Apple is changing this that after 12 months subscription period, their cut drops to 15%.
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
Well, in this situation, the Walmart comparison is at least a little apt. It's certainly more on point than the usual "olol Apple is like a BMW and Android is a busted up Pinto..." analogies.
This is what I've never understood about Spotify/Amazon/etc.'s complaints - couldn't these apps just present the user with a "Sign up on Spotify/Amazon and log in here!"? Hell, it could even take the user to a nice Safari link where they could sign up.
They should take a cut since their marketing is what generates the subscription. They do not take a cut of subscriptions from the outside. Thes companies are the ones that want their cake and eat it too. Use Apples much more efficient and effective marketing for nothing.
I think I remember reading that Apple forbade developers from doing that.
We ran an import business that distributed Australia-wide. Also ran a local office. Same retail prices to everyone. No issues. Didn't upset customers, didn't upset distributors.
By Spotify offering two pricing levels, they look foolish and treat their customers with contempt. Apple is also their customer being a distributor of their products. For that, they deserve to make money. Without the Apple iOS platform, Spotify would have less customers.
To email customers of Apple directly is underhanded. There is ONE player in this game that isn't playing by the rules.
Apple would be right to boot Spotify from the App store. No distributor would put up with a supplier acting like this!
Longterm, there will be one loser. It won't be Apple.
Stupid analogy. Walmart would make a cut off the price the iPhone sells for. Even Apple doesn't get to have their products sold in Walmart without having to pay them a cut.
I think you missed the point. I never said Apple doesn't have to pay a cut to Walmart for a sale, nor would I expect them or anyone else to get a free ride in this regard.
...but that's not what I'm arguing.
I seriously doubt new customers drift to Spotify because of Apple's marketing. They just search it out in the App Store and purchase it. If Spotify could advise customers from there that it's $9.99 on their website or link through Safari that would be great. But a lot of customers unwittingly pay the Apple Tax thinking they have to.
The fact that Apple doesn't make this transparent is the issue. It was bad enough when they didn't have a competing service, but now that they do it seems like an unfair business practice. It would be one thing if it was on the initial purchase, but to skim sub fees month after month.....
Yeah, and it'd be Apple. No other platform takes cuts from their 3rd party developer's sub fees, only the initial sale, and only when something is purchased through their storefront.
It'd be like Microsoft taking 30% of Blizzard's profits off their World of Warcraft subscriptions, because it runs on Windows.
Warren is an almost (Communist) Democrat Senator in the USA. She is one of the most insane big government people in congress. She has pushed through laws that destroy competition in the USA by making regulations so intrusive that ONLY big Business can afford to operate.
OH and she gets tons of donations from the "big money" groups in the USA
You expect Spotify to get a free ride in The App Store?
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?
You're right. The loser wouldn't be Apple...it would be the consumer. If we allow Apple to kill of competition just because they own the platform is absolutely the wrong way to go. I guarantee you we'd have a different attitude if it was any other company but Apple.....
Yeah, all her sponsored legislatures practically scream Marxism.
Listen, here's a bunch of links to The Communist Manifesto. It's about 40 pages or so. Read it, so you'll never again make the mistake of saying any of our politicians, democrat, republican, or independents (except for those 5 guys who actually are in the US communist party) are communists.
Elizabeth Warren is a ****ing douchebag fraud. Native American Indian my ****ing ass.
[doublepost=1467243773][/doublepost]
I can think of a ton of them.
[doublepost=1467243773][/doublepost]
I can think of a ton of them.
I think very highly of Elizabeth Warren but this is silly. No single company controls the market so any talk of monopoly is perplexing. I realize big companies can collude to make it harder for new competitors but even then, a smart competitor can undermine them with great ideas and move faster to compete. At one point, all three of the companies in question were underdogs in their particular market and did exactly that. It doesn't need to be easy, just possible.
Easy fix for that. Don't charge through the app.
Easy fix for that. Don't charge through the app.
Oh boo hoo. Customers can sign up online for the normal price anyway if they feel that the IAP price is too high. What, they want to be exempt from in-app purchase rules? Apple's bringing them business.
Edit: I forgot that iOS doesn't allow third-party IAPs due to App Store rules. THAT is anticompetitive, not the cut for using Apple's IAPs. Dunno why they're focusing on music either. Politicians should just deal with Apple restricting third parties from handling IAPs.
Last edited:
Apple is the one playing fair here. Their terms have been this way since, like, forever. Spotify is the whiny little btch bringing this issue up over and over and getting nowhere. They're in the wrong and since they can't do anything about it they whine to the court of public opinion instead. It's what all impotent people do.
Microsoft pays Apple 30% for Microsoft Office sold in The App Store. I've never heard them complain about it. Blizzard also pays Apple 30% of in-App purchases for Apps they sell in The App Store.
Windows is an open OS available on countless systems. iOS is closed and only on Apple devices. Apple can do whatever they want with their devices and their store. If developers or companies like Spotify don't like Apples terms, I have some advice for them: remove your products from The App Store and sell them somewhere else. Spotify can make a web page that runs in Safari that lets their users access their accounts. Hell, they could even pay for them on their Apple device through Safari and Apple couldn't do anything about it.
You know WHY developers don't leave? Because they're making money. Loads of it.
Nonsense.
Offer a better product and people will use it.
I had Apple Music for 4 months and dumped it, while maintaining my Google Play Music subscription. Why? Google Play Music is better. I also had Spotify. Also dumped it because Google Play is better.
Offer a better product and people will use it.
I had Apple Music for 4 months and dumped it, while maintaining my Google Play Music subscription. Why? Google Play Music is better. I also had Spotify. Also dumped it because Google Play is better.
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.
No, it would be like Microsoft taking 30% because people bought the subscription through the Games for Windows Live store (if that exists) instead of going to Blizzard's website.
In the real world, you pay for that kind of visibility that being hosted in a popular store front affords you. Why should it be any different in the digital world?
What, you think Frito-Lay gets all that shelf space in your local grocery store just because they're so universally loved? Think again. They pay for that shelf space.
Anyone who disagrees with Apple doing this just needs to include a link to their site where it can be paid for outside the app. That's really not that big a deal.