Better yet, let's make Target and Walmart advertise each other so the customer can see they can get the same product elsewhere at a lower price. I'm sure they will jump on that right away!
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. By my argument, nobody would be required to do anything. But by your argument, it would be totally fine for Walmart to prohibit product manufacturers from putting their website or phone number on their packaging. That's the analogous scenario here, and it's so utterly and obviously ridiculous that it hardly warrants discussion.
And under your theory, the only purpose of Apple's anti-steering rules are to inconvenience the end user as much as possible to discourage them from getting a better deal. That's the argument you want to lead with?
That's not the situation being proposed here. All apps would still be required to use Apple's IAP system. But the app can also say "Hey, you can also sign up on our website..." and potentially say "...and it'll be cheaper." And Apple will be free to inform users—as they surely will—that they're navigating outside the App Store to complete a purchase with a third party, that Apple can't guarantee privacy/security, and that Apple won't be responsible for the subscription. This will also soon be the situation in the US, and I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of users will stick with their existing arrangement.
Actually an incorrect counter analogy. Nothing to do with form of payment but rather location of payment. Spotify is wanting through their system regardless of form. More correct analogy would be saying you can buy items from Target but pick them up from Walmart. Similar example might be when mobile carriers set up booths in a Walmart/Sams to attract new customers. Do you really think AT&T is not paying for that booth and ability to have people selling in their stores? Spotify is just having to pay for their advertising and convenience space provided by Apple.
iPhone users have access to the internet, email, text messaging and social media. The reality is that Spotify already moved 99% of their subscriber payments on iOS to the web before they ever complained to the EU. Their claims about struggling to compete with Apple Music on price have always been a blatant lie.
The average selling price for an iPhone is around $800 and costs around $4-500 to manufacture. That doesn't include licensing costs.
The Cost of Making an iPhone
Apple enjoys high profits on its smartphones partly because the cost to make them is significantly less than the retail price.
As far as taxes, Apple doesn't use their offshore holdings to avoid taxes, they use it to defer taxes until they decide where the money is needed in their operations.
Sure. They're just trying to only pay the $99 per year which obviously wouldn't even cover costs.
Which ignores that the value that Apple provides them by creating the platform. Developers pay platforms and stores for access all the time. Why is this an issue?
Also, less than 2% of developers pay Apple 30%. 11% pay Apple 15%. The rest pay Apple nothing but the developer fee.
What argument are you making here? I'm in no way defending Spotify—I couldn't care less, frankly. But it's pretty pathetic that Apple's best defense of their anti-steering rules is "users can figure it out themselves." Particularly since their entire business is based around the belief that users can't figure things out themselves.
But now we are arguing about capitalism in general. Walmart and Target (to use the names used a lot in this thread already) both sell same brand items. Target clearly charges more. It's a choice of the provider to mark up the product to make their profit margin. Apple makes app store money from all apps with in-app fees. It's not like they are targeting Spotify with 30%. That is the amount all who choose to have a product in their store pay. No different than if I want my product in Pottery Barn versus my local At Home. I'm sure the price of each shelf is radically different. If Spotify wants the space and to be a part of it, pay. Very simple. Imagine if (as others have said) Apple removed them from the App Store. Their loss would be more than that 30% of those subscriptions. I'm an app dev and iOS makes up 68-75% of my user base on all apps I have.
We'll also get sideloading in the EU in March. Maybe they'll just use the epic store
I think, apple taking a share of every app-subscription over the app store is too much. If they only took a share of the first payment of a subscription, I guess everybody would be o.k. But what are they offering different from an app with a one time payment? For sure, payment handling and subscription infrastructure is worth far less than 15%-30% of most subscriptions.
What if book publishers were able to advertise in Barnes & Noble stores that customers can get the books cheaper on Amazon. Or force them to sell both Kindle and Nook products so the customer can decide what is best for them. Or e-books showing prices on all platforms when purchasing.. Sounds absurd when you compare it in this way. Same books, different stores.
Why are you bothered by Apple's anti-steering approach to the App Store when gigantic general consumer oriented companies like Spotify, Netflix and Amazon (ebooks) had no difficulty whatsoever in getting customers to pay outside of the App Store?
It should be obvious that a consumer using an iPhone can also get information about products/apps via the internet, social media, email and text messaging. The idea that they're limited to what information is provided inside the App Store is bizarre at best.
Spotify is freeloading of Apples success
Whether or not people say it... facts are facts. Third-party app stores and side loading apps is an express lane for getting malicious software into devices. As a mobile and web developer by profession, I can assure you I am under incredible scrutiny as to what I can get in the Apple App Store. On Android, I can put pretty much anything I want on your device via third-party. Data hoarding is the least of your worries if I'm allowed what you are asking.
Nah. That's like saying the department store selling a product is freeloading off the product maker's success. Nope, both are using each other to make a buck. All this is just attempts for one to make more than the other. For Apple it is about preventing all app makers from diverting payments away from their App Store model. They make money this way, so of course they will defend it. As would any business concerned with making profit. This is more about Spotify not wanting to pay fees and make a bigger profit. For Apple, it's about protecting their model and interest in making money this way. Same way Walmart charges for shelf space and is able to charge less than most any other place by their power.
No. The $99 covers access and technical support and billing and metrics and …
They are paying Apple to use the platform. Apple charges every developer a yearly fee. It's only $100, but that's the cost of putting your app on the app store.
Apple is the one trying to make money off of Spotify, even though Apple has nothing to do with providing Spotify's service. If you think that Spotify owes Apple money because you're using Spotify on an iPhone, then you should ask MacRumors to give Apple a 30% cut of their web advertising revenue since you're reading this page on an iPhone.
My position is and always has been, if a company is hosting the content for their app on their own servers (like Spotify, Netflix, Disney, etc) Apple shouldn't get a cut. If you're a small developer and your hosting your content on Apple's servers or just unlocking content in an app like extra levels or characters, Apple 100% deserves a cut.
It still won’t be enough to make Spotify profitable. Now let’s wait till the end of 2025 and see how they intend to service their $1.3 billion debt. 
It still won’t be enough to make Spotify profitable. Now let’s wait till the end of 2025 and see how they intend to service their $1.3 billion debt.
Why would you hope that a business fails. Very strange behaviour.
Imagine being that much of a cheerleader for one of the worlds biggest corporations.
Freeload???? Lol
Apple gets to freeload off the success of every artist and creative talent for every bit of content they sell.
They get to freeload off the efforts of thousand of developers for tens of thousand of apps in their AppStore.
That’s really funny to mention that because at nearly every Brick and Mortar store in the United States you can simply show them a better price at a competing retailer and they will match or exceed their offer.
So this argument falls a little flat.
They are paying for technical support access, metrics and complete business services.
Apple is hosting spotify on a proprietary platform and that is their model. Spotify makes some money and apple makes some money.
No I'm reading this page in a virtual machine that's hosted on a windows platform. But beside that, devs do not have to charge for their services.
Apple thinks differently to the tune of billions of $$$. An what ultimately happens in the EU spotify can pull off the iphone completely and use browser based access.
Yes. For consumer lifestyle electronic products there is price matching. Try to do that for cigarettes or liquor or petrol or other common food items or even cars that are sold at multiple outlets.