Different topic... but not a lot.
You can thank the record labels for that... a crummy business that has existed for 60 years.
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 Prepares to Charge Apple in Antitrust Dispute With Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Different topic... but not a lot.
You can thank the record labels for that... a crummy business that has existed for 60 years.
Wow, I can actually agree with you on that.....and that is the fear, that the Apple app store will gradually get turned into the Google app store....wild wild west.
Maybe Spotify should just create a proper web app and remove their iOS app from the app store altogether if they don’t agree with Apple’s policies.
Oh, wait. They won’t do that because the App store literally makes them millions of dollars a month.
Oh, wait. They won’t do that because the App store literally makes them millions of dollars a month.
We're not talking about the mobile phone market. We're talking about App Distribution Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I can get apps for Android (not a phone but an os), Linux, or any other os such as Windows from any place.
I can ONLY get apps for iOS from one place - the App Store.
THAT is a complete monopoly.
You can make an argument that Spotify stifles artist growth and creativity with the ridiculously low royalties that pay out
t76turbo, I completely agree. If I own an app store...or any other business I will not have the the government, or anybody else tell me what I can or should charge. It's my store, these are my prices, buy the product or don't.
By the way i like the user name.....sounds interestingly like a Garrett GT3076....or in my case a "Forced Performance" DSM76 HTA forged billet aero compressor wheel
Mine was a 76GTS (among other turbos on other cars) from Precision. Lots of other models out now that I am unfamiliar with for sure.
That’s why Apple would be wise to get ahead of this and fix this themselves before governments fix it for them. They would vastly prefer the former case, and at this point it’s clear that some form of regulation is quickly becoming inevitable because Big Tech doesn’t enjoy the political favor it once did, particularly in the United States.
Supermarkets, Aldi, Trader Joe’s, Best Buy, and car dealerships are not parties to any dominant market position, let alone monopoly or duopoly, which differentiates them from Amazon, Apple, and Google.
Wow thanks man what an honour, too bad we can’t see eye to eye on basic customer rights
Apple isn't forcing them to set that price. Spotify chose that price. They can also choose not to sell through the App store.
If I set up my own widget store and sell my own widget there, but I still want to sell my widget in someone else's store... guess what, that store isn't going to just let me sell it there for free.
The difference being that Microsoft had 90+% of the market, if you wanted certain Software you had to get Microsoft. Apple doesn’t even have 50% of the market, and almost all apps available in the App Store are available in the Play Store.
That’s like saying “This highway only has a Walmart, so Walmart has a monopoly“ just drive a different road.
Most developers would move their apps out of the App Store to save money and avoid regulation then, which would mean many of the apps we use would become unregulated. Regulation is much more critical for mobile software than desktop software because mobile developers have big motive to engage in shady practices to make their money. This is because people don’t pay for mobile apps, and there is much more personal data that can potentially be collected from mobile devices which can be monetized. Mobile platforms being more simple and ubiquitous also attract more developers therefore more crappy developers, therefore it needs more regulation for quality. Desktop software is on the other end of all this, plus desktop software needs to be more flexible for a greater variety of workflows, so it can’t be as regulated.
This law would be mostly a benefit to developers and mostly a detriment to users.
Another competitor wanting access to the Apple ecosystem and the huge user base without paying anything. What business school did these people graduate from where you get to set the price of a service you want to use AND expect something for nothing?
Apart from whether or not it's a good move from a business standpoint or consumer standpoint, I think it's a good idea for Apple to do what @calzon65 suggested for the reason @jonblatho put forth. We're seeing another one of these cases against Apple every other day at this point… like every day there's new stuff. Can they really survive all the anti-trust probes and all the lawsuits in all these places? All it would take is one loss to set a precedent. Why wait for that to happen when even small moves (like the iCloud Photos to Google Photos transfer feature that was reported yesterday) can show them in much better light?
It’s hilarious that Spotify is crying about Apple’s App Store policies but they don’t even have a PWA app available for iOS as an alternative.
They could distribute their own PWA app that’s literally identical to their App Store distributed app and not have to worry about the App Store at all. Instead they decided to choose to use Apple’s SDK’s, API’s, etc... and Apple’s App Store to distribute their app. They made the decision to go this way so I really don’t understand why they’re complaining. They knew what they were getting into by deciding to make a native app that’s distributed through the App Store instead of a PWA that they can distribute themself.
I don't think Apple's App Store will be turned into a true wild west... even if they are forced to make some changes.
If anything... Apple will just have to relax some of their restrictions and rules.
30% for in-app purchases could be dropped to 7% if it's for a digital service or subscription that doesn't come from Apple's servers. I feel developers should still have to pay something just for Apple to handle that process... but it doesn't need to be 30% if Apple is only handling the payment and customer data. The app-maker is still providing the service or software assets from their own servers.
And maybe developers could finally be allowed to have a link to subscribe outside the app on the web. Instead of downloading the Netflix app and seeing an empty screen... it could actually link to the sign-up page.
Those two changes alone would be a HUGE step in the right direction... and would eliminate most of the problems that Epic, Spotify, Netflix, etc are complaining about.
I can see why they're upset. Why should Apple get 30% of Spotify's monthly fee when all the music is actually being served from Spotify's servers?
Or like @bobmans said earlier... why doesn't Spotify make a PWA and avoid the store altogether? It's not rocket science to build a web app that plays music files.
And in Epic's case... they're upset that they have to give up 30% for Apple to perform "currency conversion"
Does Apple need 30% to turn real dollars into fake VBucks?
If Epic wants Apple to handle that in-app... I think 7% could be a nice alternative to 30%
Anyway... we all know the problems developers have with the App Store. I'm just talking through some possible solutions.
I actually pay a premium to have a ring-fenced operating system. It means a device has got less chance of being hacked when I actually need to use it as a phone!
I don't necessarily disagree with Spotify here, but it's bordering on the absurd that the EU continues to blatantly discriminate against non-European companies. If Spotify were a US-based company, the EU wouldn't care about this at all.
But Apple really does treat Spotify fairly. They're subject to the same fees as every other company, and Spotify can now be set as the default music service on most (if not all) Apple devices.
There's a separate article published today about this where Siri "learns" your preferred music app so you don't need to specify it each time.
After 13 years also conveniently after this complaint was made. I'm sure its just a coincidence.