ok, so that's the concession Apple needs to make - for competing apps/services ...
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
I think you just made the argument that your sentiment is the more anticompetitive... There are already plenty of places where users can load what they want, including Android which you didn’t mention— why try to destroy the iOS model?
One of many. There are many horrid examples of apples overreaching. The only issue I have with all these investigations and lawsuits is that they’re years late
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
30% of $10 is $3, but 30% of $13 is not. 13 is a larger number than 10, so the same percentage of 13 is a larger number than it is of 10.
It's like if you had a pie that was 6" wide and had a quarter versus a pie that was 8" and had a quarter. The quarter of the 8" pie would be larger.
You need to charge $14.27 to end up with $9.99 after a 30% cut.
It’s really about getting the value of Apple’s marketing for free. If the brought their own customers like you said. They would pay Apple nothing.
That is true, maybe they should stop.If Apple don't like it they don't have to sell their stuff in the EU
I'm pretty sure, from a legal perspective*, Apple does not at any point assume liability for apps in the App-Store except their own. The review process is a best effort, not a guarantee.
And from a Europen point of view (US sees it differently often): Once you bought the device YOU are the sole responsible person for the safety and security of the device. (Manufacturing issues excluded.)
*Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
The 30% fee only applies the first year and 15% year 2 and beyond. Remember Apple is responsible for maintaining the platform, facilitating the sale providing app related customer service, and refunds. It is also the reason they don’t take the option of finding their own customers via marketing and just use the AppStore for a free app. They want Apple to find the customers and give them over for free.
Remember it was the Iphone that allowed them to go
International in 2009 and grow to where they are now.
The problem isn't just about money though. But Apple dictating Apps, or even *conversations* within Apps.
And we need a balancing act. But right now Tim Cook's Apple think they are so righteous along with their political correctness.
Both the App Store and iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS will, if these people have their way. In the end, their is nothing less than their being able to host apps in the App Store (including their own App Stores), that have no restrictions on privacy, payment, or anything else.
Look at Epic and Facebook as two of the best examples of what is being requested. Facebook does not want to disclose their tracking and does not want to pay Apple for apps in the App Store. Epic goes further, they want Apple to be forced to allow them to host their own store within the App Store, so that they get access to everything Apple builds without paying anything for the privilege. They do not want relaxed rules, they want no rules.
You can feel whatever you want, but those that are fighting this are not OK with anything other than 0%.
If it is your store, you should feel free to set your rates at whatever level you wish. You have just arbitrarily decided that Apple should charge some other rates. That is exactly what Spotify and Epic want, they just decided that it should be 0%. Just as reasonable for them to do that as for you to decide.
Once you do that, why not just let them have their own payment system? Given they have their own payment system, why should they be forced to even include Apple’s payment system at all?
No. Epic want to be able to host a store, so they can charge what they wish. Netflix is not a member of the Coalition for App Fairness and has not been complain about this for a long time. They have no need to complain.
First, Apple only gets 30% for the first year and then gets 15% after that. Second, they should get it because they are providing the store and the customers. Nothing stops Spotify from doing what NetFlix does and not allowing users to sign up in the app. The only reason it is an issue for them is that they clearly get a significant number of users this way.
Nothing stops them, just as nothing stopped them from building a native WatchOS app that they did not do for years.
Again, no. They are upset that they cannot run their own store. Nothing forces them to have in app Vbux purchases be the same price as purchases on their web site. I guarantee that if they made it more expensive, it would not take long for those that cared about the cost differential more than the convenience would move. They want it done on the platform because it is better for them.
That is a decision between Apple and the market. If developers do not like it, they are not forced to develop for the platform. They can also charge more for things on the platform than on their own sites.
Nice that you think that, but they want it to be zero, and then want to be able to charge others 12% at a minimum for their store.
These solutions do not appease those who complain loudest and just make the experience worse for those of us that prefer things as they are.
For those who don't know, here is Steve's insight.
It's sad these opportunists from billion dollar companies try to milk more money by forcing regulations on Apple.
It's sad these opportunists from billion dollar companies try to milk more money by forcing regulations on Apple.
Correct.
Any developer with a reader app can do this.
Yes.
I don't value govt oversight of market practices, especially in less free countries, especially when it's tech sector in a non-techy country. Or in Texas. It means corruption and extortion.
Edit: And yes, the TikTok fiasco was screwed up too.
Last edited:
On the same note, Apple can abide by EU's stupid rules or leave. They won't leave, though.
I don't like Apple's rules for developers (not the 30% but others), so I left. But I like the iPhone as a user.
They don’t want to pay for advertising and support as they would if they sell off platform.
The other issue is that if they create to much of an issue Apple will just loose interest in the store and reduce investment. It will die in the vine as they focus on initiatives that merit investment. It’s happened before and the real Apple Owner’s will be the ones to suffer.
To put into perspective, 70% of the Apps on the App Store are free apps. They are foot the Bill for maintaining updating and supporting them including hosting and bandwidth.
Spotify is just greedy - they are heading to be a monopoly themselves, few years time there will be cases against them.Then why is Spotify even worried?
If this case revolves around competition... Spotify is winning!
Free, or "free" with IAPs? Either way, the dev pays $100/year for the account, which seems fair.