I think everyone is missing the point. There is an unfair advantage which is that Apple forbids Spotify to link to their website so that people can subscribe on Spotify's site. This should be allowed and I hope the FTC does something about it.
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
I think everyone is missing the point. There is an unfair advantage which is that Apple forbids Spotify to link to their website so that people can subscribe on Spotify's site. This should be allowed and I hope the FTC does something about it.
Apple Music
[ Music Label Agreements ($7) ] [ Apple Tax ($3) ] == $10 ($9.99)
Spotify
[ Music Label Agreements ($7) ] [ Spotify ($3) ] [ Apple Tax ($2) ] == $12 ($11.99)
Thats sounds like.. Spotify wants to put it on App Store to get access of millions users but don't want to pay to Apple?
Yes.. It is unfair.. Just like how Apple kills the flashlight apps. Flashlights App makers should complain also to FTC.
Apple already allows this, it's nothing new, netflix, hulu, kindle and other services are on the app store and don't pay a dime to apple.
Think of it this way: do you pay a monthly fee to apple to use netflix, hulu, kindle service etc on your mac? Seems ridiculous right?
It's Apple's App Store. They can do whatever they want with it. Including not allowing or promoting competitors' apps.
Not necessarily, if that were true the FTC wouldn't be looking into it.
LOL. I freaking LOVE it (and the fact it ticks off the Apple Kool-Aid drinkers so much the better!!!). Too long has Apple been able to pretend they're still the ailing company from the mid-90s that nearly went bankrupt. Too long have they been able to exercise near-monopoly powers in various markets with more money than any other tech company out there including Microsoft (the former Monopoly King). I say screw Apple. They're heading in the wrong direction with overly thin and restrictive hardware designs that need far too many dongles and adapters, GUI designs that are hideous to behold and arcane policies that prevent anyone else from offering better hardware using their OS. It's about time JUSTICE caught up with these greed mongers. Maybe next they'll look into their restrictive licensing on being able to use OSX on non-Apple hardware. Le Roi est mort et il est bon!
90% of this discussion is debating the 30% fee, notice the FTC isn't investigating this, it's investigating the following behavior:
"The antitrust concerns stem from certain App Store restrictions placed on streaming companies, which include a prohibition that the company is on other platforms, a ban on advertising how users can subscribe on a company's website and the ban on links to the company's website."
"The antitrust concerns stem from certain App Store restrictions placed on streaming companies, which include a prohibition that the company is on other platforms, a ban on advertising how users can subscribe on a company's website and the ban on links to the company's website."
the macrumors post is a report on a report ; )
the report it's reporting on goes like:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/11/us-apple-music-antitrust-idUSKCN0PL03O20150711
from that link.. right up there ^ said:
Thanks, and that article reaffirms what the antitrust is focusing on:
"Two of the industry sources say that the antitrust concerns focus on restrictions in the App Store. These include a prohibition on advertising in the app that the company is on other platforms, a ban on marketing in the app that consumers can also buy directly from the company's website, and a ban on linking to a company's website from within the app. These restrictions apply to all apps, not just music streaming apps."
and? what's your point?
from what i gather, you're saying 90% of people here are discussing off-topic / unrelated issues since they're not talking about the few sentences you keep cherry picking?
that's what it seems like you're saying.. if not then what?
Right, because most are defending Apple saying that they should be allowed to charge that 30%, and that's not the issue, the issue, and what the FTC is investigating is Apple's censoring and banning of information, not necessarily the fees.
hmm.. they should be able to charge the 30%.. the people defending apple about that point might not realize that apple charges 30% every month instead of one time fee..
that's the problem.. that's what's hurting spotify.
if someone subscribes to spotify through the app store (ie- probably the way most people have subscribed to spotify).. apple makes the same amount of profit off the service as the service provider does.. month after month instead of apple taking their transaction fee when initial payment occurs then that's it.
if spotify were to lower their fee to match that of appleMusic then spotify would make zero profit and apple would still make their 30% cut.. allthewhile having their own service with better deals in place for themselves on their app store.
this is the heart of the matter as it has to do with the money..
additional concerns are that apple doesn't allow spotify to notify potential customers of cheaper subscription rates available through channels other than appstore. (the points you're quoting).
and really, that's a tough one to say whether or not apple is doing something illegal.. i mean, if spotify expects to be able to put their app on the app store with links to their own site /subscription routes then they should certainly expect to pay advertising fees to apple.. because that's exactly what they'd be doing -- advertising their service on the app store.
if spotify (or anybody really) expects the ftc to rule that apple must allow this free advertising to occur on their platform in the name of fair-trade (or whatever) then they're fairly sorely mistaken..
if apple must now allow that then they're going to rearrange their policies and begin charging spotify to put their app on the appstore.. it is very unlikely that apple will be forced to lose a lot of money over any new regulations that may come of this.. it's also not entirely impossible for spotify to actually lose advantage due to updated regulations then subsequent policy change which may come of this.
I only made it through about 6 pages, but I'm always amazed at how many people grab their torches and pitch forks to defend Apple.
As consumers we should want competition. As consumers we should question if someone uses a monopolistic position to charge an unreasonable fee for their services. If this leads to a reduction of app/subscription fees it would be a GOOD thing.
Yet many of you are vigorously fighting for Apple to extract every penny out of you that they can. Yet, I bet you wouldn't go to the mat for big pharma, big oil or insurance companies to take advantage of a similar type of situation.
I like Apple...but as a consumer I care about my wallet first....not theirs.
As consumers we should want competition. As consumers we should question if someone uses a monopolistic position to charge an unreasonable fee for their services. If this leads to a reduction of app/subscription fees it would be a GOOD thing.
Yet many of you are vigorously fighting for Apple to extract every penny out of you that they can. Yet, I bet you wouldn't go to the mat for big pharma, big oil or insurance companies to take advantage of a similar type of situation.
I like Apple...but as a consumer I care about my wallet first....not theirs.
I think we both agree that Apple's censoring/banning information about competitors isn't 100% clear on legality, but to me there seems to be an abuse here. And that's exactly what the FTC is investigating.
The article mentions this "It is legal to have a monopoly but it is not legal for monopolies to use their clout to hurt competitors, said Jeffrey Jacobovitz of the law firm Arnall Golden Gregory."
You call it "free advertising" I call it product information, to me Apple is banning product information for anti-competitive motives, and this is grounds for legal investigation.
Tell me, I download Spotify on my Mac, and I see information on how I may subscribe for premium music service. Is this "free advertising" ? If so why does Apple allow it on Mac? And does it hurt their business to do this?
Last edited:
The 30% fee makes sense for apps that are sold on the App Store as a one-off purchase and rely on Apple's servers to deliver all their content.
But for apps that offer content as in-app purchases and host content on their own servers, the 30% fee becomes a bit harder to swallow. Apple need to either reduce their percentage cut for IAP, or allow apps to direct users to alternative means of signing up. This is especially the case when Apple have a competing service (like Apple Music), as this behaviour verges very close to anti-competitive.
Well, just look at the state of Android. Paying less for something may not always be a good thing in the long run, just as paying more for something may not always be a bad thing.
You are right in that I wouldn't be rooting for a big oil or insurance company, and that's beyond the point.
I like competition insofar that it gives me more choice, but let's face it - why doesn't like their team to win? And what impressed me about Apple early on was precisely their tendency to do the exact opposite of what people said they ought to do, and turning out to be right. That's just what makes Apple so awesome in my book.
What can I say? I root for Apple. I don't love them like some rabid fanboy because I know Apple will never love me back, but I respect their position of strength and I do want them to have the power to crush the world and dye it in its image. I love that whole attitude surrounding their walled garden about how they claim to know best and insist on always doing things their own way. And anything that makes Apple that much stronger, and its competitors that much weaker by comparison, I support.
yeah but it isn't 100% clear (to me at least) because i haven't researched it / thought about it very much / etc.. too many ifs for anybody here to be 100% clear on this imo.
apple doesn't have a monopoly.. for example, i could say rockefeller had a monopoly since standard controlled over 90% of oil refining/sales in the u.s whose dominance can be accredited to unfair practices... how could you, in a similar sentence, say apple has a monopoly on the streaming industry? (or phone software, or hardware, or any other industry apple is involved in)..
(further re: monopoly.. i mean, so what in a way.. standard oil is forced to break up into a hundred companies or whatever.. two of which are exxon and chevron.. both of those companies are larger and more powerful than apple.. seems if a monopoly occurs and the feds break it up, the company just gets even more rich
)it doesn't really matter what you call it.
why do you think it's fair to apple to be required to hand out product information to its customers about competitors?
you're damn right apple is banning product info for anti-competitive motives in their store in the same way i wouldn't allow my wholesaler to freely place an ad in my store saying "hey, this guy is charging you $59 for this thing but guess what.. he bought it from us for $49.. and just go to this address and we'll sell it to you for $49 too"
you didn't download spotify on your mac from apple's store nor subscribe through their subscription service.
if apple didn't allow you to visit other stores on your mac/iphone/device then your case for monopoly may be stronger.. like fiddled with the inner workings of the internet pipelines in order to cut off access to potential customers altogether then that, i imagine, would be ruled abusive.
Last edited:
After thinking about it. If those services want to offer music to Apple customers at a rate than they should be charged an bonus percentage if customer use that service on an Apple device. SO if you want to use the kindle app with existing content you purchased than Amazon has to pay apple for your access (or you do). AND I think that should be regardless of where the user signed up. If that happens than the other services can drive their prices down and Apple will lose both an customer of their hardware and OS as well as reoccurring revenue. Apple has taken a very passive aggressive approach on this topic. If they are going to surcharge transactions than should do that on EVERY bit of content that is loaded on an iPad, Mac or iPhone (including sites that earn revenue from Apple devices that Apple (so gloriously) created for users to visit). OR they should just let reoccurring subscriptions be as they are. It is if Apple is like "oops I got my hand caught in the cookie jar" of digital revenues.
Yes it matters, its not advertising, IT IS the product. If you download netflix from the app store, it's useless without "subscribing".
Wait, you can visit other app stores on iphone? Certainly you can only get spotify from apple's app store right?
How hard is it to go to Spotify.com and sign up? The easiest way for Spotify to solve this is to remove IAP, just like others have done.
No this was recent. I can't link to it as it redirects to a login page for Politico Pro.