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

[convergent]

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.

What someone is entitled to is up to the parties involved, not someone on a forum.

If someone is in the Apple App Store, then your statement above is false. Apple is acting as the storefront, not Spotify. What does Best Buy or Walmart do to any product it sells to make it better. Nothing, other than they offer convenience, and they get a profit for it. There are going to be people that want the convenience of having their subscriptions centralized into the Apple ecosystem.... less things to worry about and one place to go. I'm not one of them. But if someone is willing to pay more for that service, then its there for them. The irony of this whole thread is that Spotify charges more to go through the App Store, so guessing few people don't subscribe directly with Spotify. Netflix charges the same as far as I know, so they make less on App Store subscribers.

I will also say that having run subscriber based web hosting and dealing with credit card expirations and such, I can tell you there is definitely a cost involved in maintaining the subscriber base. Frankly, for Spotify to be able to hand that off to Apple, they would probably have more sticky subscribers because its not a one off subscription that missed getting updated with new credit card info. Very few people are going to let their Apple credit card info get stale. Spotify, in my opinion, is in the wrong for trying to charge more to subscribers going through Apple.
[doublepost=1467309422][/doublepost]

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

So then why is Spotify complaining other than to get media buzz and additional sales?

 

[Marshall73]

[doublepost=1467310241][/doublepost]

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

Are you advertising Libre office? What's that got to do with his comment?

Oh, and Libre office is mince btw.

 

[satcomer]

Are you advertising Libre office? What's that got to do with his comment?

Oh, and Libre office is mince btw.

No I am suggesting an alternative! Are that paranoid?

 

[Marshall73]

No I am suggesting an alternative! Are that paranoid?

Again, wtf has that anything to do with his comment? He wasn't saying anything about buying office. Do you just read 'Microsoft office' and then immediately suggest Libre office regardless of the context?

 

[satcomer]

Again, wtf has that anything to do with his comment? He wasn't saying anything about buying office.

He was accusing me of being an agent of a free application! To me that is paranoia.

 

[Marshall73]

He was accusing me of being an agent of a free application! To me that is paranoia.

He, is me. You replied to a post which mentioned Microsoft office, not in the context of use or purchase, with a post stating the virtue of Libre office. Read the post again. He isn't advocating buying or using office, your comment is so off topic that I thought, maybe you are a bot which looks for ANY mention of Microsoft office then posts about Libre office.

 

[satcomer]

He, is me. You replied to a post which mentioned Microsoft office, not in the context of use or purchase, with a post stating the virtue of Libre office. Read the post again. He isn't advocating buying or using office, your comment is so off topic that I thought, maybe you are a bot which looks for ANY mention of Microsoft office then posts about Libre office.

Why are you jumping in?

 

[Marshall73]

Why are you jumping in?

Are you mental?

 

[satcomer]

Are you mental?

No are you?

 

[Marshall73]

No are you?

Heading that way, guessing that English is not your first language which explains your inability to follow a threaded conversation, so will leave it there.

 

[CarlJ]

Warren is such an obnoxious see-you-next-tuesday.

If you're going to call someone a name, why not take responsibility for your actions and actually use the word you mean, rather than coyly disguising it so you can get the benefit while trying to dodge the repercussions. Or are you not in favor of personal reaponsibility?

 

[redhawk87]

Get your head out of the sand and pay attention to what is happening in politics - if you are a concerned citizen.

As for the accusation, no person has to pay to hear his / her music.

Clinton-Warren in 2016!

Get your head out of the sand and pay attention to what is happening in politics - if you are a concerned citizen.

As for the accusation, no person has to pay to hear his / her music.

Clinton-Warren in 2016!

You know, I probably should have heard of her, but it does not change the message. Everyone seems to be blasting her because of their own personal agenda and forgetting the real issue that she is bringing up.

I do not see how listening to your own music library has any merit when talking about apple's business model and whether its legal.

 

[apolloa]

It's just you. They offer a platform. They make a commission. That commission is whatever they set.

Unless you think 30% is immoral. If that's the case, what is moral? You could say 1%, and someone would complain that they shouldn't take anything. When you get into the business of moral pricing, you skew the market unfairly.

iPhones are significant, but are not even a majority.
A competing product of Apple's is cheaper... but Spotify has 7x the subscribers, so why is that relevant?
They do not *demand*. There are terms of service. If Spotify doesn't like it, they can leave Apple's platform. But the platform is ultimately fair; they aren't negotiating individual deals. It's 30%, and 15% thereafter. That's the recuperative costs of, you know, paying devs to write iOS.

Why do people have a problem with fair systems? They have choice, there is no monopoly, and there is no binding deal that says they have to be there.

30% of EVERY sale is anti competitive, and you only mentioned iPhones? You seem to have forgotten the same rules apply to EVERY iOS device and platform, and considering Apple has the monopoly share of the tablet market, I think we can argue it's anti competitive.

Apple demands you accept it's terms, if you release an app that tries to direct you to another site outside the Apple eco system, even if you paid for the app, Apple will not validate it or remove it from the app store, that's not fair on the consumer or it's competitors.

Microsoft was very very very nearly split apart by the European Court for anti competitive behaviours for simply including Internet Explorer by default with Windows. It was certainly punished hard for it, so what Apple is doing can be seen these days in the same light.

I'm afraid it is a bit short sighted to defend Apple's behaviour in this case I feel, as I said I know of Sky and Amazon apps where on Android I can buy products, on iOS I can't.

Other free apps like games have the business model of targeted advertising and data mining to make money, Spotify has advertising so far as I know but it also has the subscription base.

 

[lowendlinux]

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!

And it's modern, awesome, will keep format for anything but complicated, and most importantly it's FOSS!!

 

[redhawk87]

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.

So Spotify has two options:

1. Offer the convenience of the In-App purchase and pay the Apple Tax which puts them at a disadvantage as their service is now more expensive
2. Do not offer the in-app purchase. Their price is now inline with Apple, but they have now lost the convenience factor. Still a disadvantage.

So, in either model it is a loose loose for Spotify. There is no scenario that puts Spotify in an equal playing field with Apple Music on iOS.

 

[CarlJ]

And it's modern, awesome, will keep format for anything but complicated, and most importantly it's FOSS!!

And still has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Dmunjal]

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



View attachment 638345

I hope everyone knows that Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states? Anti-Wall Street, anti-Military Industrial Complex, pro-choice, pro-drug legalization.

 

[GeneralChang]

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.

All true, except nothing in Walmart is free. If somebody walks out of a Walmart with an AT&T smartphone, you know for sure that Walmart made money off of that phone (unless the person lifted it, I guess), whereas with an app, there is no such guarantee. So arguing against a false equivalency by punting another one right back. Work on that.

That being said, I think the comparison to Steam is a fairly good one. Steam does skim their profits off of up-front purchases but not off of ongoing subscription fees, which seems to say that what Apple is doing isn't defensible.

However, Steam doesn't sell stuff only to people using Steam PCs. They don't actually make any PCs, in fact. It would be like if Apple were operating an app store on Android. That's what Steam does.

So go figure, there don't appear to be any perfect analogies and this whole situation may, in fact, be untrod ground.

 

[2010mini]

So Spotify has two options:

1. Offer the convenience of the In-App purchase and pay the Apple Tax which puts them at a disadvantage as their service is now more expensive
2. Do not offer the in-app purchase. Their price is now inline with Apple, but they have now lost the convenience factor. Still a disadvantage.

So, in either model it is a loose loose for Spotify. There is no scenario that puts Spotify in an equal playing field with Apple Music on iOS.

3. Offer it at the same price. With their superior UI and larger subscription base. They attract more consumers and make a profit..... Oh wait... Spotify operates at a loss because they spoiled their customer base by giving away their service for free. Now they want Apple to do the same.

4. Put on you big big undies and Negotiate for better terms like Netflix did.

 

[lowendlinux]

And still has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

but I don't actually care..

 

[2010mini]

I hope everyone knows that Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states? Anti-Wall Street, anti-Military Industrial Complex, pro-choice, pro-drug legalization.

Gary Johnson is not getting anywhere until he learns how to get his message out. Hasn't he learn anything from Ron Paul?

 

[CarlJ]

2. Do not offer the in-app purchase. Their price is now inline with Apple, but they have now lost the convenience factor. Still a disadvantage.

All they have to do is widely advertise the fact, outside of their iOS app, that their subscription is less expensive if purchased on their website. What Spotify wants, is to get services (subscription/purchase handling, promotion, customer exposure) from Apple for free. That's understandable, but not realistic.

So, in either model it is a loose loose for Spotify.

It is really extremely not tight? What does that even mean?

There is no scenario that puts Spotify in an equal playing field with Apple Music on iOS.

Sure there is. All Spotify has to do is invest billions of dollars into developing and promoting their own operating system, hardware, and App Store. Then they'll be on an equal playing field.

Wanting all that handed to them for free is, again, understandable but not realistic.

 

[Dmunjal]

Gary Johnson is not getting anywhere until he learns how to get his message out. Hasn't he learn anything from Ron Paul?

His message is strong but the delivery isn't. Plus he has no visibility. Wouldn't it be nice if he could at least get on the debate stage? We had 10 on at one point in the Republican debates and 3 in the Democratic ones.

Why is he being excluded?

 

[Renzatic]

All true, except nothing in Walmart is free. If somebody walks out of a Walmart with an AT&T smartphone, you know for sure that Walmart made money off of that phone (unless the person lifted it, I guess), whereas with an app, there is no such guarantee. So arguing against a false equivalency by punting another one right back. Work on that.

As you said below, there isn't a perfect analogy for this, so we're all trying to work with what's best given the circumstances.

Apple making money off of sales through the app store is perfectly kosher. If it came down to it, I'd rather they charge something like 99 cents for service apps like Netflix, Hulu, and Spotify, and take 100% of the profits from that sale because they all make their money through the sub fees anyway.

But think of what would happen if everyone started following Apple's direction on this, that because someone is running a service on their platform, they're entitled to a cut of the profits. It'd end up with only 1st party apps being worth a damn in comparison, because they wouldn't have to worry about any extra overheads, and can set aside more to improving their service while still turning a heavier profit, or the 3rd party apps would have to raise their prices to compensate, and then wouldn't be able to compete with 1st parties on price. The end result would be entrenched 1st party services being able to bully and control the market, leaving the only competition among vertical platform owners.

What Apple's doing is more than a bit anticompetitive. But since there are workarounds, and Apple doesn't absolutely force the issue, it's not really worth doing anything more than arching an eyebrow over.

That being said, I think the comparison to Steam is a fairly good one. Steam does skim their profits off of up-front purchases but not off of ongoing subscription fees, which seems to say that what Apple is doing isn't defensible.

However, Steam doesn't sell stuff only to people using Steam PCs. They don't actually make any PCs, in fact. It would be like if Apple were operating an app store on Android. That's what Steam does.

It's a good example, because Steam does give away things for free, and they handle far, far more bandwidth than Apple does. It negates the argument that these apps are mooching off Apple's good graces, taking their expensive bandwidth by hosting the app without giving anything in return.

For one thing, the amount of money Apple spends on bandwidth to host these apps probably costs them mere dollars. It's certainly not eating into their profit margin enough to justify taking a 30% cut off all sub fees on iOS. Think about all the demos and free apps people download that don't provide Apple with anything. If it were truly so costly, Apple wouldn't offer them.

It's the argument that Netflix, Spotify, etc. are stealing from Apple that I take issue with. To clarify, I'm not saying Apple doesn't deserve to turn a profit off the App Store. They do. They provide an excellent service themselves. But there is such a thing as taking too much.

 

[Mascots]

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.

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.

No, it has been proven (by absence of proof that she did benefit, documentation, and other records) in the context of Harvard there was no benefit from Affirmative Action. Her other educational avenues maybe not so clear, but like I said, that's not my issue here and I don't care to debate misgivings because I don't particularly care for her (as I've said before).

My complaint isn't about her actions, it's about your disgusting actions and how you justify them. "She could put an end to it at any time" is the most inane rhetoric I've heard.