You give and take in a business and use the profitable apps to cover the loss making apps. I'm sure you know the logic of business.
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
You give and take in a business and use the profitable apps to cover the loss making apps. I'm sure you know the logic of business.
Why? It isn't as if Apple treats its competitors any differently than any other company/developer that wants to put their app up on the AppStore, is it? They take the same stance for Spotify as they do for, say, an accounting app that uses subscriptions for a SAAS business model. The fact that Spotify is a competitor doesn't have anything to do with it. This isn't the same thing as, say, Windows. iOS is a fully enclosed and isolated operating system, only running on hardware Apple manufactures itself. There is absolutely no reason Apple should treat its competitors favorably as special cases. The notion itself actually sounds ridiculous, and actually would be anti-competitive against Apple if they were forced to change their own stores rules for everyone simply to accommodate fierce competition in a still emerging market where they are major players as well.
The simple fact is that Spotify would die if it didn't have iOS and its AppStore. Apple has actually already improved the subscription based revenue commission model for ALL of its app developers, and has included its competitors in the favorable changes. Spotify is simply twisting the issue because despite their hundreds of millions in revenue and equity financing, they can't seem to come up with a profitable business model, having never once been even close to profitable.
Nightmare is subjective.
Pros of Spotify: Interface, Music selection suits individual, manicured playlists i.e. discover weekly
Pros of Apple Music: Easily shareable with friends, iCloud and simultaneous downloads on other devices, etc
Cons of Both: Few if non-existent classical music, musical, Asian music, Latino music, etc.
To each his own
This is an incredibly long thread that ultimately boils down to 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints that have existed for centuries without hope for a middle ground:
- If a company builds a successful model then it has earned any profits it pulls in, and there is no ethical reason to restrict any of its business practices since the invisible hand will correct, and competition will balance the scales
- If a company has established a monopoly-level control of a market then it has tremendous power to prevent any competition from gaining a foothold, and thus breaks the possibility of any future competition, so there must be balances in the system, possibly through regulation, to assure a level of competition continues to exist.
As utterly pro-Apple as I am, I am very much in the second camp, looking back historically to why monopoly trade laws were put in place in the first place.
But nothing I say will sway a fervent libertarian/objectivist, and vice versa. So the dance of politics continues to try to find some kind of compromise in our system of self-governance.
- If a company builds a successful model then it has earned any profits it pulls in, and there is no ethical reason to restrict any of its business practices since the invisible hand will correct, and competition will balance the scales
- If a company has established a monopoly-level control of a market then it has tremendous power to prevent any competition from gaining a foothold, and thus breaks the possibility of any future competition, so there must be balances in the system, possibly through regulation, to assure a level of competition continues to exist.
As utterly pro-Apple as I am, I am very much in the second camp, looking back historically to why monopoly trade laws were put in place in the first place.
But nothing I say will sway a fervent libertarian/objectivist, and vice versa. So the dance of politics continues to try to find some kind of compromise in our system of self-governance.
None of the above answers my question. Congratulations. I answered your question and you circumvented mine.
Also - do you think Apple should be able to control whether or not Spotify advertises that users can sign up for less on the website?
Now you're being inconsistent. What about Developers who give their apps for free but make a ton off of in-app advertising while Apple gets none of that take? Maybe Apple should not allow those apps or only allow developers to use iAds. Do you agree with that? Afterall - Apple needs to pay for their infrastructure. Someone playing a game is using the iPhone even more than when I order a pizza.
Right. Missing from this discussion is the price of the phone itself. Obviously Apple isn't relying on this 30% to run the App Store.
It is the same as going into Target and seeing a sign saying it is cheaper at Wal-Mart.....
I see Elizabeth Warren has aroused her followers who share her belief that the government should decide how much profit is allowed. Of course, if the government would simply hurry up and own all means of production, i.e., socialism, we could dispense with these arguments as there would be no need for profit. I am not sure which government agency would have developed the App store, but the Department of Commerce would probably do a great job of running it.
Well, if you have so many complaints, just don't use iPhones or Apple products.
Personally I don't like companies whine and whine about their rivals' pricing and policies when their own business model is a problem. It's only a matter of time Spotify closes down or get acquired by Apple, Samsung, Microsoft or Google.
There's nothing inconsistent. I can only say you are too idealistic about how businesses are run.
Wow. Just jump to the personal attacks. Don't bother with math or anything.
How much would a sentient being expect to pay in expenses, taxes and overhead for the App store last year?
$400-500 million transaction fees
$1-2 billion in data center expansion
Personnel
Bandwidth, connection and hosting
25% effective tax rate
I could see Apple making 2-3 billion in profit on the App Store on $20 billion in revenue. 10-15% marign. Right in line with what I suggested assuming smaller revenue splits on the rest of the iTunes Store categories.
So you didn't like Apple during the whole e-book fiasco?
I'm not at all idealistic. I'm just not black and white like you are. For example - I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater like you suggest.
Spotfy can tell all their clients to sign-up via the web....just not in their App that Apple is hosting on their equipment, using their power, using their manpower.....
Hey, would you read the complaint above?
The letter says Apple turned down a new version of the app while citing “business model rules” and demanded that Spotify use Apple’s billing system if “Spotify wants to use the app to acquire new customers and sell subscriptions.”
You need an App Store to run the new version of Spotify.
Spotify is being ridiculous...
I run a business that sells diesel parts. Ebay is one of many outlets that we use to sell these parts online. Ebay, like Apple, takes a cut of every sell we make. Ebay does not allow us to redirect customers to our personal website. And why should they allow that? Of course we could sell to customers a little cheaper through our direct website, but the point is that Ebay deserves the cut they take for doing what they do... which is connecting my business with millions of potential customers.
Spotify is no different than my business using a platform created by somebody else for their benefit. Not to mention that unlike spotify and Apple, my business doesn't directly compete with anything Ebay does. Spotify really needs to get a grip...
I run a business that sells diesel parts. Ebay is one of many outlets that we use to sell these parts online. Ebay, like Apple, takes a cut of every sell we make. Ebay does not allow us to redirect customers to our personal website. And why should they allow that? Of course we could sell to customers a little cheaper through our direct website, but the point is that Ebay deserves the cut they take for doing what they do... which is connecting my business with millions of potential customers.
Spotify is no different than my business using a platform created by somebody else for their benefit. Not to mention that unlike spotify and Apple, my business doesn't directly compete with anything Ebay does. Spotify really needs to get a grip...
This is the typical simplistic rhetoric I see ever in defense of unfair business practices.
1 - Spotify controls pricing only up to the level beyond their core licensing costs. Same with Apple. Apple's pricing model guarantees that no other streaming service can possibly compete with theirs on even financial ground since they add a mandatory 30% surcharge to other services they don't have to pay.
2 - You're basically just arguing that Spotify could make decisions that undermine their existence as a company, rather than admit there is an unfair bias against them.
3 - You simplistically ignore the fact that nobody has such a simplistic relationship to their technology on a single-app basis. But you do make a good argument why more of us ought to consider ditching a company that makes good tech because of their monopolistic choices. But that's why anti-trust laws exist in the first place: to prevent situations from getting this entrenched.
So many of the libertarians here also patently ignore the vast benefits Apple reaps from broad developer support. There is more to it than the costs of maintaining the app store. That can be looked at as the cost of doing business to maintain such a rich app ecosystem that their platform continues to be desirable to consumers.
Remember how the Mac could never quite grab any market share because everything was Windows first? Well Apple is the new Microsoft in that regards.
[doublepost=1467320060][/doublepost]
Your example is not relevant.
Now what if Ebay was also in the business of selling diesel parts in direct competition with your business, but could consistently undercut you since they didn't charge themselves the overhead they charge you.
If Apple weren't a direct competitor in these markets it would be a slightly different story. But this is traditional monopoly behavior.
So? Just let Apple rot, as you predicted.
I hope you read my exchange with Sam.
FACT ONE: Spotify has control over their pricing. Spotify charges ZERO for 70m free subscribers. 70m x 6.99 is better than 30m x 9.99.
FACT TWO: Spotify can decide ditching iPhones. What's wrong? If Apple is such a idiotic hegemon as Spotify suggests, leave it. Maybe iPhone users will ditch iPhones for Androids because of Spotify.
FACT THREE: Consumers can ditch iPhone is Spotify is such an important part of their lives. Apple did modify their Music app because of consumers' power. Apple did modify their Music subscription because of Taylor Swift.
But if you want to sell your products through a different channel than Ebay, YOU are allowed to do that. Any apps on IOS must be both approved and sold through Apple. I have an idea, let's encourage Ebay to first review and approve your diesel parts to be sold on their network before you are allowed to sell on Ebay ... how would you like them Apples.
