Apple also double dipps. Charging iOS customers (included in iPhone cost) and devs. Do you really think millions of iOS devs multiplied by $100 is nothing? Every year.
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
Apple also double dipps. Charging iOS customers (included in iPhone cost) and devs. Do you really think millions of iOS devs multiplied by $100 is nothing? Every year.
LOL. "No rhyme or reason." The App store was created by Apple to bring the wealthiest, most educated, screened, customers in the world, together in a secure, privacy focused environment of screened apps, to provide access to digital goods.
Apple carefully planned it and spent billions of dollars to build it and now spends billions of dollars to maintain it. That is Apple's business model. You may want to have the authority to order Apple to get involved in the sale of cars, furniture, landscaping services, attorney services, etc., but we haven't sunk that far yet.
You are also so far from the truth when you say Apple gets to restrict how Spotify can collect payments. That's simply not true. Spotify can, and does, collect payments directly from consumers. What Apple does, and every company in the world does, is set the rules if you want them to carry your product in their stores, e.g., most companies are going to charge you 50% of your sale price to carry your product for them. Ebay, Etsy, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc., all have fees, rules, etc., that you have to follow if you want to use their platforms.
Some companies, for example, decide it isn't worth it to put their products on the MacOS Store, that's their choice. Some companies, like Amazon, put on their big boy pants and don't allow in app purchases because they don't want to pay Apple a commission.
#1 is partially correct, but the only reason it goes through the App Store payment system is because Apple requires the only payment links for digital goods be in-app purchases. The recurring fee is not the reason because Apple requires 30% on one-time digital purchases like eBooks, digital albums, or streaming movies too.
#2 is wrong. Apple makes the distinction on whether the product is digital or not, not because it is a subscription. I can subscribe to physical goods through the Amazon app all I want. If I want my dog food delivered automatically at the first of each month then it is perfectly fine to subscribe through the Amazon app and Amazon's payment system without Apple getting a dime.
Are you trolling or for real?
Let’s take just one of those costs - credit card fees, which are typically 2-3% of total purchase.
Even with minimal 2% - a monthly subscription of $9.99 means a yearly fee of $2.40. So after Spotify got just 41 user subscribed via App Store subscriptions the $100 developer fee is used up. And Spotify would likely have *millions* of users subscribed this way.
Automation is irrelevant here - it is a fixed cost that Apple handles on behalf of App Store developers.
Add to that Internet bandwidth for downloads, cost of running download servers, server farms, etc.
I have no idea if 30% is a reasonable value or Apple is getting done hefty profit here, but it is definitely not 0% or even 10%.
The subscription through the amazon app is using amazons payment system, you don’t get charged through the iTunes app for any of Amazon purchases or subscriptions.
Same with eBay using PayPal and not your iTunes or App Store account.
If they did apple would take a cut.
That’s what Spotify wants, to use apples
Payment system for a recurring fee and not pay apple anything. That’s not fair.
Apple should kick Spotify out. Problem solved for everyone.
Exactly right. Yet Apple forces sellers of digital goods to only use in-app purchases from within the app while other services and physical goods don't have the same restriction. That's Spotify's core argument, they are being treated differently in a market in which Apple also competes and such actions result in competitive harm to consumers.
Tim Cook claimed at WWDC last year that there are 20 million registered iOS dev accounts so I would imagine the two billion or so dollars that they rake in, in registration fees goes some way towards covering that.
Keep in mind that if you want to distribute enterprise apps to your employees internally, that is another $299 annual fee.
Many big companies with an app on the App Store are paying Apple $400 per year before Apple takes any cut at all.
Just because Apple sets the rules doesn't mean they are not anti-competitive. Hence the EU's decision to investigate the situation. Apple will have to justify treating digital goods differently than other services or physical goods; something that I personally don't believe and that you can't rationally justify either (and no, their store their rulez is not rational).
If apple forced sellers like you claim, Spotify would not be able to sell subscriptions anywhere outside the App Store.
Which isn’t the case here.
Spotify wants to use apples subscription service with iTunes or AppStore as the payment portal without paying apple a fee. That’s not going to work.
Walmart doesn't operate in Europe. If you want to sell in Europe, you have to follow the rules.
Good. Ever since Apple started rent seeking the 30% cut from services in the App Store I've been posted this will happen eventually (and been called all sorts of names for doing so on this board by people who don't understand how European anti-competition law works, too).
They're going to lose, too. Badly. Hopefully the EU throws the book at them.
They're going to lose, too. Badly. Hopefully the EU throws the book at them.
Spotify does not want to use Apple's subscription service, they want to use their own. They do want to use the app as a portal to their own sign-up and payment system exactly as Uber does. If it works for Uber it should work for Spotify.
And Apple does restrict sellers just like I said. Within the app the only method allowed to even be mentioned for paying for digital goods is an in-app purchase. Any reference to an external payment page is grounds to have the app pulled from the store.
Yes they do, they own the ASDA chain. The EU has made a number of anti-competition moves in the supermarket sector though, so I don't know what the point here is supposed to be.
But why does Apple only charge a commission for digital goods? Seems arbitrary. And since you can bypass the commission by signing up using a web browser why not just allow that functionality in-app? Many people will still choose Apple for billing because they trust Apple more and/or want all their charges/subscriptions in one place.[/QUOTE]
Not that Apple or any other company in the world has to explain why they decide to get in certain businesses, but why would Apple want to get in the middle of your on line purchase of a box of diapers? The beauty of going through the App store is that I know I can easily contact Apple with a problem with my digital subscription, app, etc., and they are going to cancel it, refund my money, etc. So when the diapers leak the person contacts Apple to demand their money back?? So Apple can be sued when your Samsung Note blows up? No, you're never going to see the App store move beyond digital goods.
Your comment about why doesn't Apple simply allow people in the App to bypass the Apple store is a bit surprising. What you're suggesting is that Apple should have spent billions to build, and keep spending billions to maintain a store that no one one has to pay any commission to us???? (keep in mind that 85% of apps don't pay anything). Obviously it would be insane if Apple allowed every App to advertise, "push this button to pay us directly and we will charge you less." That would be like Walmart allowing companies to put their products in Walmart's stores with a sign that said, "Skip the checkout line and just take it out to your car after you pay us in our App, and we will charge you less for it."
Shame 100% of that money isn't going to the musicians that actually, you know, make the music. The musicians get a pittance, while the Spotify execs pay themselves nice 6 figure sums..
You are wrong.
The T&Cs for the App Store state that you cannot tell anyone inside an app if you use a subscription mechanism outside of the app store - Spotify do have one, obviously, but they cannot write an app that takes subscriber details like credit card numbers through the app itself as Apple bans this.
Spotify are not asking to use Apple's payment portal, they just want to be able to take payment details in app and process them themselves without Apple's involvement, because they can do it substantially cheaper than 30%.
Uber, Amazon, eBay, etc. are apps with physical goods and physical services. None of them uses iTunes as a payment portal.
If they did apple would take a cut.
Spotify is not selling a physical good or physical service like Uber
It’s digital and it’s recurring, if Spotify wants to sell a recurring digital subscription through iTunes it’s going to be 30% for the first year and 15% after that. Just like everyone else and just like on android.
Apple isn’t forcing Spotify to do anything. Spotify sells a subscription through their website and are welcome to do so in the app store if they follow apples guidelines, like every other app developer.
No they don't.
https://artistscollectingsociety.org/information-artists/
Artists have a resale right and can take fees under European law.
So Apple has the duty to host their app and allow them to make money through the platform that Apple pays 100 percent to maintain? Spotify subscribers far outnumber Apple Music subscribers all folks who “figured out” how to subscribe through Spotify’s web page. There is nothing unfair about it.
Fair enough! Although my experience paints a very different picture, I can accept that the music industry has changed quite a lot since I moved on from it. If it is moving more towards a retention of rights for the artist (even if only partly) then that has to be a good thing; not only from a financial perspective (higher earning per sale/stream) but also from a control perspective.
I'm just glad that vinyl sales are getting stronger every year: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billro...ger-than-we-thought-much-bigger/#461ed7c51c9c
Makes me happy!
I’m sure I’m not.
Does Spotify sell a subscriptions on its website?
Can’t be wrong about that.
If you want to use apples platform for a digital subscription you will go through apple.
If they can do it substantially cheaper they don’t need apple do they?
They have their website.
Is apple barring them from offering a recurring subscription for their own website?
No, they don’t.
You can sell digital goods via transactional and subscription mechanics on Android without using Google Play. Spotify is a good example of this - if you open the Spotify app you get sent to a signup form on Android, unlike iOS. Amazon run their Comixology store and let you pay via Paypal or credit card on Android for comics, but on iOS you can't do that, you've got to figure out that you need to go to the Comixology website, buy the books there (or subscribe to their unlimited service) and then come back and log in to the iOS app. And Comixology can't tell you in app that this is the process.