Senator Elizabeth Warren Accuses Apple of Trying to 'Snuff Out Competition,' Spotify Agrees

[PlainviewX]

I believe that if you sign up for Spotify outside the App Store, it is still 9.99 per month and you still get access on your phone. So the smart thing to do is to sign up outside the App Store.

Apple prohibits stating that in the app and that's the crux of the issue.

 

[Gasu E.]

Lol. Says the Senator who took $40k from Google.

Not sure what you are implying. Google was one of the three companies she called out. Are you saying it is hypocritical for her to criticize Google if she took a campaign contribution from them?

 

[ChrisCW11]

Spotify is welcome to build out the same infrastructure that Apple has, and to turn the tables. No one will wait, but they can try. That would be preferable to them whining about it.

Your comment does not make sense, as usual for an Apple fanboy. Think about what you want to say before you type. Or even RTFA.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

Apple prohibits stating that in the app and that's the crux of the issue.

Guess you missed my post earlier showing the text from the Kindle App which very clearly states you need to get an Amazon account before you can sign in and use it. There's no direct link, but it's very obvious what you need to do to get an account.

Spotify's problem is they initially encouraged users to sign up through the App and now don't like it. They should have NEVER allowed in-App subscriptions from the get-go and forced everyone to go to their website. Now many of their users are happier to use the simplicity of the in-App purchase. They wanted the quick sign-ups of the low-friction process in the App AND reap the benefits of having people sign up at their site. They can't have it both ways.
[doublepost=1467298786][/doublepost]

Your comment does not make sense, as usual for an Apple fanboy. Think about what you want to say before you type. Or even RTFA.

Calling someone an Apple fanboy is your argument?

It makes perfect sense. Apple created the ecosystem and the store. If you want to do business in that store you have to abide by Apples rules. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard for people to comprehend.

 

[dan110]

Why am I not surprised your list is composed of women?

Like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Edison, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, you know all the people that took a huge risk, devoted their lives to creating tangible value, and changed the world wealthy? Ok.

 

[jmgregory1]

Don't sign up through iOS, case closed.

But ultimately Apple has to end the extortion of having companies pay them a cut when someone wants to subscribe to a service through an iOS app. Sure, I can see buying DLC through an iOS app they need their cut because people are leveraging the iOS platform, but things like signing up for Netflix or Spotify, or even buying a book through the Kindle App (which Amazon stopped doing for this reason) should not be forced to pay a premium to Apple. These signups or content purchase do not require iOS or Apple R&D to accomplish, therefore Apple is extorting the competition in this way to enhance their own services.

Apple has gotten too much of a free reign to do some schemey and anti-competitive practices, and as the shine starts to wear off the Apple brand, I think there will be a lot more people questioning Apple's questionable business practices.

But in the long run, don't sign into a service through an iOS app, go online the old fashioned way and sign up first, then use the iOS app with an existing account.

Questionable business practices? Apple demanding a cut of products and services sold through their devices is really no different than retailers getting a cut of products sold in their stores. It's certainly not anti-competitive what Apple is doing. And just like products / services sold at retail, the manufacturer needs to calculate that cost into the MSRP of the product. Of course any brand that complains about having to give up a cut to Apple, should go out and develop their own devices and billion installed device base, so they can control their own destiny and profitability. To suggest Apple shouldn't get anything is ridiculous at best.

 

[dr34mc4st3r]

Spotify forgot the value of the iPhone user installed base (built up by Apple), which provides a lucrative source of new customers for them. They should be grateful rather than being a bunch of whiners

 

[Gasu E.]

I find it amazing that so many people think it is somehow inappropriate for a United States Senator to make a speech criticizing certain business practices. And that the majority of those people think the best response is an ad hominem counterattack.
[doublepost=1467300110][/doublepost]

Questionable business practices? Apple demanding a cut of products and services sold through their devices is really no different than retailers getting a cut of products sold in their stores. It's certainly not anti-competitive what Apple is doing. And just like products / services sold at retail, the manufacturer needs to calculate that cost into the MSRP of the product. Of course any brand that complains about having to give up a cut to Apple, should go out and develop their own devices and billion installed device base, so they can control their own destiny and profitability. To suggest Apple shouldn't get anything is ridiculous at best.

Actually, it is quite a bit different from retailers getting a cut of products sold in their stores. The analogy would be apt if these retailers had control over how you furnished your house, and you could only use furniture in your home that you obtained from their stores. Of course, quite a number of people would then "housebreak" their homes; but if your house then burned down, your insurance wouldn't cover you.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Uh, I believe the correct term is Indian.

Actually it would be American Indian since to me Indian refers to someone from India, but whether you refer to the Native people as Indians, American Indians, or Native Americans... One thing is certain... Elizabeth Warren is not one.

 

[patseguin]

Good for them. I am a business owner and I'd love to snuff out the competition too.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Yes, she's trying very hard to annoy the wealthy and powerful, and the fanboys who worship them. Looks as though she hit her mark.

Once she threw in with Hillary Clinton I knew all of her "I'm running against the wealthy and powerful" talk is just for show. I'm sure behind closed doors she loves everything Hillary has done to advance the wealthy and powerful. They probably watch videos of Hillary's Wall Street speeches and giggle.

 

[redhawk87]

Apple and Google do not have a monopoly in the market. Yes they are the most popular platforms. But that has more to do with them spending billions developing software and hardware, than actively killing competition.

Now if Apple and Google were actively preventing other companies from creating software/hardware to compete. Then yes her argument would hold water.

Nothing is stopping Spotify from developing hardware/software to compete with Apple and Google. Why should companies who cultivated an ecosystem from scratch be forced to give it away for nothing?

I never mentioned Google in my comment and I never said Apple had a monopoly. I said they potentially could be breaching current laws. The anti-monopoly laws I am referring to protect against more than just full blown monopolies. So, you cannot make the assumption that a company breaching an anti-monopoly law is a monopoly as you did. Besides, Apple and Google cannot have a monopoly in the same market... what your referring to would be an oligopoly.

But to your argument.. I hope we can agree on two points:

1. Apple is using their hard earned money and resources to house the Spotify app on their own servers
2. Spotify is at a disadvantage on the App Store because they cannot charge the same price as Apple

These two points are where I believe you get controversy and why I am on the fence as I stated. With point 1, it would seem (at the surface) like a no brainer to let Apple pass this cost onto the app developers. But, with point 2, anytime you have a company that creates an ecosystem where competitors are at a disadvantage in favor of their own solution flirts with anti-monopoly laws. I am not saying every instance constitutes a breach in the laws, but it just garners a closer look.

I personally think that Apple should be allowed to charge app developers as per point 1, but I do not think they should be allowed to prevent companies from advertising cheaper prices elsewhere. I think that practice does breach anti-monopoly laws.

 

[Thunderhawks]

You're incredibly confused here.

They don't want to use Apple's infrastructure. Look at how Spotify Desktop works - you download it from their website, whether you're on OS X or Windows. They don't distribute Spotify Desktop through any app stores. Spotify Desktop is self-updating. It automatically checks their servers for updates and updates itself as necessary - the updates don't rely on anyone else's infrastructure. Payments are processed by them, not by Apple or anyone else if you subscribe through Spotify Desktop.

They use Apple's infrastructure not because they want to, but because Apple forces them to. They can't allow you to download the app through their own website, because Apple forces all apps to be installed via the App Store. They can't facilitate an autoupdate, because again, Apple forces all apps to be updated through the App Store. They can't process payments themselves, because Apple forces all IAPs to go through Apple's servers.

They have to pay to use Apple's services because Apple forces them to use Apple's services - they have zero interest in actually using their services, or else Spotify would choose to distribute the Desktop version of Spotify via the Mac App Store.

Apple isn't driving the price for the consumer down. They're driving the price of Spotify up by sticking their own fingers in the pie. Processing payments yourself costs around 2%. Hosting the app for download is completely negligible (especially when compared to streaming the music files, which puts strain on Spotify's servers, not Apple's.) So Apple is charging Spotify $3.90/month/customer for services that cost Apple around $0.26/month/customer. Which means for every Spotify customer who subscribes on iOS, Apple makes $3.64 in net profit, while Spotify's revenue (not net profit) is around $1.30/customer/month after paying all the labels and Apple. Spotify is literally making nothing because Apple is charging them outrageous fees for trivial services that Spotify would much rather do themselves.

Don't know about confused, but as you said Spotify does not want to use Apple's infrastructure.

That is their problem, so in order to reach Apple customers they have to make a choice, stay all windows and Android etc. or use the Apple structure to reach more customers.
Don't know whether all Windows and Android would generate them a profit.

Once they decided to use Apple, they have had to agree to Apple's terms, as frustrating as it is. It's Apples store, software base etc.etc., so again they dictate the terms.

Apple does not make 3.64 net profit, they do have costs and none of us know exactly how much.

Now, to whine that literally Spotify is making nothing, brings me back to : Why be in iOS or Apple structure?

It's as always a matter of money and somebody else trying to decide how much is fair or how much they should pay.

PS: I don't care about Apple music, as there are too many other options to listen to music.

PS#2: I sometimes download apps from websites unrelated to Apple, i.e. not going through the app store and they function just fine.
Just gives an" unidentified developer" warning upon installation. Would that not be an option? No idea if Apple is then getting a cut ?

 

[2010mini]

I never mentioned Google in my comment and I never said Apple had a monopoly. I said they potentially could be breaching current laws. The anti-monopoly laws I am referring to protect against more than just full blown monopolies. So, you cannot make the assumption that a company breaching an anti-monopoly law is a monopoly as you did. Besides, Apple and Google cannot have a monopoly in the same market... what your referring to would be an oligopoly.

But to your argument.. I hope we can agree on two points:

1. Apple is using their hard earned money and resources to house the Spotify app on their own servers
2. Spotify is at a disadvantage on the App Store because they cannot charge the same price as Apple

These two points are where I believe you get controversy and why I am on the fence as I stated. With point 1, it would seem (at the surface) like a no brainer to let Apple pass this cost onto the app developers. But, with point 2, anytime you have a company that creates an ecosystem where competitors are at a disadvantage in favor of their own solution flirts with anti-monopoly laws. I am not saying every instance constitutes a breach in the laws, but it just garners a closer look.

I personally think that Apple should be allowed to charge app developers as per point 1, but I do not think they should be allowed to prevent companies from advertising cheaper prices elsewhere. I think that practice does breach anti-monopoly laws.

Apple consequently cannot prevent app developers from not offering in-app purchases. Spotify can very well follow Amazon and only offer out of app purchases. Or they can follow Netflix and negotiate better terms. It really is not apple's fault that Spotify operates at a loss and therefore cannot offer their service at the same price as Apple Music even with the 'apple tax'

Spotify has options.

 

[chriscrowlee]

I REALLY hope Americans wake up and realize that electing Hillary and Elizabeth Warren president and vice president would be a disaster for the country.

 

[2010mini]

I REALLY hope Americans wake up and realize that electing Hillary and Elizabeth Warren president and vice president would be a disaster for the country.

So the other choice would be better? This election is lose lose.

 

[ptb42]

No, it's disgusting to call her that name for any reason. It is elementary school bully. It's also been proven that she did not benefit from any affirmative action policies at Harvard, no disclosed it on any documentation or to anyone who would provide her with such benefit. There's murkiness about other factors, but not in those regards.

Sorry, no such thing has been "proven". Harvard promoted Warren as an example of the "diversity" in their law school. And even Warren admits that she listed herself as a "minority" in an Association of American Law Schools directory before she was hired at Harvard.

If you believe it had nothing to do with her tenured position, then you know nothing at all about the tenure process. Yes, it's supposed to be based on merit, but it hasn't been that way for a very long time, especially in a northeastern Ivy League university.

You can call her a liar, you can call her unaccountable, but to call her nicknames while saying she's earned it is nothing more than the elementary vomit that is tearing at the fabric of our political system and polluting and polarizing people.

Warren brought this on herself, and she still hasn't disavowed her claim.

If you have a complaint, take it to her. She could put an end to it at any time.

 

[CarlJ]

I am shocked - shocked - to learn that Spotify is in agreement about something that would give them a competitive advantage relative to their current situation.

 

[Rogifan]

So apparently Spotify has a new version of their app that Apple is refusing to approve.

http://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/120...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

In Spotify’s case, the company has used Apple’s billing system for years, but passed on Apple’s fee to customers by charging $13 a month instead of the $10 a month the service sells for outside Apple’s store. Last year, after Apple launched its own music service, Spotify became more vocal about encouraging users to pay for the service outside of iTunes.

Last fall, Spotify started a new end-run via a promotional campaign offering new subscribers the chance to get three months of the service for $0.99 — if they signed up via Spotify’s own site. This month, Spotify revived the campaign, but Gutierrez says Apple threatened to remove the app from its store unless Spotify stopped telling iPhone users about the promotion.

Spotify stopped advertising the promotion. But it also turned off its App Store billing option, which has led to the current dispute

I'm glad Spotify is playing hardball. Subscription apps should be able to redirect users to an alternate method of payment. Why should Apple get 30 or even 15 percent of someone's monthly payment to Spotify? They're not hosting any content. And it certainly doesn't cost Apple $3 to process a credit card transaction.

 

[Tmelon]

Wasn't Spotify claiming that they've had a record number of users signing up since Apple Music launched a year ago?

 

[convergent]

You know, I see free stuff on Steam all the time. The files hosted there can easily be 30x the size of even the largest app on the App Store. They take a 25%-30% cut off sales, but even they don't take a perpetual cut off sub fees.

As far as I'm aware, Apple is the only company that does the latter, and all it's done is create all kinds of pointless workarounds and loopholes for end users to jump through.

Because Steam gives away stuff for free, Apple should? Google gives away Google Docs, so Microsoft should give away Microsoft Office too? Its Apple's store, their rules, and they aren't forcing anyone to use it. I would venture to guess that most of Spotify's subscribers are smart enough to figure out they can subscribe at spotify.com for less, and if they aren't that smart then well... they get what they pay for!

 

[Renzatic]

Because Steam gives away stuff for free, Apple should? Google gives away Google Docs, so Microsoft should give away Microsoft Office too? Its Apple's store, their rules, and they aren't forcing anyone to use it. I would venture to guess that most of Spotify's subscribers are smart enough to figure out they can subscribe at spotify.com for less, and if they aren't that smart then well... they get what they pay for!

False equivalency. What you're saying is that Apple should be allowed to profit off a service they're not providing.

Apple gives you the app. Spotify provides the service. If Apple wants to make money off the app, they're free to do so. They're hosting it, they're advertising it, they're acting a store front for it. But what is Apple doing to make Spotify's service better?

As I said, it's like Walmart taking a cut of AT&T's monthly fees because someone bought a smartphone from their store. Just because a store acted as a gateway to a service doesn't entitle them to a 30% cut of another company's monthly income, not unless they're supporting it in some way.

 

[convergent]

So apparently Spotify has a new version of their app that Apple is refusing to approve.

http://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/120...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter



I'm glad Spotify is playing hardball. Subscription apps should be able to redirect users to an alternate method of payment. Why should Apple get 30 or even 15 percent of someone's monthly payment to Spotify? They're not hosting any content. And it certainly doesn't cost Apple $3 to process a credit card transaction.

By that logic, when you walk into the Apple Store to purchase an iMac, they should have little portals that will whisk you off to Best Buy to actually purchase the item once you decide to buy. You are in their store... you have to buy there go somewhere else. How often does someone subscribe to a music streaming service? Seriously... they can't take the 30 seconds to type "spotify.com" into their browser and thus save some money.

 

[Renzatic]

Seriously... they can't take the 30 seconds to type "spotify.com" into their browser and thus save some money.

Yeah, they can, which just goes to show you how useless Apple's rule is.

 

[satcomer]

Because Steam gives away stuff for free, Apple should? Google gives away Google Docs, so Microsoft should give away Microsoft Office too? Its Apple's store, their rules, and they aren't forcing anyone to use it. I would venture to guess that most of Spotify's subscribers are smart enough to figure out they can subscribe at spotify.com for less, and if they aren't that smart then well... they get what they pay for!

You should really look at LibreOffice! This is the orig al staff the work on OpenOffice before Oracle bought it so they left to start LibreOffice!