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

[gnasher729]

Just saying: 1. Spotify users can go to Spotify's website and pay $9.99. 2. Apple is reducing the fees for subscriptions to 15% (announced at WWDC).

This. If Spotify really cared they wouldn't complain about Apple, they would make their app redirect you to a website to sign up rather than pay Apple the way it is now. Everyone involved in this bitching session needs to shut up.

That's not allowed by the AppStore rules and will get the app rejected.

 

[brendu]

Good god I wish politicians would shut up. And people don't have to sign up for Spotify through the app. Every iOS device comes with a web browser fully capable of going to Spotify.com.

This. If Spotify really cared they wouldn't complain about Apple, they would make their app redirect you to a website to sign up rather than pay Apple the way it is now. Everyone involved in this bitching session needs to shut up.

 

[Number-Six]

I'd love nothing more than to be told explicitly what I am allowed to do and not do and say in all aspects of my life. Sign me up!

What, you mean like Church?

 

[brendu]

why don't we just let the Gov. run everything, that way no one can get their feelings hurt, there will be no more problems, they will put everyone on a level playing field to all work together in harmony. would work out perfectly!

If that were the way the government worked Hillary Clinton would be in prison.
[doublepost=1467235311][/doublepost]

What, you mean like Church?

Well except the church can't do anything to you when you break their rules...

 

[djcerla]

Apple only has a tiny slice of the market. They can do whatever they want, it's their house. They basically print money, but getting rich is not a crime.

Another monumental plus in Apple's strategy.

 

[BulkHedd]

I kind of compare this to Walmart. Coke and Pepsi pay their own employees to restock the soda shelves inside Walmart stores and yet are still happy to allow Walmart to make some profit on the sale of their products.

 

[69Mustang]

So, Apple's holding those poor little guys down by coming to the game YEARS later and also not giving them free access to their app store (including delivering updates) for a direct competitor? I don't recall going to any Best Buy and seeing things on the shelves which I can purchase where all the money ends up over at Target.

To your first point, I think they forbid developers from promoting lower prices within the app. You can communicate with customers elsewhere, just not on Apple's turn. Target wouldn't allow you to sell a widget with a sticker that said "Cheaper at Walmart" on it.

These analogies lack forethought and don't even come close to representing the issue.

I do think the issue as a whole is overblown by the senator and Spotify. I will say that 30% cut on every sub is bit on the greedy side, but it is the cost of doing business on the App Store. Only their accountant knows if it's worth it or not. If I was running Spotify, I would suck it up and use some of that investor money for a marketing campaign getting the word out that subscription prices are cheaper by signing up at Spotify.com. I'd get some mainstream and indie artists to participate in the campaign since none of that 30% goes to artists. Contrary to what some of our forum members think, not everyone in the App ecosystem knows/thinks about a developers website as an alternative to what they are already in; that being the App Store.

Complaining isn't going to make Apple change. Hooking to the coattails of a politician definitely isn't going to elicit much sympathy from the buying public.

 

[Tubamajuba]

Damn, too late already.

Of course the Apple defense force is not MIA just minutes after the article is online.
Now, I'm not much slower, the resident ********er, right? Right!

However, to get to the point: I don't think Apple is in the right.
It's one thing to take the cut, but to forbid the service to notify customers of cheaper options that are available elsewhere...
And yes, to hinder competitors by locking down APIs...

Especially the latter is EXACTLY what we had been complaining about in the late 90s when Apple was the one liberating us from Microsoft and all evil IBM before in the 80s.

Hello? Anyone home?

Glassed Silver:mac

By "Apple Defense Force", I assume you mean people that think that Apple occasionally does things that aren't the work of the devil? Either way, most of the first few comments are directed towards Elizabeth Warren.

 

[pat500000]

So ..who are the ones voting for Clinton?

 

[FasterQuieter]

I think she is mostly right. Apple should at least allow Spotify the ability to notify customers that they can sign up online for $10. And I am endlessly frustrated that I can't set a 3rd party Mail client as the default. Apple Mail just doesn't cut it and running 2 concurrently is a pain. Not that I am advocating a law to force them.

 

[147798]

When progressives eat progressives.

I don't like Apple's policies here, but I like the cigar store indian (CSI) even less.

Whether Spotify is whining or not -- isn't this sort of like Microsoft controlling the browser in their OS? Explorer got the best API access, etc. Do we REALLY not want better choice. Do you REALLY love iTunes/Apple Music so much? It's one thing to have a better product (iTunes/Apple Music is NOT better) it's another to lock out your competitors just to charge more.
[doublepost=1467235992][/doublepost]

So ..who are the ones voting for Clinton?

CSI could be the VEEP!

 

[inhalexhale1]

When liberals collide.

 

[Marzzz]

**** her. If she were just clueless, that would be typical. She is actually a malignant *******- one of the main backers of Dodd-Frank, and is basically out to ruin business in general.

 

[ILikeAllOS]

Used to love EW.
Thought she was a progressive who actually had a spine in the Democratic party. After all, that's what she always complains about - how many Dems lack a spine to take on special interests, big business, GOP, Wall St, money in politics, etc..

Then a liberal, progressive, Independent Jew from Vermont ran for the Dem nomination to take on all these issues and all of a sudden EW was silent.
Now she's campaigning for HRC, the same woman that EW infamously tore apart on TV because HRC did and continues to do enormous damage to the middle class.
So now I don't give a crap what she thinks.

 

[sir1963nz]

Recently, Spotify criticized some upcoming App Store changes like a new revenue split for subscriptions and ads in search results, saying Apple's efforts don't "get to the core of the problem" and criticizing Apple's insistence on "inserting itself between developers and their customers."

Wait you mean just like spotify is inserting its self between Artists and their Customers ????

 

[Rogifan]

This. If Spotify really cared they wouldn't complain about Apple, they would make their app redirect you to a website to sign up rather than pay Apple the way it is now. Everyone involved in this bitching session needs to shut up.

To be fair Apple won't allow redirects to the browser via the app (something I think is stupid).

 

[phillipduran]

Looks like apple has no friends in this Election. No support for the GOP and dissed by the dems. Maybe then can just turn their focus to making stuff instead. Politics isn't very interested in them.

 

[TurboPGT!]

I've never agreed with a single thing to come out of Elizabeth Warren's mouth, and it looks like the trend continues.

 

[Izauze]

<3 Elizabeth Warren. I had hoped she was going to run for president before Bernie Sanders jumped in to fill the void. She can and should take corporations to task for business practices that do not benefit the people.

In general, I think Apple does a pretty good job of looking out for their users best interests, but censoring other companies apps and forbidding them from saying that there is a lower priced option available for subscriptions outside of their app store (and it's pretty ridiculous 30% markup), is something I don't mind being challenged.

I'm an America-fanboy before I'm an Apple fanboy.

 

[maxsix]

What apple is doing, is driving the price for the consumer down. I've never heard anyone sane complain about that!

Someone's fantasizing...

Apple driving prices down?

No chance of that.

 

[TurboPGT!]

<3 Elizabeth Warren. I had hoped she was going to run for president before Bernie Sanders jumped in to fill the void. She can and should take corporations to task for business practices that do not benefit the people.

In general, I think Apple does a pretty good job of looking out for their users best interests, but censoring other companies apps and forbidding them from saying that there is a lower priced option available for subscriptions outside of their app store (and it's pretty ridiculous 30% markup), is something I don't mind being challenged.

I'm an America-fanboy before I'm an Apple fanboy.

Hmm liking America and thinking Liz Warren is anything other than a poison does not compute. Please try again later.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I don't get spotifys point. They also want to use apples infrastructure, technology and services, but not pay for it? If they can't take the financial hit and offer it for 10$ on iOS, then maybe their business model is t the best.

What apple is doing, is driving the price for the consumer down. I've never heard anyone sane complain about that!

Let's unpack this:

Apple made it all possible. Spotify is not forced, to offer their service on iOS.

Technically true, but disingenuous. In today's marketplace which is essentially a duopoly between Google and Apple which have nearly lockstep with each other in terms of financial terms, if you want to release software for a mobile phone and have any chance at reaching customers you have no choice but to do so on both Apple and Google.

They also want to use apples infrastructure, technology and services, but not pay for it?

Not true at all. First, they use their own and public infrastructure. Apple doesn't own the internet. Spotify hosts the vast majority of the data they use. All the music is hosted by Spotify servers. Sure, Apple does host the pithy app itself, but that is minimal. Indeed it is so minimal, Apple does so for free to many developers. They are not using Apple technology either, whatever that means. Spotify is cross-platform, and uses industry-standard technology.

If they can't take the financial hit and offer it for 10$ on iOS, then maybe their business model is t the best.

This is nonsense. Apple takes 30% off the top of developers no matter what, but does not subject itself to the same terms. Yet music costs the same to Apple and Spotify, approximately. Meaning, Apple is not forced to incorporate that same 30% cost into it's own competing products.

Imagine this:

• A landlord owns a strip mall and leases one store to a store owner that wants to sell widgets, where the store owner has to give the landlord 30% of all sales. The widget factory charges $1.
• Scenario 1: The store owner marks the widgets up to $2.50, where $0.75 (30%) goes to the landlord and $0.75 is net profit to the store owner.
  • This is fine.
• Scenario 2: The landlord opens up his own store right next door to the store owner and sells the same widgets for $1.75. The landlord still makes $0.75 from each widget sold.
  • This is now not fine. It is mathematically impossible for the store owner to compete with the landlord. If the landlord charges less than $1.43 for the widgets, the store owner cannot possibly make money under the circumstances.
  • It doesn't matter to the landlord if the store owner goes out of business. If either the store owner or the landlord make a widget sale, it's all the same to the landlord.
  • By acting as both a store and landlord, he has an unfair advantage. Typically, tenants of malls write language into their leases that prohibit the landlord from doing this. They can do this because there are thousands of commercial areas in the U.S. There are only 2 "digital" commercial areas of any value, and they don't negotiate. Instead, they offer unreasonable contracts of adhesion.

What apple is doing, is driving the price for the consumer down. I've never heard anyone sane complain about that!

How exactly is taking 30% of the top of every developer driving prices down? Sounds to me like it's increasing prices by ~30%.

 

[coolfactor]

I don't get spotifys point. Apple made it all possible. Spotify is not forced, to offer their service on iOS. They also want to use apples infrastructure, technology and services, but not pay for it? If they can't take the financial hit and offer it for 10$ on iOS, then maybe their business model is t the best.

What apple is doing, is driving the price for the consumer down. I've never heard anyone sane complain about that!

I haven't yet subscribed to anything through iOS, but I do raise my eyebrow at the point of Apple taking a cut of a subscription price *every month* for the duration of the subscription. I would understand them taking a cut the first month or two, but not every month for the life of the subscription. That's pure greed, and is no different than a tax. I don't think that's how Apple should position itself. They would still get revenue every month from Spotify, from new sign-ups.

EDIT: Actually, credit card processing for the subscription is done by Apple, so they do deserve to have those costs compensated. If I do understand correctly, they are lowering the rate for long-term subscriptions, so Spotify's arguments are no longer valid. It would be interesting to see if Spotify lowers the $12.99 price for those users.

 

[stockcerts]

In my community everyone is either in the Hilary camp or Bernie. They've all drank the Kool Aid. I'm personally not advocating that Trump is any better, but Hillary and Warren are bad news!

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I wonder which lobbyist/donor gave her that script and if she even understood what she was saying. Maybe someone @ Spotify? Seems to me Spotify understands how to inform customers how to bypass the Apple Tax. Also seems to me that Spotify still has more paid subscribers than Apple Music and increasing at a decent clip. I prefer Spotify myself, but hard to portray it as the mouse getting smoosched by the giant Apple elephant, esp. since Apple clearly isn't getting any preferential deals from the music labels.