Warning: Long Post ahead!!
You have no clue what ambush marketing is. Putting a link to your own website from your own app is definitely does not fall into that category. Apple forcing their own payment solution on developers is also a form of ambushing then too, or showing a samsung ad on Safari on iPhone. Simply by your flawed logic, so is basically every app ever created.
For the record, I very much
do know what ambush marketing is as that knowledge is an integral part of my "day job" now. Please note that in my original post I did not say that what Spotify is doing
is ambush marketing, simply that it felt a lot like it. You mention that placing a link to your own website on your own app isn't ambush marketing, and if it was purely a link to their website then I would agree. But it is a link to a website in order to get the user to sign up to avoid the app owner (Spotify) having to pay Apple's commission charges.
Imagine going in to Walmart and seeing a brand new Sony TV being sold for $1299...only have have a "demo reel" playing on the screen which says "Go to
www.sony.com and you will only pay $999 for this exact same TV". Do you not feel that is disingenuous? Having the TV on display in Walmart but trying to get people to buy it elsewhere? How does that not fulfil the criteria I gave for being
similar to ambush marketing in that Sony (in this case) is benefitting by using the huge customer base of Walmart to try to get people to actually purchase the item in question
from a different store? It is using one brand's prominence to try to gain sales - direct sales - without paying the original store in question anything for doing it?
But, again, to be clear, I am not saying this
is ambush marketing, I am just saying that the process that they are saying they should be able to adopt has many of the same traits as ambush marketing.
So you think that Spotify et al should just create a free app but then create a link to sign up on their own website?
No, we think that Apple should allow Spotify to add their own payment solution, like a dozen of apps on my iPhone already have, including transportation apps (taxi, uber, scooters, train) or food services. Some of these support Apple Pay and adding credit card and other mobile payment solution.
I think that many others have pointed out that apps like Uber are not recurrent payments. I could download the Uber app and then use it once in two years. Sure, Apple could insist that all payments are routed through iTunes billing for that too. But it's not a direct comparison. A Spotify subscription is a known quantity, billed on a certain date, with no interaction required from the user beyond the initial agreement.
Now let's consider Uber. Somebody could call an Uber any time of day or night. They could be in a hurry, they could be unwell, that could be totally drunk. Requiring the user to confirm their identity through iTunes billing may be simple (TouchID or FaceID) if they have recently purchase something, or it could require them to re-enter passwords which the may have forgotten, all of which adds up to potential for the user to not actually be able to pay for their ride there and then. In that situation, it is understandable that the simplest, most immediate forms of billing are required to cover all eventualities.
Apple Pay is certainly an option as you mentioned but then Apple would be making money from that transaction too. Is that also immoral and anti-competitive? Just asking...
To be honest, though, I don't think the issue is the payment method used (you mentioned other apps allowing Apple Pay and Credit Cards), I think the issue is the fact that Apple is actually charging commission at all...whether it was billed through iTunes or whether it was paid monthly/quarterly as a commission payment from Spotify to Apple. People seem to be getting their panties in a bunch simply because Apple dares to make money from a competitor selling a similar product on their store!
So essentially just using the App Store as free advertising?
Are you kidding me? App Store is also good for Apple, that's what ultimately makes their phone useful, it is a symbiosis and not Apple doing favours. Ultimately it is neither about Apple or Spotify, but the consumer.
Yes of course the App Store is good for Apple...but let's get real...for every $0.30/$0.15 that Apple makes from the App Store, the Developers make $0.70/$0.85...so it's doing the Developers more "favours" than it is Apple. But, as you say, the main beneficiaries are the consumers...the mighty consumers...
Consumer benefits from competition and Apple is CLEARLY using their advantage as distributor of apps to make their competitors product less viable, and they are being schmuck about it citing bunch of ******** reasons about customer experience, security and so on. There are dozens of apps with more downloads (Facebook, snapchat), that generate NO REVENUE to Apple, yet they are trying to go after a music streaming company.
Two points here. Firstly, competition does not always benefit the consumer. The easiest way to compete is on price and more often than not a "race to the bottom" on price simply means that consumers end up with a bunch of cheap rubbish that has little to no quality control and simply appeals to those looking for a bargain. The other kind of competition, that based on quality and product offering, often goes the other way and actually increases prices. Look at the innovation of Samsung's folding phone for example. They are competing on features, offering something that Apple doesn't, and the price is almost unfathomable. So yes, competition
can benefit the consumer, but doesn't always and to say that it does as a blanket fact is disingenuous.
Secondly, Apple is not making Spotify "less viable" unless the general public today is too lazy to click on an email link and sign up to a service that way rather than simply clicking a button in an app. Of course, Apple Music
does have the option to do that so yes, in that sense, if Spotify were not allowed to have an in-app purchase option then it could be seen that Apple Music has an advantage - albeit an incredibly small one. However, Spotify
does have the option to do that, it simply has to pay for it. So Apple is not making it less viable at all, it is simply saying that if Spotify wants that convenience it has to pay for it.
Plus, why should a company that invents a technology (the App Store in this case) not be allowed to have an advantage over using it itself when compared to a third-party that it is allowing to use that technology? If I invent a technology and I have the ability to produce it at scale and I then license that tech to a competitor who can't (for whatever reason) produce it as cheaply as me, should I be prevented from offering my product at a lower price simply because I have the advantage of being able to produce it more cost-effectively? That argument is a little thin and essentially removes the ability for any company, anywhere to have any kind of competitive advantage. Very few people would bother setting up businesses if they weren't allowed to try to find advantages over their competitors.
Most people have to stop looking at this issue from company first perspective. Apple is providing a service and by their size and popularity they are obligated to provide it in reasonable fashion, not exploiting their prime position.
I disagree, Apple is not providing a service, they are running a business. Something like a hospital could be considered to be providing a service but even though only if it was state funded and run. A private business exists to make money (non-profits excluded of course). In fact, the directors of a business have a
legal obligation to run the business in a way that most benefits the shareholders...not the consumers.
So yes, you want people to look at this issue from the perspective of the consumer who is somehow suffering some "hurt" in this, and you are completely entitled to do that. But others among us, perhaps those who run businesses themselves, are equally entitled to view this from a more pragmatic standpoint and consider how they would feel if there business were being subject to the same circumstances. That is what I base my viewpoint on.
I am an Apple consumer (not a Spotify one though it should be said) and I can completely understand the "consumer" viewpoint. However, I like to look a little deeper than what simple provides me with an immediate perceived benefit and consider the bigger picture not only of the company perspective but also of the long term consumer perspective.
But who am I to say, maybe you also like the super competitive and cheap cellular service in the US...
I don't actually live in the US so I have no feelings either way. What I can say with absolute certainty is that you are not the first person to feel that something is too expensive. Neither is the US cellular industry the first to come under fire for being too expensive. My take on it is that you have something you want...it is offered at a certain price...you can either afford it and you get it...or you can't and you don't. If you can't afford it then you can complain about it and say that the whole industry is somehow corrupt and unfair...or you can just get on with life without it.
<rant>For me, I don't relate to the Entitlement Generation and I will certainly never be convinced that having a cellular service is some kind of human right. Perhaps I am in a minority here but I have my reasons, mainly based around the fact that, in spite of all of the promise that the Internet gave at the beginning, I believe that the Internet (and Social Media in particular) has done more harm than good and this "always on" generation has become too reliant on technology. </rantover>
However, I will end by saying that while I understand your viewpoint, and while I will openly say that you put it very elegantly, I disagree with almost every point that you made!
[doublepost=1557211586][/doublepost]
It makes a difference to Apple because that distinction is also where they directly compete with other sellers. Hence the EU investigation to see if that distinction and the resulting restrictive app store polices is being made for the purposes of hurting competition. You may not be able to provide a reasonable argument as to why intangible items should be singled out for restrictive payment terms and conditions, but Apple is certainly going to be asked that question directly as part of the investigation. Let's hope they have a better answer than "intangible is intangible"
The problem with this is that if the EU forces Apple to lower it's commission rates then it will have to lower them across the board. This will mean that they will be "punished" financially even on apps where they don't directly compete in the space. Unless, of course, they have a two-tier system where some apps attract a 30% commission and some a 10% (or whatever arbitrary number the EU decides is acceptable) commission. Then that would create a whole raft of cases where those being charged 30% would start running to the EU screaming "Unfair!".
A consistent number across all categories and all apps seems to me to be the most equitable solution and, as I and others have said before, Spotify signed up to the Terms of Service. They accepted the conditions for being allowed on to the app and are now complaining about it after the fact.
Here's the thing. It's a contract...and if Spotify no longer agree to the terms then they have an option...back out. Don't develop for iOS any more. Sure, if we assume a distribution of Spotify users that is roughly equal to the smartphone market share, they would lose 20 million subscribers and $140 million dollars a month...but Grey Apple Bad!
Spotify do not have a
right to be on iOS. It is a software platform developed by a private company and I believe they have every right to decide what goes on there. I don't agree with many of their decision about the App Store...but it belongs to them.
How are people not understanding this?! If I
decide to rent out a room in my home, the tenant doesn't get to decide how much rent I charge! They may not agree in which case they can move out. I would understand if I had put the rent up during their tenancy...but the rent has stayed the same. Spotify are a tenant in Apple's house...so either put up with the terms of move elsewhere. "But if I want to be on iOS I
can't move elsewhere!" Yeah well if I happen to own a house that is right near where you work and in the area you want to live because of the facilities, parks, schools, hospitals etc. then you pay what I am asking. If you don't want to then go move somewhere else which might not be as nice an area, but it's cheaper...so make a choice...
Bottom line, Spotify has the option to have 20 million more customers but only earning $7 per month ($8.50 after the first year) from them...or they can decide to lose those 20 million customers.
