It may be too high, doesn't mean people have to use it though. You don't go around stores and telling them their products is too expensive and they should lower their prices. And you also do not lower your fees just because some politician who will say anything to become a VP said your fees are too high.
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
It may be too high, doesn't mean people have to use it though. You don't go around stores and telling them their products is too expensive and they should lower their prices. And you also do not lower your fees just because some politician who will say anything to become a VP said your fees are too high.
This is not even sort of the same.
For most of the people in the US, if they hate their iPhone, Apple's policies, or anything about Apple, they could easily go to a store and have dozen of other phone options.
As for cable/ISPs, many only have one choice. Some, like me, are lucky and have two choices.
Not the same.
This must be an excerpt from Warren's commentary because the only party responsible for making it difficult to run a profitable streaming services are the Big 5 distributors that control licensing.
Let's say that offering the iOS platform, the App Store, payment processing, hosting the app on Apple's servers all warrants all is worth a 30% cut of the revenue. Let's also say that running a music streaming service (at the current average number of songs streamed per customer) costs in terms server costs and royalties paid to the artists/labels about $10 per user. If Apple now charges $10 for Apple Music and 30% of that would need to be diverted to the App Store division, the Apple Music streaming division would only have a $7 per customer revenue and thus would run at a loss.
Running a service at a loss when you have a dominant market position can be considered as unfair competition.
Whether Apple has a dominant position in the music streaming on iOS is another question. They seem to have about half of Spotify's (paying) users, though those Spotify users are spread over Android and iOS, thus on iOS Apple Music might already be biggest music streaming service. However, with iOS having a smaller market share than Android, Apple's 'unfair competition' might be considered too limited to need hand slapping.
Really, the biggest concern for me isn't that Apple is doing it, but that some people defend it.
Apple does indeed have a monopoly. They control 100% what software can be installed on my iPhone. That is a monopoly. For the Mac/OSX, they do not control it. In that case, they do have an App Store, but customers are free to install apps on their own. The App Store itself is not the violation. The violation is that they are competing by selling their own software on the same platform, which gives them an unfair advantage.
Suggesting that someone can buy a different phone is irrelevant. You don't have to get your power from the power company. You can buy a generator, or fit your home with solar panels, etc.
You do not have to have 100% control of the market to be in violation of anti-trust laws. You just have to have too large of an influence on the market which gives you an unfair advantage and hurts competition. That is indeed what Apple has.
Who cares what Google or the others charge? Would you rather pay Walmart a chunk of your profits to sell your products in their stores, or make 100% of the profits and try to sell them at the local flea market?
Apple and The App Store are, by far, the most profitable. You want to host in their store you gotta play by their rules. Or you can go it alone and enjoy ALL the profits from a fraction of the sales.
Apple doesn't forbid them from doing it. They just forbid them from doing it in the App Store app. To your last point. In the 90s MS has 95% of the desktop PC market and today Apple has 20% (or less) of the mobile phone market. Spotify could just drop iOS in protest. Or is there some value in having an app store app that they should be willing to pay for. I guess I am confused.
On that note, since a lot of iDevices are sold through Walmart, do you think they're entitled to 30% of Apple's profits from iTunes and the App Store on their percentage of products sold?
[doublepost=1467240511][/doublepost]
Found some..... I can find lots more if you want
Eh. Christie isn't all that bad. He's just got this whole deer-in-the-headlights thing going on at the moment.
That whole 'selling a product or service at a loss' thing happens all the time in all kinds of businesses and product categories and is not illegal per se (well, it was illegal in some Western countries for many decades but then deregulation removed that clause). It only becomes a 'problem' if and when it is used to drive competitors out of business such that when they are gone the prices can be jacked up again and/or product or service improvement comes to a halt. Or if it keeps competitors from entering a market and thus holding down innovation (as without competitors there is little pressure to innovate).
Last edited:
Tell me this then. Is 30% too much? Ok what is fair. How much should spotify pay Apple to distribute their software, collect their payments, etc. Should Apple do all that for Free?
How do you feel about the fact that spotify raises the price by 5-10% more than the actual difference in cost? Why is Spotify gouging iOS customers?
Spotify does have an advantage over Apple music space and always will unless Apple changes how they work, which is u can play thorough a web browser,, no need for an install-able app. Plus Apple taking 30% is reasonable, since its not only music they do it too.
It's always how Apple operates....
It's always how Apple operates....
Its called the APP store for a reason, its a store. Just get the APP directly from Spotify and be done with it. Its cheaper.
But aren't those costs are the same regardless of the selling price?
Does it really cost Apple more to process a $10 charge than a $1 charge? I guess I'm not seeing how Apple is entitled to 30% if all they are doing is swiping a credit card (and not actually serving any of Spotify's data)
Also... you can sign up with Spotify through Apple's system... and Apple processes the payment.
Or you can sign up through Spotify's website... and Spotify processes the payment.
Wouldn't the latter be better, in general?
What if you decide to sell all your Apple devices... but you want to continue your Spotify subscription? Does Apple transfer your payment information to Spotify? Or does Spotify have your data already?
I would ALWAYS subscribe through the company directly... not through Apple. It just makes it easier.
Not only is it cheaper to subscribe through Spotify in this case... I'd rather be their customer directly.
If Lizzy doesn't like it she can create her own platform to compete.
He's probably the best of the lot
i was looking for names to Google.... BUT since he was the first one to endorse Trump he must be included.
Last edited:
Once again, I have no problem with Apple taking a 30% cut off of apps sold through iTunes and the App Store. It's the same reason why I have no problem with Walmart doing the same to Apple on every iPad sold from one of their locations. That's the cost of doing business. Apple hosts the app, advertises it, they should get a cut. Its the same as any physical location hosting someone else's products.
It's Apple skimming from sub fees that's the problem, since they force all 3rd parties to use their payment services if someone subscribes through the app, and will continue taking that 30% cut even if someone sells off their iDevices to get an Android, but continues their subscription to Netflix, Spotify, etc.
It'd be like Walmart taking 30% off of Apple's iTunes and App Store sales off any device sold in their stores. What has Walmart done to deserve burdening themselves on Apple's digital goods business like that besides sell the gateway device? People wouldn't be able to buy apps off the app store if it weren't for Walmart, right? Should it be just as justifiable?
Sweet Jeebus, please stop with the Walmart analogies. Walmart and the App store don't operate in a remotely similar fashion. Minus edge cases of a few products, Walmart doesn't operate on consignment, which is the closest thing to the App Store. The vast majority of the products in Walmart have been bought and paid for in bulk. Walmart sets the price, not the manufacturer (developer).
So unless Apple purchases subscriptions from Spotify and sells them at a price of their choosing...
... and changing Walmart to Target doesn't make it different.
So unless Apple purchases subscriptions from Spotify and sells them at a price of their choosing...
... and changing Walmart to Target doesn't make it different.
So unless Apple purchases subscriptions from Spotify and sells them at a price of their choosing...
... and changing Walmart to Target doesn't make it different.
What about Costco?
I agree. To many people were in a rush to attack the messenger, not the message. Apple getting 30% of recurring service fees for a competitor to Apple Music is a very gray area. It remind me of the antitrust suit filed against Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows.
Yes you can go through the web based service to subscribe. But if Apple is not letting Spotify let users know that on the IAP screen, it's kind of sketch....
But lots of folks on here will blindly support Apple fleecing them every way they can....
Sweet Jeebus, please stop with the Walmart analogies. Walmart and the App store don't operate in a remotely similar fashion. Minus edge cases of a few products, Walmart doesn't operate on consignment, which is the closest thing to the App Store. The vast majority of the products in Walmart have been bought and paid for in bulk. Walmart sets the price, not the manufacturer (developer).
So unless Apple purchases subscriptions from Spotify and sells them at a price of their choosing...
... and changing Walmart to Target doesn't make it different.
The only more ubiquitous and annoying analogy is the car. White male tech/gadget dudes with limited imaginations LOVE using car analogies: XYZ ISSUE IS LIKE IF YOU WENT TO A BMW DEALER AND SAID I WANT SO AND SO AND THE DEALER SAID NO YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SO AND SO...etc etc.