Elizabeth Warren is one hell of a politician, and i think she's right. The subscription-cut is too high. It's in Apple's best interest to fix 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
Oh, I guess Elizabeth Warren believes that coming up with the idea of the App store, then building and supporting the infrastructure, developing the SDK, providing all of the developer support to millions of developers, creating and maintaining the financial payment infrastructure, advertising for developers, creating and maintaining the ecosystem where their apps run, etc. is just something Apple should do for free?
Oh yeah. She's a limousine liberal. Of course they should.
Oh yeah. She's a limousine liberal. Of course they should.
When you put a decade of hard work and your own money into creating something, you get to make the rules. They don't own the wireless cell phone carrier industry, just a phone, carrying one of many different app stores. Spotify doesn't have to put their music on it. They are acting like a a whiney teenager with a chronic case of self-entitlement.
Toyota doesn't sell Chevys on their lot, are they "locking out" competition as well?
Toyota doesn't sell Chevys on their lot, are they "locking out" competition as well?
I think the bigger issue is that Apple offers a competing app/service at a lower price, and Spotify can't possibly match that price without taking a severe profit cut. Other app developers don't have to contend with Apple releasing apps/services in direct competition to them. But Spotify's answer shouldn't be to whine about it. They should make their app and service so superior to Apple's that it's worth it to customers to use Spotify, even if it costs more. That's the only way they can stay afloat. Make the better product.
Pocahontas Warren needs to keep her nose out of business. I'm really getting sick of these political hacks thinking they know more about running a business than the business leaders, when they've never held a real job in their life, let alone run a business. They are running the government into the ground, and that's not enough that they want to ruin our businesses too.
Easy, the alternative is Trump and sadly that's enough in this election of poor choices. It seems at the moment, Bernie is keeping the flame alive with his hesitation to endorse Hillary.
Remember Nancy Pelosi telling Apple they didn't invent the iPhone? Ted "The Internet is a Series of Tubes" Stevens? Pols are usually pretty ignorant regarding technical.
Tell me, how does Apple taking a cut off subscription fees, raising the price of these services on Apple devices, benefit you?
I have no problem with Apple taking a cut off sales from their App Store, but this has always been a bridge too far to me.
I agreed back in 2010.
Here's why?
1. When asking an Apple store clerk ("genius") as to why certain editions of Adobe software were not on the shelves, he told me outright that Apple had its own software and the Adobe editions were not allowed/otherwise competed. Seems like a conflict of interest. And many companies do it. Apple shouldn't be singled out.
2. When discussing Flash, the kid opined about ads and how to turn Flash off because he haaaaaaaaaaaaaated it. I asked him how HTML5 ads could be turned off. Crickets. Zero response. No clue. Paid parrot. Nothing more. He probably didn't understand how Flash games that already existed rendered Apple's own iOS games far more expensive to have to compete with, how many things other than Flash also led to rapid battery drain, and so on. The CEO of the time wasn't wrong in citing battery drain and security issues, but given the privacy lawsuit of the time and other concerns (including no ability to turn off HTML5 and iOS ads apps procure from the internet and those might have payload or other security concerns), how could people actually not notice this stuff? (That's also why I buy and not get ad-supported versions, more secure (or should be), and less bandwidth waste - for reasons that, once again, shouldn't be hard to notice.)
Here's why?
1. When asking an Apple store clerk ("genius") as to why certain editions of Adobe software were not on the shelves, he told me outright that Apple had its own software and the Adobe editions were not allowed/otherwise competed. Seems like a conflict of interest. And many companies do it. Apple shouldn't be singled out.
2. When discussing Flash, the kid opined about ads and how to turn Flash off because he haaaaaaaaaaaaaated it. I asked him how HTML5 ads could be turned off. Crickets. Zero response. No clue. Paid parrot. Nothing more. He probably didn't understand how Flash games that already existed rendered Apple's own iOS games far more expensive to have to compete with, how many things other than Flash also led to rapid battery drain, and so on. The CEO of the time wasn't wrong in citing battery drain and security issues, but given the privacy lawsuit of the time and other concerns (including no ability to turn off HTML5 and iOS ads apps procure from the internet and those might have payload or other security concerns), how could people actually not notice this stuff? (That's also why I buy and not get ad-supported versions, more secure (or should be), and less bandwidth waste - for reasons that, once again, shouldn't be hard to notice.)
I believe you need to rethink Apple v Microsoft of the late 90s. Perhaps Apple was more agnostic as to (certain types of) software as they pushed integrated hardware and OS rather than business software but Apple was never about openness of IP. Even the IBM analogy, IBM let in the clones whereas Apple did not (well with a few exception cases). Walled Garden is just an outgrowth of the vertical integration and control Apple has maintained over its environment throughout its history.
Apple's approach is not for everyone. It's a premium product with a decidedly controlled experience. Many people obviously enjoy that, based upon market share it would seem that the majority have other priorities and are free to pursue them. There's nothing wrong with the model Apple uses and this complaint will go nowhere unless Apple take enough additional marketshare to become monopolistic.
Apple doesn't raise the prices. Spotify did. It's no different than me selling goods direct from my factory or selling them through a store like Walmart and giving them a cut.
You don't HAVE to pay for your subscription through Apple. You can sign up on Spotify.com and THEN download their App.
Agreed.
ironically, in comes more middleman software that creates security vulnerabilities, in having a .doc viewer, but everybody wants an ubiquitous standard. Can't have it both ways, so what do people truly want and what compromises are they willing to make?
And for-profit companies care more about you and your family and country as opposed to making a profit, making hidden markets, planned obsolescence, and so on? /glibgeneralizationinresponsetoaglibgeneralization
I'm sorry that, in the land of the free with the shiny constitution, you feel that your own government you dislike even though "by of and for the people" is supposed to include you. Sounds like a disassociative syndrome or some other DSM-V thingie going on...
Oh, the word is "what's", not "whats". Were you educated by the liberal union ironic edumakashun system?
I love Apple products, but unfortunately Apple is a Trust. In the old days, they would have been broken up by anti-trust laws.
Apple controls iOS in a way that is monopolistic. That itself is fine, but when they also compete with the software companies who offer services in their App Store, then that becomes a violation of anti-trust laws.
What if your local power company decided that it was going to offer its own internet service, and then demanded 30% of the profits from any other internet service that provides service using its electricity? That is essentially what is going on here, and it is in violation of anti-trust laws. Too bad our politicians haven't enforced such laws in decades. Teddy Roosevelt would have torn them apart.
Apple controls iOS in a way that is monopolistic. That itself is fine, but when they also compete with the software companies who offer services in their App Store, then that becomes a violation of anti-trust laws.
What if your local power company decided that it was going to offer its own internet service, and then demanded 30% of the profits from any other internet service that provides service using its electricity? That is essentially what is going on here, and it is in violation of anti-trust laws. Too bad our politicians haven't enforced such laws in decades. Teddy Roosevelt would have torn them apart.
30% is awesome for developers. We generally pay 40-60% to retailers to sell our software.
Remember, Apple is providing developers the ability to get in front of millions of potential customers. You'd pay to do that in any way. How much do you think Google ads, billboards, magazine ads, and all other forms of advertising cost?
<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.
Well as an "American-fanboy", you don't know much about America. Businesses don't operate to "benefit the people". I think you are confusing America with the People's Republic of China. Businesses (in America and any other free market economy) exist for the sole purpose of returning a return for the stockholders. If they choose to do things that benefit "the people", then that is up to the Board of Directors and business leaders to decide... not Pocahontas Warren or any other political government hack. It would be great if she took herself, HRC, and all the other politicians "to task" for all the nonsense they are NEVER held accountable for.
Apple made the App Store. They get to make the rules. If a company doesn't want to play by their rules, then they are free to sell their services or products on their own and not use the Apple provided storefront. Its not really all that complicated.
Last edited:
She makes me sick. Who does she honestly appeal to?
In order to be monopolistic and fall under anti-trust law, you actually have to have a monopoly. Explain to may how that applies to Apple. They don't have a monopoly, or even a majority, of the smartphone business; and they certainly don't have a monopoly or the majority of streaming customers. In fact, Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any product. If a developer or a customer doesn't like their rules they can buy a product from someone else, or offer their products and services somewhere else.
Your analogy makes no sense. You can't chose who connects electricity to your house. The utility has a monopoly on that. You can chose who you buy a smartphone from and who you stream music from. There are many choices for each.
Yup, that's exactly why services like Kobo etc don't let people buy from an app, they have to go to the website. I don't like it but it's not as though Spotify couldn't just direct people to do that upon downloading the app.
Honestly, while I get it in some ways, in other ways I think it's ******** that people basically want Apple to be handicapped because they've made a lot of money. Spotify was there BEFORE Apple music, I don't see how they're being anti-competitive.
Nobody likes her. We in Massachusetts do not like her. I don't know how she was elected.
Spotify raised prices so they can make the same running their service as they do on everyone else's platforms. Apple is the only company of the bunch that takes a direct cut of another company's profit line, just because someone happened to sign up to it on an iDevice.
What does Apple do to justify taking a cut from Netflix's infrastructure? They don't help them buy the bandwidth, don't negotiate any peering deals, don't negotiate any movie rights for their service. They merely host the app.
And yeah, people can leave the app to sign up on the internet. Nothing's stopping them. But you're defending what's ultimately a pointless workaround you the customer have to take because they want to keep Apple from vamping off their subscription fees. Being able to sign up through the app like you can everywhere else is a no-go in iOS world.