Spotify Accuses Apple of Using App Store Approval Process as a 'Weapon to Harm Competitors'

[xero9]

Spotify should simply raise the in-app amount to $999 so no one would pay for it. Boom, problem solved!

 

[samcraig]

First off, it wouldn't just be subscriptions that linked to outside the App. All Apps could do this which would cut Apples revenue for running the App Store down to zero. And it would expose customers to increased risk having to sign up to multiple sites for all the different Apps you decided to buy.

Apple deserves a cut because they are giving you access to hundreds of millions of customers with credit cards on file who can make a purchase as simply as tapping their iPhone. Stores like to take credit cards even though they pay fees. Why? Because people will often buy something on credit and pay for it later. So you can get the sale on a credit card or lose the sale because you don't accept them. Same with The App Store. Customers are going to be more likely to purchase something if it's quick and easy. Why do you think Amazons 1-click ordering is so popular? Because it makes things easy for customers.

This is something we can't measure, because Spotify won't say anything about how many customers sign up through iOS. But I bet it's a LOT, given how much they whine about it. They're happy to get millions of subscribers from Apples user base, but don't want to pay for the privilege. It's really that simple.

30% is a large cut for processing a transaction. Especially on a renewal.

 

[igorsky]

I wish Apple Music could beat Spotify by being better.

Give it time, won't take much longer.

 

[jman240]

Just curious but what is the Apple stance on apps like Domino's pizza. I can order a pizza and pay with a credit card. Does Apple take 30% of my pizza purchase away from Domino's since you know, Apple made the app store and supports the app store infrastructure. I don't think they do, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Same deal with the Uber app. If I used Uber to get a ride, and pay with apple pay, does Apple take 30% of that transaction. I highly doubt it. They probably take their like 0.5% Apple pay processing fee but Uber gets the rest after credit card processing fees (what like 5%?).

I can use the Amazon app to buy a physical book, pay with my credit card on file and I don't think Apple gets a piece of that transaction either.

I don't see why Spotify or other subscription apps should be any different...

 

[samcraig]

Green is the color of envy and jealousy.

Over what?

 

[Kaibelf]

Side-loading already exists on Android and I don't see much of the "blaming" you mention: why should Apple be any different?

Be real. Plenty of people say "the Google Play store is just a malware shop" and "Android's just not secure" even though Google doesn't push ANY of the culprits.

 

[CWallace]

Isn't the landlord being compensated for all that out of the 30%? The issue isn't that the landlord charges rent, the issue is that the landlord competes with his own clients on unequal terms.

The landlord would have invested a significant sum of money into buying the property and building it out for the tenants to then rent from him. If the rents alone don't cover that cost, then he needs to find another source of income to do so.

Apple spent billions (effectively) in purchasing Beats Music and making deals with music companies and building out the data centers and CoLos to host and distribute that content. Effectively 100% of the $9.99 they charge monthly for Apple Music is recovering that cost at this time.

 

[BvizioN]

Nah, that's really not it at all. How about this instead: Let me use my phone to buy whatever apps I want, however I want to buy them and stop inserting yourself as an unwanted, surcharging middle man.

But you can buy whatever app is available in app store. If you want a phone that have an appstore for which you make your own regulations as a customer, bad news : you may have to build your own phone and OS, and the good news is, you don't have to spend your money to buy the one you don't want.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

Only thing ridiculous here is the really BAD analogy you used to Walmart selling products on the shelf

In case you don't know, retail stores don't operate like an App store. it isn't Walmart selling a product on behalf of lets say, Head and Shoulders.

Walmart has to purchase their store inventory directly from Head and Shoulders. Any sales that Walmart then make of Head and Shoulders goes directly to the revenues of Walmart. After initial inventory purchase, Head and Shoulders doesn't receive further percentages of sales.


if Apple wanted to use this retail model. They would be purchasing the Apps from the developers themselves and then taking 100% of the revenues after its sold to the consumer.

but we all know this isn't how digital app marketplace operates. So your analogy as a defense for your point is as you said. Ridiculous.

Nothing like trying to twist things around with a wasted post about inventory and purchasing. The poster I replied to said Apple was being anti-competitive for also having a music service in their store. They are not. Just like Walmart is not being anti-competitive if they sell competing products. How they acquire them is irrelevant.

 

[2010mini]

Only thing ridiculous here is the really BAD analogy you used to Walmart selling products on the shelf

In case you don't know, retail stores don't operate like an App store. it isn't Walmart selling a product on behalf of lets say, Head and Shoulders.

Walmart has to purchase their store inventory directly from Head and Shoulders. Any sales that Walmart then make of Head and Shoulders goes directly to the revenues of Walmart. After initial inventory purchase, Head and Shoulders doesn't receive further percentages of sales.


if Apple wanted to use this retail model. They would be purchasing the Apps from the developers themselves and then taking 100% of the revenues after its sold to the consumer.

but we all know this isn't how digital app marketplace operates. So your analogy as a defense for your point is as you said. Ridiculous.

Actually Walmart, as well as other retailers allow brands to set up stores within their store. It's why you see specific sections in stores like Tommy Hilfiger, Polo, Guess? Estée Lauder etc. That all have their respective branding and a lot of times the employees in those sections work for the brand, not the store. Those brands negotiate with the retail store on how much percentage of sales they get. It works for the because the retail store already has an established customer base.

 

[igorsky]

Funny that HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Pandora, and countless other companies don't have a problem with this model but it's harming Spotify? Yea, ok. This 30% is definitely the reason Spotify hasn't been able to turn a profit in 8 years.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

Nah, that's really not it at all. How about this instead: Let me use my phone to buy whatever apps I want, however I want to buy them and stop inserting yourself as an unwanted, surcharging middle man.

And how will those Apps be made available for you to buy? In The App Store. Gee, then maybe they're going to have to abide by Apples Terms & Conditions for the store THEY OWN.

 

[mariusignorello]

Oh look, a brain-washed, capitalist, anti-social, degenerate apple fanboy in it's worst manifestation.

Seriously? That's an immature comment to make. In business things cost money, there's no way around it. It costs money to build a payment processing system and allow developers to use it. It costs money to build an App Store and ensure that it is running smoothly. Nobody gives anything away for "free". Someone has to get paid at the end of the day or everything collapses. And yes, we humans are very selfish, but it's for survival, so too bad. Someone needs to grow up.

 

[smacrumon]

I used to believe that @Benjamin Frost was the most anti Apple poster on this site, but lately you have the lead.

Let's just say you run a business out of your garage selling boxes. I also sell boxes but need a place. I ask you to give me space in your garage so I can sell my boxes from there.

First it is pretty awesome of you to say I can store my competitive boxes in your garage. It would insanely awesome for you not to charge me. As a matter fact, please post your address here so we can all come and store our boxes at your place for free and then try to run you out of business.

Let me address your assertion I'm the most anti Apple poster. That's absolutely false. I have applauded and been the fan person for many Apple initiatives, BUT, I do call Apple out when I see there is an issue at bay that I believe needs attention. My criticisms are all geared towards making Apple a better business on all fronts.
Second, you CAN store your competitive boxes at my garage without charge. I'm not concerned about this arrangement because I too make competitive boxes and I believe my competitive boxes have the edge on yours and I'm convinced when passers by see your competitive box alongside my competivite box, mine will be the preferred competitive box.
I'm not stressed at all about this situation.

 

[andy9l]

What does Apple have to do with the service Spotify provides? If Spotify wants to process its own credit card transactions why can't Apple make it easy for them to do so in-app (or redirect them to the browser to do so)?

Nothing. That is EXACTLY the point. If Spotify need to leverage on any other company - Apple or otherwise - they should expect to pay fees for that benefit.

HP and Dell need an OS for the hardware they make. They're leveraging on Microsoft's success and they lose a cut to MS. They could make their own OS.

Airlines lose a cut to airports. Food manufacturers lose a cut to supermarkets. Car dealerships lose a cut to car manufacturers. The list is endless.

This is business, my friend. Not charity.

 

[Kaibelf]

Psssst. You can't compare a physical marketplace where space is finite vs an online marketplace.

Psssst. Infrastructure for tech costs money. That's why most people on this board are able to pay for food.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

30% is a large cut for processing a transaction. Especially on a renewal.

Yeah, as if the ONLY thing Apple offered was processing a transaction fee.

 

[DogHouseDub]

I accuse Spotify of using pre-existing artist's agreements as a "Weapon to Harm Musicians".

 

[marty11]

Are you saying it be ok if I owned a store for your or someone else to expect to use my store to sell your product or services? Should a retailer be forced to sell a product that it doesn't want to? Can Babies'R Us be forced to sell adult porn magazines?

A lot of hyperbole in this analogy. Regardless, last time Apple tried to price fix media they received a nice spakning, and I predict it will be the same with Spotify.

 

[samcraig]

Psssst. Infrastructure for tech costs money. That's why most people on this board are able to pay for food.

Missing my original point. Perhaps go back and see what I was originally responding to. Regardless of costs - you cannot compare a retail store with an online one.

 

[Stuke00]

It's actually a really good point. If you view the App Store as a shopping mall, they are charging someone to set up shop and operate there. If you don't like it, you go buy your own plot of land and construct your own building. Then you try to attract potential customers to your new location.

Yes but to play devils advocate, you cannot do that on iOS devices. There are no other store options. Either you sell in the App Store or you don't get to sell on that platform at all.

 

[alexgowers]

I'm kinda on spotifys side. If apple offer the same product and are adding 30% to anothers, it's an anticompetitive issue for sure. I've always felt 30% charge to purchases to be excessive and cause potential issues like this. It should be allowed to offer ways to subscribe to the service without apple or at least offer links to them. If apple blocked payments through safari and only allowed apple pay it would be incredibly unfair, i don't see the apps themselves being any different to embedding a safari tab in an app anyway.

 

[marty11]

Spotify is a much superior music service and Apple must play shady like usual to compete. You all can argue fabboy style all day long. But the fact that Apple tried to price fix the service when Spotify offered the 0.99 promotion says it all. Apple is going to be fined big if they keep this up.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

A lot of hyperbole in this analogy. Regardless, last time Apple tried to price fix media they received a nice spakning, and I predict it will be the same with Spotify.

Too bad this case has NOTHING to do with the eBooks case.

 

[samcraig]

Yeah, as if the ONLY thing Apple offered was processing a transaction fee.

On a renewal - that's pretty much exactly all they do. Which is why after YEARS - they are now lowering it to 15%. Which is still quite high for a credit card transaction. Since you like to talk retail (vs online) - If retailers were charged 15% for their credit card transactions, no store would accept credit cards.