Once again - you cannot compare a physical store with a virtual one. Analogy fail.
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.
Spotify Accuses Apple of Using App Store Approval Process as a 'Weapon to Harm Competitors'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Once again - you cannot compare a physical store with a virtual one. Analogy fail.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely ... even for a company who loves to portray itself as some kind of a loving, caring, altruistic company that loves to take up causes protecting the little guy, the downtrodden, the abused, and the disenfranchised. It's enough to make you sick.
For years companies, like Apple, claimed Microsoft was anticompetitive and wanted to "crush" its competition. Think about the battle Microsoft has fought with the EU. Well with Apple's success, and they are deserving of that success, the shoe is on the other foot now.
I wonder how long it will take for public opinion to change towards Apple, I think for now, it's pretty good since they make good products ... but let's see what happens as politicians and maybe consumer groups start to pile on.
For years companies, like Apple, claimed Microsoft was anticompetitive and wanted to "crush" its competition. Think about the battle Microsoft has fought with the EU. Well with Apple's success, and they are deserving of that success, the shoe is on the other foot now.
I wonder how long it will take for public opinion to change towards Apple, I think for now, it's pretty good since they make good products ... but let's see what happens as politicians and maybe consumer groups start to pile on.
Lousy analogy. Apps serve to increase sales of Apple hardware. Apple's profit margin is mammoth by corporate standards while Walmart's is razor thin. Walmart does offer free or very low cost products which it knows will bring in customers, such as the American Express Bluebird card.
Really? They have complained. Just not recently. And like others have said - does Apple get a cut of every uber or pizza that gets ordered through an app that was sold on their store? There are inconsistencies.
On the other hand , Spotify barely even pay artists... I should know...
If this 30% is so key to them, then they need to rethink their strategy to make it work with the app store. Why doesn't Spotify just limit the in-app sign up to only the free tier, then send the people an email asking to verify their email address and THEN mention the cost of their subscription plans and how to sign up and unlock ALL the features of the app. Problem solved in my opinion. Or they just do the right thing and charge their clients the 9.99 and suck up the 30% "finders fee / cost of doing business" paid to Apple. Spotify obviously doesn't have the consumer's interest in mind if they feel they have to charge 12.99 to make up for the 30% loss. They just want the convenience of apple handling all the billing etc and not pay for it.
Mostly. But I also think that a developer should be able to explain or offer deals in their app to encourage people to sign up on a website. Perhaps not a live link. But they shouldn't be forbidden to have a banner add offering something from their service. I think that's an over-reach.
I'd like to see the iPhone compete in the handset market without companies developing software to run on their OS.
You probably don't remember when Apple had that problem and their market share was in the single digits.
What other stores are there? Apple App Store and Google Play Store are pretty much the only two options in the world when it comes to mobile devices, and their respective store terms are pretty much in lockstep with each other. Moreover, both stores refuse to negotiate (because they know there is no competition), and thus force developers into contracts of adhesion. It's a duopoly.
My issue with this is Apple essentially gets to pillage any ideas they want. They have this app store, and whenever a developer comes up with a good and popular idea, Apple can wait until it reaches critical mass (which they know exactly when that is due to their exclusive insight into data) and copy the idea and offer it on terms the original developer cannot possibly compete with.
The developer takes all the risk, invests all the time in growing it, and Apple can just muscle them out whenever they want.
According to Computerworld, Apple generated $20 billion in app store revenue in 2015 and kept about $6 billion of that. Smells like profit to me.
Apple charges the app companies it competes with the same fee as those it does not compete with. As long as all vendors are treated similarly, how is spotify really hurt by apple creating a music app any more than if some other company came in offering a music app?
Sure, Apple does have the benefit of receiving the full price paid, but hey, what else are they going to do? Charge themselves 30% and give the money to who?
That all seems irrelevant to the point. They are operating the most successful store of its kind with the current pricing policies. And they just lowered pricing is one area. It's hard to argue that they are charging too much based on that.
Of course you can. You just have to do it carefully.
Unreasonable??? Your scenario is what is preposterous, and ridiculous. In your scenario, without the rules and app payment structure that Apple has set up, EVERYONE would sell FREE apps, and direct users to "pay" for more features outside the structure of Apple's curated App Store. In that non-sensical business structure Apple would pay for EVERYTHING (servers, bandwidth, man-power for maintenance, curation, etc.), and make absolutely NOTHING.
You, are unreasonable. Not Apple.
This is certainly scary for indy developers. A lot of the low hanging fruit has already been copied by Apple.
Your argument is flawed. Sure, Apple, or Babies R Us, can refuse to sell any product from their store, however say Babies R Us sold their own line of adult porn magazines, and also sold other brands of adult porn magazines, but didn't want to sell your particular brand of adult porn magazine because it was too successful but used some other kind of ******** excuse not to sell it, then I think you can see what problem is with what Apple is doing.
This happens too often on Apple's platform, it happened when Apple released their Night Shift and they pulled the app they stole the idea from and eventually put it back when people noticed. It happened with Google Maps when Apple released their own map App. Apple consistently pulls or refuses to update competitive apps until they can vet (or rather steal) what competitive features it offers in their own products.
Apple can either participate in a free market or they can stop being obtuse and simply remove all competitive apps and let everybody know exactly what kind of market Apple prefers, something more akin to how China runs their economy.
That all seems irrelevant to the point. They are operating the most successful store of its kind with the current pricing policies. And they just lowered pricing is one area. It's hard to argue that they are charging too much based on that.
Of course you can. You just have to do it carefully.
I would think the fact that they lowered the price is proof that they were charging too much for renewals?
No, you don't consume Uber or Dominos on the iPhone. Duh.
But you consume Netflix, ESPN or HBO on the iPhone..
Netflix, ESPN and HBO did not complain because they know that's the rule to the game. Show me links please.
Netflix's business model is built on mobile applications and they have a business model which supports it. Spotify's advisors have repeated many times because Spotify is making losses after losses because of their 70m free streamers.
Would rather have members think critically and rationally than just have a bunch of homers here.
I think it goes even further. Why is the gov't so enthralled with going after Apple all of a sudden? Is it because Tim is sponsoring a Republican fundraiser? Is that why Warren is so upset? Is Kroger breaking the law by selling their brand of Cheerios next to the real Cheerios, but for 20 cents less? Isn't this the exact same argument. Do you think Kroger is going to let General Mills hang a sign that says "come to our website and get the same product cheaper directly from us"?
Agreed. I'm a huge Apple fan and wish them well, but there's a long history of big tech companies using their platforms in de facto monopoly fashion. Apple shouldn't be allowed to do this. Selling things is one thing, using your platform to offer a marketplace is another. Apple is being anti-competitive to suit itself.
Your nose is off if you think revenue and profit smell the same.
Apple kept $6 billion in revenue according to the article. You still need to subtract expenses, taxes and overhead before you start catching the scent of profit.
Well Apple "price fixed" with the collusion of the book publishers. Spotify is clearly not working with Apple to fix prices.
It would be anti-competitive if Apple disallowed others from offering a competing product (and Apple has done just that in other categories as iOS gains features, it's just that the companies affected were small enough to not be able to raise a fuss).
Apps are currently allowed to do this. They do not have to offer only in-app purchases. If I understand correctly, Spotify themselves now only offer subscriptions outside of their app (they have removed in-app purchasing). Amazon and their subsidiaries (like Comixology) also do not offer in-app purchasing, requiring you to order or subscribe outside of the app.