True, but then Apple could just not allow their app in the store hurting Spotify even more.
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.
FTC Looking Into App Store Rules Regarding Subscription Services
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well that doesn't matter, because the context here was Microsoft and Explorer, (which someone else brought up btw). Microsoft also allowed you to never, ever use it.
the mcirosoft issue of the 90's was an interesting one.
the fundamental complaint that the EU and opposition had was that, by bundling IE with Windows, which was on 90% of users desktops, most useres never knew there were alternatives to IE.
because of their market dominance (95% of the worlds desktops at the time), this was seen as anti-competitive.
EU only ruled that Microsoft could no longer bundle IE with their desktop OS, instead provide a splash page asking which browser users wanted installed.
so even the microsoft comparisons that are being used in this thread aren't really valid.
Well, that was exactly my point..
But does Google use Android as a spring board to get their services in the hands of users, you bet! That's the entire motivation to get into Android to begin with since they make no money on Android itself. There are no license fees for using Android for OEMs.
correct.
completely different business model. interesting to see how two players in the same game, using two seperate models can both be very succesfull offering choice.
Stores in malls do pay a percentage of sales. Around 15%. Except Apple negotiates it down to 2%. Leases in malls are crazy.
The issue I have with Spotify and others is that they want to benefit from the enormous marketing Apple does to promote the App Store but thinks that should come for free, just like their view of Artist's content. They have long known their model was unsustainable but choose to stick with it. The same goes for Anazon. If the invest in marketing their service on a major scale, they will attract their own customers and not rely on the Apple machine to sign them. Their customers would already be signed up before they were ever sent to the AppStore to download the app.
They are on Apple's platform using their resources and marketing draw to be successful. They should actually do some really marketing and run TV and radio, and magazine ads themselves to send customers to their site instead, sign them up and Apple won't get a cent. The convenience aspects and the fact that people like me trust my information with Apple more than a company that may be bought out by who knows who tomorrow is why companies pay. I don't hear them complaining about paying the same fee to Google.
Okay, and I would argue one of the features of the OS should be to let you browse the web.
It's the same for all companies, except that people tend to side against the companies unless it's apple.
To me it's the "if you don't love it leave it" posts that shows more of the attitude I was referring to. That sentiment seems to be typically of certain people from the us. Typically redneck types. This is the same thing and probably from the same people. I have been to a number of countries and have never heard people say "if you don't like that then leave". Certainly not here where I am from, mexico. It's funny there are some forums of people from the us here in mexico and that's the only places here I have seen it. Them telling each other that if they have a single complaint of mexico. People from here complain all the time and do not tell each other to leave.
Spotify making a complaint and it being investigated is part of the process and actually wouldn't that be freedom of speech? They havn't done anything illegal against apple. It's funny how in the country that touts freedom of speech the most some people hate it the most when someone uses it.
OK, here comes someone to say apple hasn't done anything wrong either. So what's the problem then? If they have done nothing wrong then nothing is lost.
In the us you can report to the police you "think" a neighbor has stolen from you and ask them to investigate. The police will investigate and if they did not do it then the person that reported it was just following the process. They didn't accuse them of anything, they just wanted an investigation.
Unfortunately here if you want to report something the police will want money to take a report and do nothing. If you call them they will not come. I think people in the us take these things for granted and would really have something to complain about if they did not have these processes.
OF course here we DO have the ability to pay a police officer to beat the person to a pulp that wronged you so there is that.
Last edited:
On what grounds though? Remember, I'm not disputing the usefulness of a web browser, or saying that it shouldn't be bundled with the OS, just questioning how it's a machine abstraction, it's not..
Last edited:
It's not sensible or reasonable to think of companies as people. It's also not sensible to conflate industries to make an analogy that you think you understand, which may be based on inaccurate information. Overall the largest companies tend to face a lot of scrutiny due to their size. It's examined because if it does run afoul of antitrust legislation, it would be much more difficult to correct later.
Most apps use in-app payment and subscriptions to offer free Apps on the Apple platform, so there is no up front payment in most cases. Each of Apple's embodiments have be magnitudes cheaper for developers than what was available before it. The cost of entry to develop apps for computers are phones on any scale excluded all but the largest companies. Most successful app developers in this ecosystem would not exist at all without Apple making it affordable. The subscription model was important implemented to appease publisher of magazines and some games, it gave them a better chance that people would sign up. It is still an option they don't have to use if they think it's too much.
See, I have my own thoughts. I don't simply accept words on the internet. You should try it.
I stand by my thoughts.
I don't think anyone is making the case that Apple shouldn't take a cut, that's nuts. The case being the recurring 30% each and every month after with a subscription.
The value of the App store as a safe place to download apps is the hallmark of Apple, and I personally wouldn't trust anyone else with downloads. All some of us are saying is that Apple music has an unfair advantage in not having that extra 30% cost every one else has in monthly subscriptions. It's excessive and puts apple at an unfair advantage, especially since they have a marketplace monopoly.
Last edited:
I missed this part. Small guy and big guy is not defined by how long one has been in business. I know people that have been in business since long before apple was formed, family businesses. They are in no way the big guy compared to apple. Apple is the big guy compared to everyone except maybe the catholic church. So claiming apple is not the big guy is purely ridiculous, how much do they make compared to apple.
In a nutshell apple could block spotify from their store but you can bet they would have more problems for blocking competition.
People, in the us way, say if you don't love it leave it but that is pretty redneck.
It's apple's store and they have to abide by antitrust laws, etc. or of they don't like that they can shut the store down. If you don't love it leave it. Yes, also redneck but I am just flipping it back at the ones shouting it. Apple has to follow the rules which means being investigated. How many were for the christian cake baker being investigated and shut down for not following the rules but are getting high blood pressure over apple being investigated for possibly not following the rules? It's part of doing business, both for the baker and apple. Being investigated is being investigated, nothing has been proven in apple's case yet. People have a right to ask for an investigation whether it pans out or not.
Wrong. These companies are apple's customers, they pay apple a cut every month. IF a customer has a complaint they have every right to make one and have it investigated. I do not know if apple broke the rules, antitrust or not, but it's up to the proper authorities to decide. There are rules to these businesses not made by apple. People with the other web browsers did not like microsoft's rules and got them changed, there's more to it than just the company's rules.
If customers are not allowed to make complaints then businesses are free to do whatever they want to customers.....like not bake cakes for certain people.
Spotify does not investigate nor make any decisions pertaining to this, not sure why you are so upset. Obviously you think apple is going to be caught doing something wrong or it would not matter.
Look at it this way. They are subcontractors. If I am a subcontractor doing work on a house for the contractor we are not in business together even if I make money and the contractor makes a percentage. Yes, it's the same thing because apple provides the storefront as does the contractor, they handle the payments, etc.
Another thing you are missing. You get a subscription through apple in an app and you pay 30% every month, that's not like selling a house for a straight 30%. In no way whatsoever.
If customers are not allowed to make complaints then businesses are free to do whatever they want to customers.....like not bake cakes for certain people.
Spotify does not investigate nor make any decisions pertaining to this, not sure why you are so upset. Obviously you think apple is going to be caught doing something wrong or it would not matter.
Look at it this way. They are subcontractors. If I am a subcontractor doing work on a house for the contractor we are not in business together even if I make money and the contractor makes a percentage. Yes, it's the same thing because apple provides the storefront as does the contractor, they handle the payments, etc.
Another thing you are missing. You get a subscription through apple in an app and you pay 30% every month, that's not like selling a house for a straight 30%. In no way whatsoever.
OK, my last analogy. Suppose I sell a dish service, call it mexnet. I sell my equipment on ebay and they get a cut. I know it's not 30% but for the sake of argument they make 30% on each sale. That's what apple is, a storefront for app dev's. Apple gets a cut as they should.
Now lets say my service costs 15.00 month and I am required to pay 30% of this each and every month to ebay even though my service has nothing to do with them. Oh, yes, for some reason ebay is the ONLY place my systems can be sold. That's why they get away with it.
It's the same with apple. Apple should get a cut of the sales, but getting a cut for services after the sale could be a problem. It's a valid complaint whether or not it goes against them.
Picture buying a car with pay radio built in (getting old, I forget the name), a nissan for example, does nissan get a cut of the monthly payments? Why should they? After the car/iphone is sold and the equipment/app acquired the service is between the customer and the provider.
It's not that easy. Since the app store is the only way with ios it would violate antitrust.
Now lets say my service costs 15.00 month and I am required to pay 30% of this each and every month to ebay even though my service has nothing to do with them. Oh, yes, for some reason ebay is the ONLY place my systems can be sold. That's why they get away with it.
It's the same with apple. Apple should get a cut of the sales, but getting a cut for services after the sale could be a problem. It's a valid complaint whether or not it goes against them.
Picture buying a car with pay radio built in (getting old, I forget the name), a nissan for example, does nissan get a cut of the monthly payments? Why should they? After the car/iphone is sold and the equipment/app acquired the service is between the customer and the provider.
It's not that easy. Since the app store is the only way with ios it would violate antitrust.
Last edited:
Don't like it remove your app from the app store, simple you can't ride on somebody else's back for a free ride.
Don't like it, leave 'merica (waves the stars and bars).
Free ride? They pay 30% a month for services apple never touches.
If apple broke antitrust or anything else and they don't like it they should just close the app store. You can't just break rules, if they did, when you have a business. If they didn't then nothing will happen.
Last edited:
Good point. But the law is still messed up. If you have an edge because of existing products, why can't you use it?
Again, I refer to the case of Google advertising Chrome on it's homepage. Or Apple spending a million dollars to advertise the Watch on TV.
It's really simple. Apple has an advantage because it doesn't have to pay 30% of the £9.99 a month to anyone, and Spotify does. But it's earned that: It built the iPhone, the App Store and made them as valuable as they are today. If Spotify wants it's app to be access only, and you need to sign up via the web, it can.
It's 9 years old, the 30/70 split can't be news to the company. If it's claiming it hasn't made a profit yet because of the 30/70 split, it's not Apple's fault - they should have priced themselves differently at the beginning.
Cause Apple has more money
Actually apple has a monopoly on the ios app store just as google has a monopoly on the android app store. From where else can you download apps to a non jailbroken iphone. From what I understand though google allows a link from the apps to subscribe on the their website and not have to pay a cut monthly to google. Apple does not, the only way though the app is through apple and they get the cut every month. That would be the difference so it's not exactly the same thing.