Sidebar Sidebar
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

trifid said:
Yes it matters, its not advertising, IT IS the product. If you download netflix from the app store, it's useless without "subscribing".
Click to expand...


trifid said:
Wait, you can visit other app stores on iphone? Certainly you can only get spotify from apple's app store right?
Click to expand...

you can only get spotify for iphone through the app store.. but you can get spotify from other places too.. you don't need an iphone or a mac or anything that involves apple products or stores.

trifid said:
It's not hard, but the entire point of the article is that a user may not know how to do it because Apple is censoring vital information on how to use the product. The real question is how hard is for Apple to let Spotify, Netflix, Hulu etc include a link and/or information on subscription options?
Click to expand...

they aren't doing exactly what you're saying they are-- "censoring vital information on how to use the product".. they are doing something different.. they aren't allowing the developer to put an app in their store with links leading to places saying "hey, here's how you avoid paying apple's markup cost with our product"

i get it that what you're saying is apple has an unfair advantage in this scenario.. the question i'm posing is the flipside.
say apple is forced to keep everything the same except they are to allow software companies to direct users to places which will result in zero profit for apple.
how is this fair to apple? (that's the actual question)

i'm reading you as saying something like -- 'apple should be able to build a store.. developers should be able to put their apps in the store.. developers should be able to link to outside stores in order to actually make the monetary transaction with customers'.. this results in zero money made for the transaction by apple..
i personally think it's crazy to believe the ftc is going to rule apple must allow that to happen because it's entirely unfair to apple.. i'd rather see you offer a solution which results in a fair deal for apple as well because if something changes regarding these regulations, it's not going to be something which forces apple to open their store as a platform for companies to advertise costs lower than the one apple is selling at.

i mean think about it some.. if what you're saying should happen does happen then all apps will be free.. if you want to unlock/buy the app then you just click the link in the app to the buy page (or whatever) and you pay the developer for the app.. apple will make no money from their store and the developers will make more money (or sell at lower cost)
 
MH01 said:
I see that as kind of fiddling the inner workings of a internet pipeline, as you have only one pipe, and it needs to be approved. I can actually get the install program for my Mac for spotify and skype from lots of pipelines in the Internet, including the Mac store in my Mac.
Click to expand...

well, one pipe to a specific device.. apple isn't using their powers to block spotify, a company whose entire being depends on the internet, from being on the internet. (in contrast, using rockefeller again.. he actually prevented other potential oil refineries access to pipelines and railways etc.. whereas what apple is doing is more along the lines of 'if you buy this kerosene lamp, it will only work with our kerosene or kerosene sold through us).

for clarity.. i'm definitely not trying to argue that apple is doing what's best for us consumers and that we're being treated fairly.. i'm arguing that what apple is doing is more-likely-than-not-> a legal and fair business practice.. they seem to be very tough businesspeople who push right up against the boundaries of what may or may not be deemed legal without crossing the line.
 
It's a legit complaint to file now that Apple has entered the subscription streaming music service full stream.

ALTHOUGH, the long term answer would be to ditch the App Store and use an HTML5 based "App" that users can "install" from these services. Cause those used to be things, way back early in iOS. And the JavaScript engines have only gotten better, and even given access to 3rd party "web browsers". You can run your own ads, link to your website, not have to pay Apple a cent, and do all kinds of other things.
 
Kabeyun said:
Supercell makes something like $4 million per day.

Sure they're at the top, but their success isn't a unique story even if their degree of success may be.



I'm positive on Apple, but someone with a brain please explain how this term can possibly be Kosher. These kinds of MFN clauses smell awfully anticompetitive.

And before someone jumps down my throat about it (which can happen around here) it's not just my opinion.
Click to expand...
4 million a day? Proof? I don't believe that for a min.
 
flat five said:
i personally think it's crazy to believe the ftc is going to rule apple must allow that to happen because it's entirely unfair to apple..
Click to expand...

No, what the FTC has to decide is whether Apple is exploiting a dominant position in the mobile devices market to strong-arm its way into the streaming media market. If that is the case, considerations of what is "fair or unfair" to Apple are trumped by considerations of ensuring there is a competitive market for consumers.

If iOS had 95% of the mobile market (the way Microsoft had ~95% of the PC operating systems market when it got into anti-trust troubles) then Apple shouldn't (and probably wouldn't, especially outside the USA) be allowed to sell the hardware, control the only store in town and sell the subscription service without some strict rules. As it is, though, they don't have such an overwhelming dominance, so it is over to the genuine anti-trust lawyers to work out what applies.

Certainly, having a "monopoly" on Apple-branded products doesn't count - and the fact that Apple don't forbid Spotify et. al.

it's not going to be something which forces apple to open their store as a platform for companies to advertise costs lower than the one apple is selling at.
Click to expand...

Well, if there were an intervention it could be applied specifically to the areas where Apple has a conflict of interest: if an App is a client for a book store or media streaming service (or another product/service for which Apple is both competitor and store owner) it could be allowed to include a link to an external subscription website. Or, at least, the markup on competing subscription services could be reduced to a fair rate for payment handling.

In reality, though, the FCC thing is probably just a warning shot to dissuade Apple from trying to ban Spotify et. al. from the store for the sin of emailing their customers to encourage them to subscribe via the website.
 
Toltepeceno said:
Seriously, it makes me think of someone in a trailer waving the stars and bars yelling "'murica, don't like one of the laws then leave it".
Click to expand...

it's like the moto "Live Free or Die"

which, is paradoxial in nature. if you have to demand of me a way to live, than I'm not free am I? especially with the fear of death forcing me to "live free"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
trifid said:
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."
Click to expand...

the 30% fee issue is part and parcel.

if you ignore it, you're ignoring WHY apple has a competitive advantage, which is what causes these applications to want to use 3rd party processing or links to their purchase site on the web.

its been explained time and time again.

for these Application,s they must pay 30% of their revenues earned on the app store in perpetuim. that means every month, 30% of Spotifies iPhone useres revenue goes to Apple

Apple doesn't have to pay this 30% royalty on an almost identical product. This means, that Spotify et al incurs 30% more cost just to do business on the iPhone than Apple does.

Spotify can bypass this 30% fee by having users subscribe on their website. But they, by Apple's own rules are not allowed advertising this within the App

So, by ignoring the 30% discussion you are ignoring the very point of the matter.

If Apple didn't charge 30%, than these companies wouldn't care, because they would be able to compete as equals with Apple without the need to redirect their userse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and rjohnstone
lowendlinux said:
Even if they can it should still be a one time transaction Apple is not streaming the content from their servers so there is no recurring costs. I'm sure the rule was put in place to nip in app purchases but the rules need to be flexible enough to cover changes in the model.
Click to expand...

the one thing I will give apple maybe .5% or 1% is for payment processing, which they do if you sign up a subscription service through the App store.

This would put them on par with the payment processing of major credit cards.

30% for payment processing is absolutely silly


Edit: wow, sorry for the multiple posts, the old forum software used to merge these things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lowendlinux
LordVic said:
the 30% fee issue is part and parcel.

if you ignore it, you're ignoring WHY apple has a competitive advantage, which is what causes these applications to want to use 3rd party processing or links to their purchase site on the web.

its been explained time and time again.

for these Application,s they must pay 30% of their revenues earned on the app store in perpetuim. that means every month, 30% of Spotifies iPhone useres revenue goes to Apple

Apple doesn't have to pay this 30% royalty on an almost identical product. This means, that Spotify et al incurs 30% more cost just to do business on the iPhone than Apple does.

Spotify can bypass this 30% fee by having users subscribe on their website. But they, by Apple's own rules are not allowed advertising this within the App

So, by ignoring the 30% discussion you are ignoring the very point of the matter.

If Apple didn't charge 30%, than these companies wouldn't care, because they would be able to compete as equals with Apple without the need to redirect their userse.
Click to expand...

You are right and I'm not saying to ignore it, but my point is that most were people here were focusing on that and suggesting that apple change that 30% to a lower percentage instead of the main issue which is the banning and censorship of information which is the prime issue that FTC is focusing on.
 
Lets put this into perspective for a bit: we live in a world where you can use Netflix, Hule etc on Apple TV with absolute 0 premium, there is no ridiculous 30%, and that's true of almost every other platform including Mac/PC, Roku, Amazon etc.

But when it comes to iOS, we see a 30% penalty that's inherited from a policy invented primarily for one-time software purchases, not for subscriptions. It seems to me this type of policy needs to be updated, at some point especially as subscriptions become more popular.

And it needs to be updated not just for questionable legal reasons, but also for the benefit of the customer which Apple is so focused on improving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mojolicious and Benjamin Frost
flat five said:
sued for what?
my interpretation is now that apple music has launched, ftc is going to reexamine the policy.. it was ok before but things have changed somewhat since apple now has a competing service in play.

seems you think ftc has launched some grand investigation into the app store since inception.. pretty sure ftc has been there all along and i imagine they have an ongoing relationship with apple.

but few if any dollars have been made by apple off apple music thus far as everyone using it is morelikelythannot on trial.. so there's not much of a case for 'apple made all this cash off their app due in part to unfair practice' (or whatever)..
-or-
what are you imagining this big fat lawsuit to be about. exactly?
Click to expand...
Na ah, it doesnt work that way. Google "loss leader".
 
Abazigal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't understand the 'who doesn't like their team to win?'

How is Apple 'your team?' You are a customer. A revenue stream. They want to eek every single penny they can out of you. Charging 30% monthly for Spotify users doesn't help their customers...it helps Apple

You're not part of their team. Their marketing department does a wonderful job of duping their customers into thinking they are buying an experience and thinking they are different. But ultimately, like every other company, their goal is revenue and profits. Nothing is wrong with that. It's their job to look out for their interests...it's our job to look out after ours.

As a consumer I worry about when we give big business a free pass to engage in potentially unfair trade practices....just because we think they make cool products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and cfedu
OtherJesus said:
Remember when Spotify wasn't worried about Apple Music?

Didn't last long.
Click to expand...

Maybe... I still don't get why people would care about Apple Music considering there is nothing new about a $9.99 music streaming service, it's existed for a long time. The real 'revolution' is Spotify's free plan which Apple can't touch yet (though they've tried coercing music labels to force Spotify to give up the free plan). So I don't see Apple music being a threat yet.
 
I am amazed and ashamed for being a Mac user when I read the anti Spotify comment :)

Spotify has been around for some 10 years, nobody on Europe is unware of it and kids and youngsters love it.

Now Apple sees a decline in iTunes sales and launches a similar product then all Apple fanboys jumps on the Apple train:)

US as always has been living in their own bubble since Apple has been trying to stop Spotify for a long time and still people love Apple, we have just got rid of Microsoft monpoly idiots, do you want a now one !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
flat five said:
well, one pipe to a specific device.. apple isn't using their powers to block spotify, a company whose entire being depends on the internet, from being on the internet. (in contrast, using rockefeller again.. he actually prevented other potential oil refineries access to pipelines and railways etc.. whereas what apple is doing is more along the lines of 'if you buy this kerosene lamp, it will only work with our kerosene or kerosene sold through us).

for clarity.. i'm definitely not trying to argue that apple is doing what's best for us consumers and that we're being treated fairly.. i'm arguing that what apple is doing is more-likely-than-not-> a legal and fair business practice.. they seem to be very tough businesspeople who push right up against the boundaries of what may or may not be deemed legal without crossing the line.
Click to expand...

I agree with your thoughts on this. Good rationale.
 
LordVic said:
the 30% fee issue is part and parcel.

if you ignore it, you're ignoring WHY apple has a competitive advantage, which is what causes these applications to want to use 3rd party processing or links to their purchase site on the web.

its been explained time and time again.

for these Application,s they must pay 30% of their revenues earned on the app store in perpetuim. that means every month, 30% of Spotifies iPhone useres revenue goes to Apple

Apple doesn't have to pay this 30% royalty on an almost identical product. This means, that Spotify et al incurs 30% more cost just to do business on the iPhone than Apple does.

Spotify can bypass this 30% fee by having users subscribe on their website. But they, by Apple's own rules are not allowed advertising this within the App

So, by ignoring the 30% discussion you are ignoring the very point of the matter.

If Apple didn't charge 30%, than these companies wouldn't care, because they would be able to compete as equals with Apple without the need to redirect their userse.
Click to expand...

Netflix seems to manage all this just fine.

No doubt the ongoing extinction of spotify is pushing this horse.

Spotify did the worst thing which is tacking on 30% and charging apple customers more. Spotify is run by incompetents and they have a relatively short life span remaining in the scheme of things. Haven't seen a company with such an early advantage be so mismanaged since TiVo.
 
theluggage said:
Well, if there were an intervention it could be applied specifically to the areas where Apple has a conflict of interest: if an App is a client for a book store or media streaming service (or another product/service for which Apple is both competitor and store owner) it could be allowed to include a link to an external subscription website. Or, at least, the markup on competing subscription services could be reduced to a fair rate for payment handling.
Click to expand...

i'd imagine it will be something to do with the latter.. streaming or recurring payment apps (nyt crossword.. okcupid.. etc) should probably either have a reduced rate or maybe a one-time transaction fee.
?

i highly doubt it will happen but another way to do it would be to allow spotify app to install from locations other than the appstore in the same way you can do that on a mac.. that would probably be the way which allows for more equal competition but it does put a whole lot of responsibility on spotify to handle their own advertising.. for instance, spotify would no longer be shown on pages such as:

us.jpg



...which (i would think) is huge exposure for a business.. plus it's free to that business.. apple doesn't charge advertising fees in circumstances like this because they want people to buy these apps.. they're making a lot of money off them.. if apple no longer makes their cut, i'm pretty positive they're going to quit promoting the apps in the way they have in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
Arndroid said:
Netflix seems to manage all this just fine.

No doubt the ongoing extinction of spotify is pushing this horse.

Spotify did the worst thing which is tacking on 30% and charging apple customers more. Spotify is run by incompetents and they have a relatively short life span remaining in the scheme of things. Haven't seen a company with such an early advantage be so mismanaged since TiVo.
Click to expand...

Netflix doesn't have IAP...they push users to their website to subscribe.

Netflix also has enough distribution methods (website, SmartTV's, Roku, game consoles, etc) that they don't need to rely on Apple to be the primary distributor/consumption device for their products.

You're suggesting that Spotify just take a 30% loss on every transaction. That doesn't make any business sense. The problem they have, unlike Netflix, is a smaratphone device is the primary consumption vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back