Facebook and Spotify CEOs Slam Apple's App Store

[Sophisticatednut]

I work in the music industry. What you said is (I'm willing to bet intentionally) inaccurate. Streaming services do not pay labels, they pay publishers. If you are an independent artist, whatever publisher you used (CDBaby, Tunecore, Distrokid, whatever) is paid. However, Spotify pays the publishers much less than Apple Music, which means, effectively, artists get less money for equal streams from Spotify than Apple Music or Tidal. Spotify has always been a horrible deal for artists, and is only sustainable to publish there because they have the largest market share.

Compare to apps, for example. iPhone is just 30% of the market, and yet developers get so much more money from the App Store than the Play Store. That's a pretty f*ckin' good deal. 30% cut is fair.

I don’t know. Apple keeps 100% of the revenue. It allows them to give away a lot more. But Spotify must sell through loopholes. Apple advertises its system everywhere in their system making it prohibitively expensive to compete.

Can you not just buy the phone that does what you want? This picking and choosing of "I want this phone, but I need to be able to do this and that on it" is absurd. The iPhone isn't the only capable smart phone on sale. Buy what fits your needs.

No such phone exists that have 100% of what you want. You are constantly complaining that people want one extra ability and try to pressure apple to change

I don't understand the sense of entitlement that allows people to dictate what is on the device they agree to purchase, besides purchasing said device in the first place. You knew what it could and couldn't do when you bought it, no? If it didn't do what you wanted it to (side load, alternative app stores) why did you buy it?

We are entitled by rights. We are the customers paying them money. Apple is extremely entitled if they believe they can force their will on customers

 

[subi257]

Because Apple App Store users spend 2x as much as Google Play users.

That's irrelevant.

 

[subi257]

Gee if only you could, but since the Apple App Store is the only one allowed on iOS you can't. I would kill for Steam to be able to distribute games on iOS. Damn better service platform than the App Store and Game Center, because at least with Steam I could get a refund if the game didn't work or was a sham. Hell I can actually navigate and find games on Steam than the App Store.

I think TheYayAreaLiving means let them create their own store...and OS infrastructure.....It should be easy.....that's what the Chief TWIT said

 

[subi257]

Why is 30% too high? Apple provides the credit card and refund processing, hosts the files on their servers, deals with os compatibility issues, provides the internet bandwidth for all the downloads, provides the IDE and documentation free of charge. A credit card charge costs large companies 10 cents plus 1.9%. Thats not a big deal on a $100 purchase, but most iOS purchases are $1 - $2. That is 7-12% just to run the credit card.

Back in the OS 9 days you had to buy Code Warrior to write your software. If I remember correctly that was almost $1000. Plus you needed to purchase the inside Macintosh Toolbox books as reference material at $200 each. Internet bandwidth and server costs once you get to the scale of a popular app are not cheap.

Platforms like Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft take a 30% cut of digital game sales for video games, why does the iPhone have to be different?

Not to mention the cost of server infrastructure (servers have a 5 year life span) and all of the electric cost to run server farms and cooling for said server farms.

 

[subi257]

Well, actually they have a right to tell you, and that’s how most agreements between two parties work. Then, whoever is the interested party has a right to agree or deny the request - and arguably decline the agreement itself - or simply keep the negotiation going.

The fact that you produce T-Shirts and want $25/shirt doesn’t mean that your distributor can’t come back and say that the pricing is too high, damaging their business, and that the right price should be $22/shirt. Then either party has to make a choice among several options.

Exactly...good example, you go to a concert and want to buy a T shirt.....$60-75 for a T shirt? it's maybe .50 of cloth and .25 if ink.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Not to mention the cost of server infrastructure (servers have a 5 year life span) and all of the electric cost to run server farms and cooling for said server farms.

Yet multiple stores can have zero or 5% as a fee. Servers are extremely cheap per user

 

[subi257]

iOS users can buy Spotify audio books on their web site. It's not like that's unusual for Spotify. Less than 1% of their music subscribers on iOS paid through the App Store. The other 99% paid on Spotify's web site.

I don't pay anywhere....I use it free

 

[subi257]

Yet multiple stores can have zero or 5% as a fee. Servers are extremely cheap per user

If they are having zero, then they are eating the expense.....at work we use AWS server space and even for video files at proxy resolution it's still 1000's per TB

 

[subi257]

The monopoly argument falls to bits when you have a ubiquitous competitor. Android is iOS's ubiquitous competitor.

And of course Apple isn't saying "let us do whatever we want." What Apple is saying is "we believe that our distribution system is fair and has created an ecosystem that benefits both users and developers. And everyone is free to opt out ... by buying their phone across the street."

So, just for laughs, suppose Apple as whole, or maybe the entire app store failed...crashed, shut down. So now what does that leave the consumer with ? only Google play store.....now you got yourself a real monopoly. Just like before Apple truly came on the market as a computer company......you had IBM/Windows, IBM/Windows.....you also had IBM/Windows. (well there was also Commodore and Rat Shack but those were not real for a business)

 

[dbwie]

The 30% cut isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that there is no way to sell an app to an iOS user that doesn’t involve Apple as a middle man. These aren’t phones, they’re pocket computers. If I want to buy an application on my laptop, I’m not forced to go through an App Store. I can if I want, but I don’t HAVE to. That’s the real issue. Why can’t I install an application on a device I own without going through Apple? If this became Apple’s stance on a desktop or laptop, many, many people would ditch Apple computers, but we are all too willing to put up with it on our pocket computers. Why?

How do you feel about government, foreign or domestic, or law enforcement having easy access to your phone? Right now, governments have to go through Apple to get that access, or have some very sophisticated state sponsored level ways around their security. This is a good thing! It protects us every day. How would you feel about a malicious app on your phone, siphoning your Face ID data or Apple Pay data, and sending that back to an outside server? Maybe you have never had your identity stolen because somebody out on the internet did not take securing customer data seriously. It really sucks, I can tell you. Opening the phone to you means opening it to all. Imagine clicking on an email link and it triggers a download of some malicious software to your phone. I personally like the decreased, not zero, but decreased, attack vectors on iOS. If you want to play with and mod your gadgets, you have computers and Android phones for that. It is hard for some to understand that the iPhone became so popular because Apple has touted security and privacy as features. The wild Wild West of the internet will always be there, and there will always be devices that access it. On my Mac, I've got Little Snitch and other things installed to help me be as secure as I can. I don't want to think about these things with my phone. I, for one, appreciate the buffer that Apple attempts to create and maintain.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If they are having zero, then they are eating the expense.....at work we use AWS server space and even for video files at proxy resolution it's still 1000's per TB

No because they can make money in other ways. the ones paying 0 is subsidized by other that pay the fee.

It costing a 1.000$ for 1tb is still Pennie’s per program. On that disk you can have 10.000 programs at 100mb size.

That is a 10cent cost per program, A month.

If that’s per months apples 99$ covers this in spades.

 

[toph2toast]

Because that's what you agreed to, because that's what they wanted the experience to be like. If it's not going to work for you, sounds like Android is a better fit. Choice is great, vote with your wallet.

I'm not going to move to Android over the App Store. That also doesn't mean I have to be quiet and agree to every choice that Apple makes. They've been wrong about a lot of things about the iPhone and later changed it.

 

[dbwie]

So, just for laughs, suppose Apple as whole, or maybe the entire app store failed...crashed, shut down. So now what does that leave the consumer with ? only Google play store.....now you got yourself a real monopoly. Just like before Apple truly came on the market as a computer company......you had IBM/Windows, IBM/Windows.....you also had IBM/Windows. (well there was also Commodore and Rat Shack but those were not real for a business)

umm, it leaves you with the apps that are currently installed on your phone. They will run independently of the App Store once they are downloaded and installed.

 

[subi257]

But that’s not the entire point. It’s about Apple having all control over every app that filters through the App Store. They can decide what content I can have in an app, decide if something is misinformation or not, and can destroy an App by making their own and offering it for free. Apple is the proverbial judge, jury, and executioner. Either play by Apple’s rules or try a web app. Good luck with Apple’s APIs! This stifles innovation, freedom of choice, and the free market.

For the last 15 years I would say that the App Store was fine. When a new technology is released, there always needs to be some leeway to experiment and try things even if it means having monopoly power. But pocket computers are now a pretty standard thing. Experimentation is over. We all know how these things work and both developers and users no longer need training wheels. We can decide for ourselves what we want and don’t need a paternalistic Apple holding our hand while reaching into our pockets And telling us how lucky we are.

It still should not matter.....once again, it's their product, their system. They should have the right to control and operate it as they see fit. If somebody want to sell a product on Amazon and Amazon management feels they don't want to be associated with it....is somebody going to say that they have to sell it....I fully understand that this is not quite the same thing, but it's their business. Why in my township am I forced to have only 1 choice for a TV/Phone vendor ? We have ComCrap...take it or leave it....fortunately Fios became available because it's a phone utility.

 

[toph2toast]

That's irrelevant.

Except it's not... someone asked why Facebook/Spotify doesn't go after the Google play store. This is all about money, and the App Store makes more money.

Nice try.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So, just for laughs, suppose Apple as whole, or maybe the entire app store failed...crashed, shut down. So now what does that leave the consumer with ? only Google play store.....now you got yourself a real monopoly. Just like before Apple truly came on the market as a computer company......you had IBM/Windows, IBM/Windows.....you also had IBM/Windows. (well there was also Commodore and Rat Shack but those were not real for a business)

Well that’s quite a scenario.

But i
The biggest problem is that if the AppStore crashes and burns…. I will still not be able to install anything from the Google play store.

What if apple opened up the iPhone I would use a different store.

 

[russell_314]

How do you feel about government, foreign or domestic, or law enforcement having easy access to your phone? Right now, governments have to go through Apple to get that access, or have some very sophisticated state sponsored level ways around their security.

If the government wants to get on your phone and they have physical access to the hardware, they can. Don’t think anything on your iPhone is secure from governments. It’s not. You are secure from less sophisticated criminals.

The problem with this is it gives Apple the sole decision making process of who gets to do what. One point of failure is never good. We’re seeing that right now when certain governments put pressure on Apple and they cave. Then you’re at a point where it’s not Apple controlling what apps are on your phone, but rather the government. It’s not a real good situation.

I understand the walled garden and I like it because it is more secure. The question is, are the downsides worth it? Maybe they are but maybe they’re not.

In the end, it’s not people here that are going to make this decision, but rather governments. I suspect the EU is going to be the one that forces change in this area just like they’re forcing Apple to use USB-C. Tim Cook will go kicking and screaming but he will do what he has to do.

 

[toph2toast]

And if that's what you want...you have a choice for a platform that allows just that.

Or, get this, I can buy a product while at the same time disagree and voice my concerns about the company who sells said product. Maybe I missed a step that by purchasing an iPhone I must also be 100% satisfied with it.

 

[subi257]

umm, it leaves you with the apps that are currently installed on your phone. They will run independently of the App Store once they are downloaded and installed.

But, they are no longer getting updated, maybe Apple is gone. The phone OS will no longer get updates and eventually die. This is a "pie in the sky" example, but any company can fail...no company is too big to fail. Then all we have is Android and Google......and nobody else is big enough to compete. Right now you create a variation of Android The chief TWIT is talking about that, it's open source...except for using the name "Android" and the little R2D2 logo, those are copyright property of Google.

 

[dbwie]

Apples inconsistent TOS.
They can’t use Apple Pay like other apps or direct them to their website

So, you are OK with third party access to Apple Pay? How about your Face ID data? There are already plenty of ways to pay for stuff from your phone, Venmo, Chase Pay, Square, PayPal

 

[Orange Bat]

How do you feel about government, foreign or domestic, or law enforcement having easy access to your phone? Right now, governments have to go through Apple to get that access, or have some very sophisticated state sponsored level ways around their security. This is a good thing! It protects us every day. How would you feel about a malicious app on your phone, siphoning your Face ID data or Apple Pay data, and sending that back to an outside server? Maybe you have never had your identity stolen because somebody out on the internet did not take securing customer data seriously. It really sucks, I can tell you. Opening the phone to you means opening it to all. Imagine clicking on an email link and it triggers a download of some malicious software to your phone. I personally like the decreased, not zero, but decreased, attack vectors on iOS. If you want to play with and mod your gadgets, you have computers and Android phones for that. It is hard for some to understand that the iPhone became so popular because Apple has touted security and privacy as features. The wild Wild West of the internet will always be there, and there will always be devices that access it. On my Mac, I've got Little Snitch and other things installed to help me be as secure as I can. I don't want to think about these things with my phone. I, for one, appreciate the buffer that Apple attempts to create and maintain.

Maybe we should ask the Chinese “How do you feel about government, foreign or domestic, or law enforcement having easy access to your phone?” Apple has shown that it is more than happy to comply with government if it means enriching its bottom line. In other words, Apple will protect you…until it doesn’t.

As to the rest of your comment, shouldn’t all of that be my choice? Shouldn’t I be allowed to take risks with a device I own? Opening the phone for all doesn’t mean you personally can‘t live in Apple’s protected world. You could still choose to download from Apple’s App Store, use only Apple’s Apps, and never touch other apps. Why not give other’s a different choice, though?

BTW, Little Snitch is not available on the Mac App Store, yet you trust it. It wasn’t vetted by Apple, yet you voluntarily went and downloaded an app from the “Wild West“ of the internet and completely put the security of your computer at risk? What other non-App Store apps might you own that could be compromising your identity and privacy? If Apple is the only trusted source for apps, then how could you possibly put yourself at risk like this?

 

[falainber]

Nowadays everyone wants to slam Apple App Store. It’s dumb!

How about coming up with your own platform?

Just imagine the size of the purse you will need to carry all your phones: Google phone, Apple phone, Adobe phone, TikTok phone, Meta phone, Spotify phone. How many apps do you have?

 

[dbwie]

But, they are no longer getting updated, maybe Apple is gone. The phone OS will no longer get updates and eventually die. This is a "pie in the sky" example, but any company can fail...no company is too big to fail. Then all we have is Android and Google......and nobody else is big enough to compete. Right now you create a variation of Android The chief TWIT is talking about that, it's open source...except for using the name "Android" and the little R2D2 logo, those are copyright property of Google.

I recall that happened to BlackBerry, right? Even that was not overnight. If Apple were to disappear, and mind you they are so big, it would be a long, slow demise, there would be plenty of demand for an alternative. If apple disappeared, you would not get iOS updates either, so your apps and your existing iOS would continue to work until the phone itself died. And that would be in probably 5 years.

 

[russell_314]

I'm not going to move to Android over the App Store. That also doesn't mean I have to be quiet and agree to every choice that Apple makes. They've been wrong about a lot of things about the iPhone and later changed it.

That is the problem with a monopoly. While Apple might not have a 100% marketshare, they have enough of the market share with only one competitor to make it difficult for customers to have a choice. It’s like telling someone if they don’t like Microsoft doing something to use Linux. While this is a choice, then the customer isn’t able to do things that he would be able to do with a Windows PC. For anyone in the real world, they know that’s not a real choice.

If there were a half a dozen decent choices for phone operating systems, it would be easy to say well if you don’t like iOS go to qOS or yOS.

 

[russell_314]

I recall that happened to BlackBerry, right? Even that was not overnight. If Apple were to disappear, and mind you they are so big, it would be a long, slow demise, there would be plenty of demand for an alternative. If apple disappeared, you would not get iOS updates either, so your apps and your existing iOS would continue to work until the phone itself died. And that would be in probably 5 years.

It happened to BlackBerry because there was a significant change in technology and they just ignored it. By the time they realized what was going on, it was too late. Yes if some crazy new technology comes out and Apple just ignores it then it’s possible they could get phased out like BlackBerry. I don’t think it’s likely to happen soon.