saving.

I don't know...seems pretty backwards to claim to support your customers with choice, but then limit the choice available while complaining for change. Spotify is a joke

Doesn’t Apple limit choice because there can be no in-app payment mechanisms other than Apple’s (which give them a 15%/30% cut)?

 

[Rogifan]

Not really. If you're using Apple's App Store, Apple deserves part of the revenue from iOS customers.

Unless you can prove that Apple is driving the revenue to these customers then I would say no. Find another way to charge app developers for use of Apple’s platforms/software tools/hosting/developer relations. Besides Apple created the reader category so certain classes of apps can shut off IAP and Apple is getting nothing.

 

[Rogifan]

Come on! Why is this really a question? If I say you can rent my house for $100 plus $500 per month, you're freeloading if you don't pay the $500 per month even if you did pay the $100 up front.

I have no problem with Apple charging for developer tools/dev support/hosting. Heck I have no problem if every app in the App Store cost something to cover these costs. I have a problem though with the majority of apps ‘freeloading’ off a small number of apps. Why should apps with digital content have to give a percentage of their monthly revenue to Apple, especially when Apple has nothing to do with that digital content and isn’t hosting it anywhere.

 

[BaldiMac]

I have no problem with Apple charging for developer tools/dev support/hosting. Heck I have no problem if every app in the App Store cost something to cover these costs. I have a problem though with the majority of apps ‘freeloading’ off a small number of apps. Why should apps with digital content have to give a percentage of their monthly revenue to Apple, especially when Apple has nothing to do with that digital content and isn’t hosting it anywhere.

For no other reason than that's how Apple chose to monetize their platform. There's nothing wrong with a store giving away yogurt and charging for ice cream.

 

[Rogifan]

Simple answer is that Spotify derives values from Apple's property that Apple offers for use under specific terms.

So all the free apps (that can be used for free) don’t derive value from Apple’s property?

 

[BaldiMac]

So all the free apps (that can be used for free) don’t derive value from Apple’s property?

Sure they do. Apple just chooses not to charge them anything other than the developer fee, so they can benefit from the ecosystem of free apps.

 

[Rogifan]

For no other reason than that's how Apple chose to monetize their platform. There's nothing wrong with a store giving away yogurt and charging for ice cream.

I guess “because” is an answer. I don’t think it’s a very good one. Btw, go back to when the App Store was first introduced and Steve Jobs said their intent was to run it as a break-even business. It was only once IAP was introduced and Apple execs realized how much money they could make off of it that they decided to get greedy.

 

[k1121j]

Then Apple should charge them to advertise once they have an option of using a second app store.

 

[cthompson94]

Doesn’t Apple limit choice because there can be no in-app payment mechanisms other than Apple’s (which give them a 15%/30% cut)?

okay? there is a difference between a company trying to fight the industry standard and complaining about choice while not giving its customers the choice. Spotify and Google literally just got discovered that thought backdoor secret deals allowed Spotify to not pay while nearly every other developer did (because there were other secret deals) so to clear things up...Spotify limits its customers choice and then complains about wanting to give choice while on another platform deceptively offers choice because the choice is basically nulled for them because they don't have to pay Google's standard which is also 30% for Spotify.

My argument and thinking isn't about if 15/30% is fair, that is for developers and companies to argue and pay lawyers to fight the literal whole industry norm even to the gaming industry for digital purchases. My argument is Spotify complaining about choice, but leading up to their push they remove a option that was available (you used to be able to have your subscription through Apple) and put a message that basically states "oh sorry you can't do this you have to go the inconvenient route" but leaving out the original option to let the customer/user decide. If i know i can get Spotify monthly for $9.99 but I could pay $9.99 plus the 30% cut and have it through apple (keep in mind the cash to Spotify would be the same) personally I would still go through Apple, because of my own personal preference which again a customer used to be able to do that. I have seen in the past devs add a message stating that membership/subscription through their website is cheaper, but I do believe that is against the TOS I am not 100% on that.

Anyways.. don't complain about choice while you restricted choice yourself while getting backdoor deals elsewhere and basically say "see XYZ allows it"

 

[Rogifan]

Should Spotify be required to provide a link, within their platform, to subscribe to Apple Music?

I didn’t realize the Spotify app was a store. Once you download an app to your phone are you still inside the App Store? If I buy a magazine at Walmart and then subscribe to it when I get home is Walmart entitled to a percentage of that subscription because I bought the magazine inside their store?

 

[Rogifan]

You realize, right, that Spotify kicks Apple's *** in streaming market share? Is Spotify being "greedy?"

I assume if they’re beating Apple in market share it’s because they have a superior product?

 

[BaldiMac]

I guess “because” is an answer. I don’t think it’s a very good one.

Well, "because" wasn't my answer, so you are being disingenuous here. I said it was Apple's choice for how to charge for their property.

Btw, go back to when the App Store was first introduced and Steve Jobs said their intent was to run it as a break-even business. It was only once IAP was introduced and Apple execs realized how much money they could make off of it that they decided to get greedy.

Calling companies greedy is lazy and meaningless.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

Not even the same thing.

A similar analogy would be Target only accepting payments with a Target credit card or Target gift card. No cash payments; no check payments; no non-Target co-branded Visa, Mastercard, American Express, or Discover credit cards.

You’re missing it. The media and vendors think they are not going to have to pay. I’m just setting the record straight that they are.

 

[gigapocket1]

I think only a few big players will switch over to their own payment options. Others, not so much.. Especially if your app makes less than 1 million a year.. Its only 15%..

 

[wilhoitm]

The fact that many people here are pissed as if personally insulted that their beloved 3 trillions $ company is challenged, is the proof the the EU is doing something right.

You will be hating the EU and saying the same thing about the EU in due time! Communism is a like a drug!

 

[cthompson94]

I assume if they’re beating Apple in market share it’s because they have a superior product?

depends how an individual defines a superior product. Spotify is more compatible with a wider range of products, but still has not delivered on promises made for years that the competition already has like lossless audio

 

[jgreg728]

Apple should just make a policy where Apple Pay is mandatory as an option if they allow apps to provide external links to pay elsewhere. ALL options should be available. Not just Apple's. Not just the app's. All of them. Idk why everyone isn't coming to this same obvious conclusion.

 

[BaldiMac]

You will be hating the EU and saying the same thing about the EU in due time! Communism is a like a drug!

That's political nonsense. I don't agree with some of the EUs regulations, but they certainly aren't communist.

 

[wilhoitm]

EU = Communism - Absolute Power! Corrupts Absolutely!

 

[Rigby]

Sure they do. Apple just chooses not to charge them anything other than the developer fee, so they can benefit from the ecosystem of free apps.

And you think they don't benefit from the Spotify app, which is consistently one of the most popular in the app store?

The iPhone wouldn't be what it is today without 3rd party apps like Spotify. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Things got more complicated when Apple decided to compete with Spotify. Leveraging a dominant platform to keep competitors in another market down is decisively anti-competitive.

Also, Apple makes billions just from ads in the app store. They don't run the store out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[BaldiMac]

And you think they don't benefit from the Spotify app, which is consistently one of the most popular in the app store?

Nope. Apple certainly benefits.

The iPhone wouldn't be what it is today without 3rd party app. Besides, Apple makes billions just from ads in the app store

Yep.

Doesn't change what I said though.

 

[I7guy]

And you think they don't benefit from the Spotify app, which is consistently one of the most popular in the app store?

The iPhone wouldn't be what it is today without 3rd party apps like Spotify. Besides, Apple makes billions just from ads in the app store ...

Many devs wouldn't be as popular as they are today without the iphone.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

This is a good analogy! If you're a manufacturer of goods, you can sell them at Target, Walmart, Macy's, Kroger, Costco, TJX, Home Depot, etc. As a storefront and a selling platform, Target has dozens of direct and indirect competitors. And best of all, consumers are not walled-in to shopping at just one store. There are often other stores right across the street from Target that sell the same thing, and you can easily cross-shop to get the best price and find the most options.

With Apple's app store platform, there is only one competitor but you cannot cross-shop at all. In effect, every smartphone owner has only only one choice. It's not like on an iPhone, if you notice Spotify costs less on the Google Play Store, you can go get it there instead.

Do you see the problem?

I will demand no charge from Macy’s , Walmart, Kroger etc too as si will demand no charge from Samsung, Huawei, Oppo, Xiom

This is a good analogy! If you're a manufacturer of goods, you can sell them at Target, Walmart, Macy's, Kroger, Costco, TJX, Home Depot, etc. As a storefront and a selling platform, Target has dozens of direct and indirect competitors. And best of all, consumers are not walled-in to shopping at just one store. There are often other stores right across the street from Target that sell the same thing, and you can easily cross-shop to get the best price and find the most options.

With Apple's app store platform, there is only one competitor but you cannot cross-shop at all. In effect, every smartphone owner has only only one choice. It's not like on an iPhone, if you notice Spotify costs less on the Google Play Store, you can go get it there instead.

Do you see the problem?

huh? I will demand no charge from Walmart, Kroger, Macys etc. Also one competitor huh? Samsung, Vivo, OnePlus, Oppo, Xiaomi, Huawei etc….????

 

[wilhoitm]

That's political nonsense. I don't agree with some of the EUs regulations, but they certainly aren't communist.

The EU is worst than Communism, the EU is out of control and drunk with Marxist and Communistic power and they also do it while emotionally picking favorites and grossly virtue signaling! Just give the EU some time, they are already hanging themselves with the rope they have been given! The AI / Large Language Model regulations are another example that the EU is out of control! What they are doing will inadvertently have the opposite effect of what they intended!