By that logic Apple should pay Microsoft 30% of all the money they make through the iTunes store, because they created Windows and allowed iTunes to run on 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
Yes there is. You cannot sell on the app store without paying the fee. The fee is waived only for testing on personal devices.
No, that's not the same logic at all. If Microsoft created the PC, and the operating system, and had a store on it where they sold apps, then sure, them charging Apple 30% to be in that store would be the same logic.
It turns out Microsoft does just that to its developers with the Windows Phone.
It also turns out Apple will be playing by the same rules as other developers when it launches Apple Music this fall on Android.
The above post from the alleged home of free enterprise - WOW! I guess in your eyes Apple the company can walk on water.
He is right, Spotify is being a crybaby about this. What other company expects a store to sell their product without taking a piece of the pie? Some are saying that Apple should allow apps to circumvent the app store and direct users to their own websites to sign up for service. Would you expect Best Buy to allow Samsung to hang a TV that said "Buy this on Samsung.com" in their stores without any compensation?
Lets be real folks, Apple is a company.
Wrong. Many apps have instructions to go to a website and subscribe/purchase
Do they now? Because I was under the impression that Google sells Android apps and Microsoft sells Windows apps. But if that's not the case, I will gladly bow to your superior wisdom. Just to be clear here, you are referring to these companies having competitive store fronts for the iOS platform? Simply putting up a GDrive app on Apple's App Store doesn't count.
All the people defending Apple baffle me. Apple does not have your best interests at heart. They care about one thing and one thing only: profits.
That's said, I'm torn on this. I don't see why apps can't have links to their websites directing them to sign up. I find it annoying that I can't buy music downloads in Amazon's mobile app, yet I can on amazon.com in mobile Safari. It's clunky. Just allow developers more freedom with their apps.
Then again, Apple does deserve some sort of cut to reimburse them for their app and music store infrastructure.
But seriously, people, stop defending every single marketing and financial decision Apple makes. 16 gb of storage IS NOT ENOUGH. 1 gb RAM IS NOT ENOUGH. And yes, some of the policies Apple has in place, MAY just be considered anticompetitive.
Edit: 5 gb of cloud storage is pathetic. I have an iPhone 6 and iPad mini 3, and I can't back them both up to iCloud because their backups alone are more than 5 gb. How am I rewarded for my brand loyalty and buyin multiple Apple devices? I'll have to pay for more iCloud storage when someone who only buys one Apple device won't need to. Yet. Screw that. I started backing up both devices to my MacBook Pro again and haven't looked back.
That's said, I'm torn on this. I don't see why apps can't have links to their websites directing them to sign up. I find it annoying that I can't buy music downloads in Amazon's mobile app, yet I can on amazon.com in mobile Safari. It's clunky. Just allow developers more freedom with their apps.
Then again, Apple does deserve some sort of cut to reimburse them for their app and music store infrastructure.
But seriously, people, stop defending every single marketing and financial decision Apple makes. 16 gb of storage IS NOT ENOUGH. 1 gb RAM IS NOT ENOUGH. And yes, some of the policies Apple has in place, MAY just be considered anticompetitive.
Edit: 5 gb of cloud storage is pathetic. I have an iPhone 6 and iPad mini 3, and I can't back them both up to iCloud because their backups alone are more than 5 gb. How am I rewarded for my brand loyalty and buyin multiple Apple devices? I'll have to pay for more iCloud storage when someone who only buys one Apple device won't need to. Yet. Screw that. I started backing up both devices to my MacBook Pro again and haven't looked back.
Last edited:
It sort of depends on whether this is really a "store," doesn't it? If you buy an iPod at Target, it's the same price as at the Apple store, and Target is getting a small margin on it, so Apple is getting less. In that sense, Apple just has a really premium retail space that they've managed to dictate terms very favorable to themselves in.
So is this Apple charging Spotify 30%, or is it just the markup on the product, and Spotify is willing to sell their product for $6.99 to Apple at wholesale, but $9.99 to you?
So is this Apple charging Spotify 30%, or is it just the markup on the product, and Spotify is willing to sell their product for $6.99 to Apple at wholesale, but $9.99 to you?
Last edited:
That may be, but Apple does prohibit it. It should come as no surprise that Apple's enforcement of various rules can vary. But that's the rule.
Whilst I agree with your post I think it is wasted on this forum. You are not speaking to the converted and many cannot see the real picture here. They possibly will in time but in the main this is not a mature audience.
Considering all other comparable stores have the same cost structure, I wouldn't even use the term "really premium". 30% is pretty reasonable. Most goods in most stores are marked up more than that.
But there wasn't Apple Music when they agreed to the TOS which quite clearly changes everything for the likes of Spotify et al - when your as big as Apple and you don't have to pay anyone 30% you can obviously have an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing. 30% is a massive markup when you're trying to compete. I'm no lawyer (unlike it seems everyone else on here) but I hope something comes of this. I'm as big a fan of Apple as the next guy that frequents this site, but i think fair & honest competition is good, and charging what they do and enforcing the other rules (i.e. no allowing in app links to external websites) appears wrong to me.
I agree. I've posted several replies criticizing some of Apple's decisions and am almost always attacked by the Apple apologists. Sigh.
Why Apple of course!
Investigation seems obvious when Apple introduces its own subscription service and puts all the competitors at a 30% disadvantage. Regulators would be all over Microsoft for the same behavior, and Apple IS the new Microsoft.
The biggest problem I have with the App Store is it nothing but a freebie site.
It would be helpful if as a developer if I could at least direct users in my apps to my websites to capture income.
1 GB of RAM is not enough... FOR YOU. 16 GB of storage is not enough.. FOR YOU. Guess what, that's why they have options to upgrade.
Apple doesn't have to pay anyone 30%? They pay all of the bandwidth used from the App Store, so yes they do. The 30% for Spotify is the same 30% anyone else pays. It's completely fair. Spotify just knows they're screwed so all of the sudden they want to whine and cry.
This issue feels like Microsoft Internet Explorer monopoly issue. And here is why:
1. Apple Music comes preinstalled with the OS like Internet Explorer.
2. iPhone is made by Apple and distributed by Apple and has no incentive to preinstall other music streaming apps. (Microsoft was forcing vendors to install IE)
3. Why would somebody download any other streaming service and pay higher fee for subscription when Apple Music is already there.
Apple needs to be very careful. It's one thing to provide an infrastructure or medium to sell/distribute apps, it's another thing to jump into the competition with a set of apps that is available in the same app store and charging less.
1. Apple Music comes preinstalled with the OS like Internet Explorer.
2. iPhone is made by Apple and distributed by Apple and has no incentive to preinstall other music streaming apps. (Microsoft was forcing vendors to install IE)
3. Why would somebody download any other streaming service and pay higher fee for subscription when Apple Music is already there.
Apple needs to be very careful. It's one thing to provide an infrastructure or medium to sell/distribute apps, it's another thing to jump into the competition with a set of apps that is available in the same app store and charging less.
Where is the option to upgrade to 2gb ram?
Well, one difference is that Apple has nowhere near the market share that Microsoft has on the PC market (global market share for iOS is about 18% right now).
What a joke. Is it so difficult to go to Spotify.com and sign up for their service? People don't seem to have a problem doing it with Amazon and Barnes & Noble for books. Plus Spotify didn't care that you were paying 30% more prior to Apple Music launching. I never got to email from them encouraging me to re-sign up via their website. So they were perfectly fine passing on the 30% to you prior to Apple Music. And if they're struggling to make money when they're charging people $12.99 how in the world are they going to make money at $9.99? There's no way they'll get enough volume to be profitable.
That has nothing to do with Apple taking a 30% cut. It's because people don't want to pay for software. Just Like all the debates out there now over advertising. People whine and complain about ads on websites but nobody wants to pay for content. It's hard to make money with consumers want things for free.
No one is forced to buy Apple hardware. If you want to get apps from somewhere else buy somebody else's hardware.