I'm weighing the impact that Apple has had on my life vs. the impact that Elizabeth Warren has had and it is an easy win for Apple. Apple's products and services have improved my life style. Warren has done nothing for me. The real scary part is when you weigh what impact socialist progressives like Warren would like to have on your life - that's scary as hell.
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
Why in the world should Apple be able to impose any tax on a subscriber? What about the Netflix in my TV? My BD player? The Spotify in my AVR? Should those manufacturers also collect a monthly tax?
Warren earned the nickname (or Lieawatha, or Fauxahontas) by claiming American Indian ancestry so she would be considered a minority and benefit from affirmative action policies at Harvard.
Genealogists have since disproved her claim, and even the real Cherokee Indian tribe of which she claims to be a member has disavowed her.
You're sort of moving the goal post now. First it was they're getting exposure for free. Now it's the $99 doesn't cover Facebook's downloads. If Apple needed more to cover the overhead on serv... no, no, no. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
It makes no sense on too many levels. Spotify is most likely not as put upon as their message makes them out to be. This is a perfect opportunity for them to highlight the unfairness of the 30% rip in perpetuity. This issue goes beyond Spotify and affects any app with subscription services. If Apple took 30% from the initial set up only, I'm sure that would be more acceptable. If that was the case, Apps could charge the same via their website or the App Store and customers benefit. In the end, that should be the goal; benefit the customer. I know it's a bit Pollyanna, but still. It would crass to say Apple doesn't need the money, but it would be just as crass to try to make excuses like paying for servers when Apple is stacking up profit, not revenue, but profit like no other company in the world. Apple is even less sympathetic when you add the fact that they 1. make the subscriptions go through their processing, 2. won't allow devs to let customers save by linking to their websites, and 3. won't let the devs tell the customer to go to the website to sign up. They don't exactly present the picture of the customer focused organization.
Last edited:
Obviously. That's why we the people regulate them. So they don't employ 5 year olds, make them work 80 hours a week, place them in hazardous conditions, and pay them $2.00 an hour to make products that don't live up to their wild claims to the public, endanger their lives, or otherwise undermine the public good.
Ahh. I see where we're coming from here. Nevermind then. I find it unproductive to engage with internet racists and Trump xenophobes, thanks
On one hand, it's an annoyance that is a clear gate. On the other hand...
Spotify has 7x subscribers than Apple
Apple could toss them for violating ToS, but they don't (key service exemption)
Spotify is choosing to end-around to not pay the 30%, but they don't have to
And let's not forget that spotify royalties are a f(*^&@#$% joke, and they screw artists hard. And oh ya, when the industry was a dog's hair from spiraling the crapper, Apple stepped in with the SAME model and saved it.
I'm thinking someone just wanted "Apple" and "Possible VP runningmate" to show up in the same AP story... #keywords #meta #googleit
Spotify has 7x subscribers than Apple
Apple could toss them for violating ToS, but they don't (key service exemption)
Spotify is choosing to end-around to not pay the 30%, but they don't have to
And let's not forget that spotify royalties are a f(*^&@#$% joke, and they screw artists hard. And oh ya, when the industry was a dog's hair from spiraling the crapper, Apple stepped in with the SAME model and saved it.
I'm thinking someone just wanted "Apple" and "Possible VP runningmate" to show up in the same AP story... #keywords #meta #googleit
I like church!
I choose to go to church. In this scenario I wouldn't have chosen to have been born unto an oppressive government. Yikes.And it makes no sense to just take an upfront fee because everyone would just make their apps free upfront. Meaning Apple will make no money off the App Store. I believe that's not a sustainable model.
If Apple allowed people to do the things you mentioned the same thing would happen.
So then, is it fair for Apple to distribute, advertise and provide libraries for apps to use all for free?
Spotifys success and growth is highly correlative to the proliferation of iPhone and iPhone-like devices. The possibility of an always-connected super computer in everyone's pocket completely made Spotifys business model (subscription streaming) a mass market possibility.
No, Apple doesn't deserve claim to Spotifys success. But the industry-defining work Apple did on iOS and the App Store, making handheld always-connected "apps" a part of mainstream culture, is the platform that enabled businesses like Spotify (and many many more) to even sustainably exist. I don't think it's unfair for Apple to charge a cut for hosting and distributing their service to Apples hundreds of millions of customers.
So many companies wish they could be the platform and not the app, but want to chastise the platform creator. Well go ahead, invent your own platform that nobody has ever dreamed of, redefine multiple industries, make it a consumer-priced reality, and get consumers to adopt it at a global scale. Easy peasy, right?
No, Apple doesn't deserve claim to Spotifys success. But the industry-defining work Apple did on iOS and the App Store, making handheld always-connected "apps" a part of mainstream culture, is the platform that enabled businesses like Spotify (and many many more) to even sustainably exist. I don't think it's unfair for Apple to charge a cut for hosting and distributing their service to Apples hundreds of millions of customers.
So many companies wish they could be the platform and not the app, but want to chastise the platform creator. Well go ahead, invent your own platform that nobody has ever dreamed of, redefine multiple industries, make it a consumer-priced reality, and get consumers to adopt it at a global scale. Easy peasy, right?
Google for instance has created initiatives that drive small businesses internally. They influence employees to create ideas, if they work present it to Google's board. They will yay or nay it, if it's approved Google will allow you to work on that said idea and you get paid! I know it's not the same as good old creating your business from scrap and working countless unpaid hours to attain that business dream.
I think many senators are old fashioned and believe this information technology / high technological digital age is early in it's infancy. It's not the golden age for start-ups is ending somewhat, but now it's a fully functioning industry. Similar to an automobile manufacturer, you have your big fish and small fish and usually the small fishes don't suceed and get consumed. Start-ups are there, but it's few and far and in between, I'm sure the start-up golden age will happen again, but with another piece of technology.
I have been working in the information technology business both manufacturer side and middle man side, I've seen different perspectives. But I can say one thing that the age is over and it's just finding that niche technology for the smaller fish to survive until they get acquired or consumed. Large companies are able to do it better, with more resources and capital.
I think many senators are old fashioned and believe this information technology / high technological digital age is early in it's infancy. It's not the golden age for start-ups is ending somewhat, but now it's a fully functioning industry. Similar to an automobile manufacturer, you have your big fish and small fish and usually the small fishes don't suceed and get consumed. Start-ups are there, but it's few and far and in between, I'm sure the start-up golden age will happen again, but with another piece of technology.
I have been working in the information technology business both manufacturer side and middle man side, I've seen different perspectives. But I can say one thing that the age is over and it's just finding that niche technology for the smaller fish to survive until they get acquired or consumed. Large companies are able to do it better, with more resources and capital.
Moving the goalposts? You're the one who stated: "Afaik, Apple get's a yearly c note from devs whether their app sells or not. That's the cost entry, or at least it should be." Sounds like you're claiming the yearly developer fee should be the fee that covers costs to host your App.
Point 1 is an outright lie. Apple doesn't make subscriptions go through their processing. Apple states that IF the purchase is handled through the App THEN they get their 30% cut and payment is processed by Apple. There's nothing stopping anyone from having people sign up for a subscription through a website and then entering your login details into an App to start getting that subscription.
Point 2 would be a disaster for everyone. If Apple allowed developers to provide a link to their website for purchases then "all hell would break loose". Instead of charging for Apps they'd all be free and you'd have to go to a website to "sign up" and pay to activate the "full" version or to enable further in-App purchases. Apple would then make nothing as no purchases would go through Apple. Customers would be at risk since they'd now have to provide their payment details who knows how many times (depending on how many Apps they have). No security risk there. And if someone had their payment information leaked or hacked by some developer, who'd get blamed for it? Why Apple, of course, since THEY allowed the App into THEIR store in the first place. And you think this would be more "customer focused" than the current system where only Apple has your payment information and handles all the processing securely on your behalf? Where you can purchase an App simply by clicking on the Install button and pressing your finger using Touch ID to authorize it?
Point 3 is also misleading. I just downloaded Kindle. It has this text when you first launch it: "Sign in with your Amazon Account" on the top and "Are you new to Kindle" on the bottom. Clicking on the text "Are you new to Kindle" brings up the following message:
Sure, it's not a direct link to their website, but it's pretty damn obvious where you have to go to get your account.
You know what the biggest problem with Spotify is (besides being a bunch of whiners with entitlement issues)? Their business model is not sustainable. 2/3 of their subscribers are using the free ad supported tier (where the revenues generated by ads are lower than the fees they need to pay for streaming music). The more people that use Spotify the more money they lose. So instead of trying to fix their business model to make it profitable they blame others (music industry for demanding too much in royalty payments and Apple for demanding too much of a cut of subscriptions). Basically let's blame everyone EXCEPT ourselves and our unsustainable business model.
Stuff like that is too hard for politicians to understand. Because they are idiots. (Yes every single one. We are lucky only most are sociopaths).
Internally, Spotify calls it "The Apple Tax on Stupid People."
Internally, Apple calls it "Our Customer Contempt Policy."
Hey, Donald!
Still spouting those lies about anyone who would be your competition, I see.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Tricky issue. I don't think Apple comes off looking good by preventing developers from including a web-link to sign up for services, especially when the Web is a central part of iOS. Apple originally conceived of the iPhone running exclusively third-party Web apps.
On the other hand, Apple doesn't have a monopoly. If this were 1996 and we were talking about Microsoft only allowing third-party programs sold through their store and taking a cut, I think we would be looking at this very differently.
The question is whether there is enough competition between Apple and Google that one or the other would be willing to change their system such that prices become more competitive. Both Google and Apple prevent services like Spotify from providing links to sign up for the service over the Web. Spotify thus charges more. You would need to make a case that the system is such that there isn't enough competition for this situation to change in benefit of the consumer or that there is some sort of collusion between Apple and Google to keep policies in place like this rather than compete.
I think it's something to keep an eye on. I would think that a statement saying that the service is available cheaper directly through the company would be a fair statement for the CFPB to require Apple to put on products it sells that have variable subscription rates depending on the mechanism by which you subscribe.
As for the witch-hunting about Elizabeth Warren, this really isn't about her. This is an issue the FTC has been looking into for a long time. She's not the first or last person who will engage on this issue.
On the other hand, Apple doesn't have a monopoly. If this were 1996 and we were talking about Microsoft only allowing third-party programs sold through their store and taking a cut, I think we would be looking at this very differently.
The question is whether there is enough competition between Apple and Google that one or the other would be willing to change their system such that prices become more competitive. Both Google and Apple prevent services like Spotify from providing links to sign up for the service over the Web. Spotify thus charges more. You would need to make a case that the system is such that there isn't enough competition for this situation to change in benefit of the consumer or that there is some sort of collusion between Apple and Google to keep policies in place like this rather than compete.
I think it's something to keep an eye on. I would think that a statement saying that the service is available cheaper directly through the company would be a fair statement for the CFPB to require Apple to put on products it sells that have variable subscription rates depending on the mechanism by which you subscribe.
As for the witch-hunting about Elizabeth Warren, this really isn't about her. This is an issue the FTC has been looking into for a long time. She's not the first or last person who will engage on this issue.
I try to avoid monthly subscriptions as much as possible. Always choose the lifetime or annual when I buy things on subscription. Why doesn't Apple Music have a yearly discounted subscription like Beats did?
Also why all the bashing on Warren and Clinton? I thought most of you were smarter than to fall for the (right wing) media bias against them.
Also why all the bashing on Warren and Clinton? I thought most of you were smarter than to fall for the (right wing) media bias against them.
The current administration is focused on regulating business, especially large or financial business, increasing taxes very significantly (see my linky 2), imposing large fines, collecting huge sums from the Fed and otherwise bypassing congress and the power of the purse, with executive over-reach.
Apple would thrive on lower regulation, taxation, and threat of fines, and let's talk about importing their foreign profits to the USA for domestic investment. Apple Campus 3?
Apple would thrive on lower regulation, taxation, and threat of fines, and let's talk about importing their foreign profits to the USA for domestic investment. Apple Campus 3?
Yes... there's no doubt that Apple is providing a tremendous service with the App Store and they should be compensated. The hosting... the credit card processing... it's expensive. And that's why Apple gets 30% when someone buys an app.
Free apps make them ZERO dollars. I'm sure Apple hates those. But paid apps make Apple tons of money.
The issue is with 3rd-party subscription services. I wouldn't have a problem if Apple could get some money from Spotify when someone downloads the Spotify app. Maybe they could sell the app for a couple dollars to cover Apple's bandwidth and server costs.
But I don't see why Apple needs to keep getting money from Spotify every month afterwards. Apple's involvement ended the moment someone downloaded the app! It then becomes Spotify's responsibility.
When someone listens to music on Spotify... it's coming from Spotify's servers... not Apple's servers. There's nothing Apple is doing after the app is downloaded and a person is listening to Spotify.
So Apple is basically getting $3 every month to swipe a credit card just because a person happened to sign up with Spotify on their iPhone.
Seems a little excessive, no? That has got to be the most expensive credit card fee ever!
The only silver lining is that people can still sign up at spotify.com... though I'm surprised Apple hasn't put a stop to that yet.
I understand Apple's 30% Rule... I just don't think it makes much sense for 3rd-party monthly subscriptions where Apple isn't involved after the initial download.
Not to mention Apple worked hard to be where they are in the music industry. Apple started off as a music company ,mostly, and it achieved it's dominance by hard work and dedication. They are where they are today because of the decisions they made and they didn't rush- like so many companies do now-a-days. If Spotify or any other company has a problem with it, maybe they should make better business decisions. No one is making Spotify or any other company do anything. Everyone has the will to make their products better and more dominant in any industry- all it takes is an idea and motivation. If they want to be dominant like Apple in the music industry they should try harder, not complain.
They're complaining saying Apple is too big, but Apple WORKED for what it has. And that's just how it is. Take it or leave it.
They're complaining saying Apple is too big, but Apple WORKED for what it has. And that's just how it is. Take it or leave it.
False. "They charge a higher rate than Apple". That's up to them. If Spotify wants to make an operating system, phones, and set up an ecosystem, they too can go about not paying a fee.
Apple is not a public utility, and they have no requirement to make other companies more profitable. They have a platform and a fee to be on the platform. If Spotify wants to choose to leave iPhones, they can. They can go use Google's store. They can be all independent. They can do whatever they want. But you can't expect Apple to let them profit from their platform for free. If anything, the fact that Apple allows the service in their App Store is a huge concession, considering they sell a rival service.