Nothing? NOTHING?! Hahahaha. Having your app on an App Store that has a billion+ users is NOTHING.
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 to Investigate Apple Over Spotify's Antitrust Complaint
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Some people would say that artists are not forced to "sell" on Spotify and should take their business elsewhere....
See what I did there?
Spotify already asks everyone to subscribe via webpage and the app is free. You don’t need to pay hosting of the app if the app is free. And the subscription via webpage, well, Apple does not get a cut there either.
What do you consider as an anti competitive practices? I do not use Apple Music so I did turn it off. I never ever get any notification about subscribing to Apple Music. Period.
I actually have a free tier Spotify. I would pay for Spotify, or Apple Music, if I would have a time to use it. When I, once in a blue moon run the Spotify, there is “subscribe via webpage” every few minutes.
Hey, this huge supermarket allows me to have a free kiosk in here. There is a huge amount of people coming into this supermarket, huge amounts of people.
When anybody comes to my kiosk, I will tell them, buy my product, but not here, because I would need to pay a commission fee to the owner of the store. Leave the store and come to this address and buy there, then I don’t need to pay anything to the owner of the store as he is a bad and unfair person.
Last edited:
So so so so so glad of this, I suspect they will find Apple guilty and push ahead with further proceedings against them, Time they were brought down a peg or two!
Their is NO defence to this, Apple way more then makes up any costs related to the iPhone itself in iPhone sales, any e-commerce argument is flawed and that’s purely brought onto Apple by itself as it bans ANY method of paying for a service in an app that isn’t going through Apple, including web links...
And as for the servers, it costs next to nothing for them to host a tiny tiny app! And not 30% costs!
This could well be a landmark case and Apple could be forced to change to continue to operate within the EU market.
Their is NO defence to this, Apple way more then makes up any costs related to the iPhone itself in iPhone sales, any e-commerce argument is flawed and that’s purely brought onto Apple by itself as it bans ANY method of paying for a service in an app that isn’t going through Apple, including web links...
And as for the servers, it costs next to nothing for them to host a tiny tiny app! And not 30% costs!
This could well be a landmark case and Apple could be forced to change to continue to operate within the EU market.
They cant. You cant install apps on the iPhone without the App Store.
Wrong, you cannot subscribe via the webpage from the app, Apple banned that. You have to physically go to the Spotify website to subscribe yourself. Apple has banned apps from even mentioning it as an option in there apps.
But of course unless your Uber then the complete opposite is in effect and you pay through their app and not Apple....
Last edited:
I believe what you say could be highlighted in this investigation, and the EU will take action if needed. They are more then happy to tear giants apart no matter who they are! And about time too!
You have to pay for a developer account so being on the App Store is never completely free but granted Spotify doesn't allow sign ups within the iOS app.
Simply put Apple bans developers from using marketing methods for their applications and services on iOS that they regularly use for their own. An example of this is Apple using push notifications to promote Apple Music and banning third parties like Spotify from doing so.
The timeline of Apple adding some of the App Store guidelines is also problematic. Apps have been banned from linking to external sign up pages and promos since the early days of the App Store but in 2016 (six months after Apple Music launched) they banned "calls to action" to prevent apps like Spotify even mentioning that users can sign up on their website.
The Verge article below covers Apples latest Apple Music push notification campaign, screenshots are included.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/18/18229492/apple-music-push-notifications-advertising
It was said in jest, and in a friendly tone (as implied by the "my friend" at the end), but if it was offensive somehow, that wasn't the intent...
That fee could also be seen as a license fee for the Developer Tools that are included. But in any case, as others have posted above, show me any other "retailer" that offers their suppliers a "one-time fee" or "annual fee" model. B2C business are, in the vast majority, transactional and will expect to make a profit on each and every item that they sell, regardless of supplier, so an annual fee model simply wouldn't work...unless of course that fee was substantially higher!
I do freelance work and I price everything per job. If somebody wanted to use my services on a regular basis and wanted me to offer them an annual (or monthly) fee basis - a retainer I guess - then I would price it accordingly. If Spotify were to get even 1 million new subscribers through the app store and the only fee was the $99 per year then that would equate to $0.001 per subscriber. Or, put another way, they would earn $99 and Spotify would earn $9,990,000...equivalent to 1/1000th of 1 percent. 30% may be on the high end...but saying that they pay their Developer Account fee so that should be all that's needed is a little crazy given the volumes involved.
Would a restaurant preventing customers from bringing in food from other restaurants be considered anti-competitive? Would a clothing store selling BRAND XYZ allow that brand to advertise in the store the fact that if you went to the BRAND XYZ website directly you could buy the items cheaper? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't...so would that be anti-competitive?
As far as I know, people can make purchases outside of the App Store, they just have to sign up via the website...is that correct? If so then Apple isn't preventing anybody from signing up to Spotify unless they do it through their payment systems and pay the 30%/15% commission. They are simply saying "If you want to use our store then we will charge you 30%/15% - the same that we charge everybody else - in order to have access to our customers. If you choose not to then you are more than welcome to sell your product elsewhere" and I really don't see the harm in that.
Of course this is separate from the argument that Apple prevents Spotify (and others) from being accessed on things like HomePod. That one is, in my opinion, also irrelevant because if I buy a HomePod and I know it doesn't support Spotify then I am obviously OK with that decision and most likely an Apple Music subscriber. Spotify wants the right to have its service included on an Apple-designed, Apple-built, Apple-marketed product, designed (rightly or wrongly) primarily for Apple Music subscribers, so that they can try to win over Apple Music subscribers? I get why they would want to do that...but is it wrong if Apple don't want that? Hardly!
If there was another guy who was interested in my girlfriend, while I trust her completely, I certainly wouldn't invite the guy into my house while he was trying to hit on her!
OK...I apologise, I should have added "in my opinion"...error noted and corrected in the point above this one...
So if your a new user, download the Spotify app, how exactly is Spotify going to ‘ask you to subscribe via the website’?
Maybe Apple should take their business elsewhere, you know somewhere outside of Europe or where decent countries don’t tolerate anti-competitive practices?
Hmmm... sounds like exactly what they did, and then some, for most of the 90’s and 00’s. Maybe you’re too young to know. Apple’s tactics are nothing compared to some of the crap MS pulled back then.
That is a slightly different discussion. Sure 30% can seem like a lot for people like you and me, but there obviously a lot of effort and money behind the “invention” of the App Store and similar platforms. Who should decide what is the correct amount? And how much is it... 15%, 8%, 2%??
[doublepost=1557141915][/doublepost]If I’ve understood it correctly, the only real issue is that Spotify isn’t allowed to let you know, in the app, that you can start a subscription through their website.
That however can easily be noted in the mail that is welcoming you to the app/service.
Oh, and just to be clear, I am not in any way an Apple Fanboy. I have a lot of Apple products because the industry I used to be in was Apple dominated so I just got used to the Apple platforms. However, I find their current product strategies infuriating and I find some of their decisions as to what gets allowed and banned on the App Store confusing at best and concerning at worst.
I agree with those of you who feel that tech companies have too much power and influence these days. However, what I do not agree with is the implication that a company can create technology and a platform and then be compelled by law to open that technology up to others or to be forced to allow others access to that platform simply because these "others" are in competition. That is one thing that I do believe that Apple should have complete control over. If other brands such as Spotify feel that it is unfair, then don't use the App Store. If that means that you don't have access to iOS users then so be it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, every business has "costs of sale", this is one of them. You either adjusting your pricing up to accommodate the cost of sale, or you adjust your profit down to accommodate it. Perhaps a combination of both is the more sensible option.
But I get it, Apple is a big corporation, Apple is evil, Apple has too much control! For me this isn't about Apple and, believe it or not, I would be arguing exactly the same thing in Spotify's favour is the roles were reversed.
I agree with those of you who feel that tech companies have too much power and influence these days. However, what I do not agree with is the implication that a company can create technology and a platform and then be compelled by law to open that technology up to others or to be forced to allow others access to that platform simply because these "others" are in competition. That is one thing that I do believe that Apple should have complete control over. If other brands such as Spotify feel that it is unfair, then don't use the App Store. If that means that you don't have access to iOS users then so be it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, every business has "costs of sale", this is one of them. You either adjusting your pricing up to accommodate the cost of sale, or you adjust your profit down to accommodate it. Perhaps a combination of both is the more sensible option.
But I get it, Apple is a big corporation, Apple is evil, Apple has too much control! For me this isn't about Apple and, believe it or not, I would be arguing exactly the same thing in Spotify's favour is the roles were reversed.
But that’s capitalism. Let the market decide (not the courts). “Free” market doesn’t mean free products and services.
The point is if 30% is the going rate then it’s fair. Why should Apple charge less if they don’t have to? They’re a company running a business with the intention of making profit. How is this different to any other business?
And nobody would have a problem with that if you could install iOS software from other sources/other "app stores". Since you cannot do that, and since there are a billion of those gadgets out there, the normal rules simply cannot apply anymore, since that negatively affects way too many people.
Just imagine Barnes & Noble were the only remaining book store selling English books on the planet. Do you still think they should be allowed to do whatever they want?
To all these dann boys out there!!! Just because apple owns the store means they can disregard their own rules.
Apples AppStore would be worth nothing if it wasn't for the thousands of apps such as instagram Facebook Spotify etc...
Apple is furthermore not allowing everyone to run promotions on a equal basis giving apple music the advantage.
Looks like the US has a lot to learn when it comes to fair business practices yet alone medicare for all instead of supporting greedy American cooperations giving a damn about the individual health.
Apples AppStore would be worth nothing if it wasn't for the thousands of apps such as instagram Facebook Spotify etc...
Apple is furthermore not allowing everyone to run promotions on a equal basis giving apple music the advantage.
Looks like the US has a lot to learn when it comes to fair business practices yet alone medicare for all instead of supporting greedy American cooperations giving a damn about the individual health.
You, Sir, have hit the nail on the head! Spotify has a way round this but it wants the convenience of doing it the way it wants to do it. As you suggested this is how it could work from Spotify's perspective:
1) Create a free app (Done)
2) Offer a free tier (Done)
3) Require the user to create an account/login using their email in order to be able to use that free tier (Done and that's allowable by Apple)
4) Either during the initial on-boarding/welcome process or perhaps in the coming week or two, send an automated email to the free tier users informing them about the paid subscriptions and link to wherever you choose
Seems to me that would do the job! So why don't they do it that way? I'm guessing that the conversion rates are higher for offering direct In-App subscriptions so it seems to me that they just want to benefit off of the impulsivity of the app users rather than actually having to put in the work to build a relationship with their customers and actually show the value and benefits of signing up.
You mean, you don’t want to sign up for free first then? Usually people sign for free first, to test it. And if you do, don’t worry, you will be constantly reminded to subscribe via webpage, through lovely ads, every few minutes.
But that’s capitalism. Let the market decide (not the courts). “Free” market doesn’t mean free products and services.
The point is if 30% is the going rate then it’s fair. Why should Apple charge less if they don’t have to? They’re a company running a business with the intention of making profit. How is this different to any other business?
They have a monopoly by default on their app marketplace. That's not true for a whole lot of other businesses. For example you can buy books and games in a ton of different shops. These are unfair business practices because the developers have no choice, other than leaving the platform. Making a profit is fine in my opinion, but not by introducing stupid rules like "You can't link outside the app to buy a subscription".
In this case the EU can do whatever they want because Apple has to follow the European law in Europe.
I can see both sides of this… both are right in ways… both are wrong in ways. I guess this is why we have arbitration, adjudication, courts of law, and those f&$#ing lawyers in the middle, to decide what is more important that something else.