What Tim Cook needs more than anything is a tax holiday for repatriation of funds held overseas. Which party would more likely offer that?
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.
Senator Elizabeth Warren Accuses Apple of Trying to 'Snuff Out Competition,' Spotify Agrees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The filth this woman speaks. Apple had the same pricing structure before and after they introduced Apple Music. You cannot blame Apple, Google or Amazon because the competition is dying. They competition is dying because people don't choose them. I don't want Spotify I want Apple Music.
Maybe you're unclear of what the phrase "move the goalpost means". It has nothing to do with me saying the $100 fee being the cost of entry. The $100 fee was simply my rebuttal to your claim of free. Moving the goal post is you first stating "free" and when I pointed out it wasn't free your narrative moved to "server cost for Facebook not covered by the dev fee".
You're being completely disingenuous with the rest of your quote as well. You know for a fact I'm talking about IAP subscriptions through the App Store because every point I made related to it. Heck, the entire Spotify portion of this thread is related to it. Point 1 is absolutely true for IAP subscriptions. You even said so in your counterpoint. Point 2 wouldn't be a disaster for anyone. People sign up on Spotify all the time and Spotify processes their subscriptions. Afaik none of them experienced the doom and gloom scenario you presented. Just because you create a scenario it doesn't make it valid... or factual. Touch ID could also be used in that scenario as well for processing through Spotify. Point 3... seriously, come on man. The Kindle app is your example? I thought we were discussing subscription services. Well I know I am. Even using your example of Amazon, it still highlights my point somewhat. Nowhere does it say you can go to website X. It doesn't say it because, again afaik, Apple doesn't allow it.
How about we agree that you win the argument and I don't have to sleep on the couch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the info! Yeah I knew it was something like that.
It's kind of a sneaky way to get around Apple's fees. I'm surprised Apple allows them to do it.
This is a total bottom of the 9th swing for the fence move to support Hillary. While stats companies say the election is a "dead heat" or "Clinton slight advantage" the really objective election survey outfits outside of the USA paint a totally different story. What they going to do next, do a sit-in to occupy the lobby of the Attorney General office to file an Anti-Trust case against the "Big Thee A's" (Apple, Amazon, Alphabet/Google) for political gain?
I pretty much did when I went solar. The energy monopolies are feeling it, fearing it. I'm loving it.
Four years to recoup investment; 16 years free electricity thereafter.
PS: I'm not a Warren hater, but as been clearly stated by many others, she misses the point in Spotify v Apple.
What does it matter? It's the same difference.
To go back to my real world example of Frito-Lay paying a grocery store for shelf space, it would be like arguing that the grocery store can only charge a one-time fee otherwise they're cutting into the monthly profits of Frito-Lay. That's not how it works. Frito-Lay pays the grocery a recurring fee. Apple does that in the form of a cut of the subscription fee sold through their store. The rationale may be different, but the end result is the same. If you want to do business through Apple's store, you pay a recurring fee.
I still don't get what the gripe is. Spotify can create their own mobile operating system, their own hardware and their own ecosystem and sell through that if they object in exactly the same way Frito-Lay can start building their own stores to sell their product.
Apple is doing nothing that retail stores haven't been doing for ages. They're just a bigger target and the digital angle makes it looks so much more insidious but it's not.
A better analogy would be that I buy an AT&T smartphone from Walmart. The thing is, Walmart forces every telco that sells a phone in their store to bill their customers through them instead of the telcos directly, taking 30% off the monthly charge so long as that account and number remain active.
I can understand why Walmart would get 30% for the sale of the smartphone, but why should they continue to profit thereafter? Walmart isn't contributing anything to AT&T's cell network. They're just selling the phones. The only reason they're involved at all after that initial sale is because they're forcing the telcos to use their billing service.
I can't walk into Walmart, and leave a bunch of my products at their warehouse and expect them to stock it, stick it on the shelves, promote it with advertising in store, process the sales at the checkout, and all the staff associated with managing this all completely free so why should Apple on the App Store?
That said however, the 30% cut for subscriptions is too high and I applaud Apple for reducing it after 1 year, but really it should just be less from the start.
That said however, the 30% cut for subscriptions is too high and I applaud Apple for reducing it after 1 year, but really it should just be less from the start.
That's because you don't hang out in PRSI we seem to be pretty well split..
This is just: A politician said something I don't like about a company I do like so that politician is anti-American commie..It's just drama queen stuff
Updates, development, and notifications?Yes... there's no doubt that Apple is providing a tremendous service with the App Store and they should be compensated. The hosting... the credit card processing... it's expensive. And that's why Apple gets 30% when someone buys an app.
Free apps make them ZERO dollars. I'm sure Apple hates those. But paid apps make Apple tons of money.
The issue is with 3rd-party subscription services. I wouldn't have a problem if Apple could get some money from Spotify when someone downloads the Spotify app. Maybe they could sell the app for a couple dollars to cover Apple's bandwidth and server costs.
But I don't see why Apple needs to keep getting money from Spotify every month afterwards. Apple's involvement ended the moment someone downloaded the app! It then becomes Spotify's responsibility.
When someone listens to music on Spotify... it's coming from Spotify's servers... not Apple's servers. There's nothing Apple is doing after the app is downloaded and a person is listening to Spotify.
So Apple is basically getting $3 every month to swipe a credit card just because a person happened to sign up with Spotify on their iPhone.
Seems a little excessive, no? That has got to be the most expensive credit card fee ever!
The only silver lining is that people can still sign up at spotify.com... though I'm surprised Apple hasn't put a stop to that yet.
I understand Apple's 30% Rule... I just don't think it makes much sense for 3rd-party monthly subscriptions where Apple isn't involved after the initial download.
It's also common for subscription based services to give a percentage of the monthly fee to the affiliate. So I don't see the prob here.
It should be VERY MUCH less.
The whole idea of Apple's 30% cut on purchases is that they are handling the storage of the app... the bandwidth when someone downloads the app... and the credit card fees when someone purchases the app.
I can buy a $10 app once and Apple gets $3 and the developer gets $7. Apparently that covers all of Apple's costs and Apple doesn't ask me for any more money.
But why does Apple need to get $3 every month from an app with a $10/mo subscription?
That seems like Apple is double-dipping, triple-dipping, etc.
I understand that Apple is processing a credit card every month... but isn't that something like 5%?
Maybe that's why they are moving to a 15% cut after a year... but that still seems high.
Apple has a very small market share compared to android.
If Spotify doesn't like Apple's policies they should remove Spotify from the App store and go all android, Blackberry and Windows Phone. There is competition. There is no monopoly.
If Spotify doesn't like Apple's policies they should remove Spotify from the App store and go all android, Blackberry and Windows Phone. There is competition. There is no monopoly.
Apple provides updates, development, and notifications for apps already.
I don't see why Apple needs a monthly annuity from subscriptions.
Sure they'll run my credit card every month... but 30% is high for that!
Yeah I guess. Still seems high though. Thanks!
She has a grand mother appearance and a lot of woman love her.
Woman somehow relate to her empty rants and do nothing performance in the senate. That gives her an unmatched popularity. I see it on my Facebook wall, I love her she's taking on the big guys to save us little folk.
She is loved by many in Massachusetts, why I don't know. Oh, because she's the first woman senator.
Keep in mind Mr Cook just made a donation to Paul Ryan. That probably ruffled her head dress feathers.
Yes, but it still costs them, so the money has to come from somewhere.
High maybe, but Spotify agreed to it. So I don't understand why they'll claim that it's too high now.
I don't know what's all the fuss is about. I subscribe to Netflix, Spotify etc always directly and never go through Apple.
Why would anyone go through Apple and pay more is beyond me. If it's for the sake of convenience, then fine but don't complain. If it's due to ignorance, then get better informed.
Why would anyone go through Apple and pay more is beyond me. If it's for the sake of convenience, then fine but don't complain. If it's due to ignorance, then get better informed.