I am going to guess because it would not offer similar performance and functionality.
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
I am going to guess because it would not offer similar performance and functionality.
Sure set the terms for the store to whatever you want, just don't force use of the store.
First, I totally agree that wanting Apple to forward the information is BS. But, as far as a ToS, if that in and of itself is anticompetitive or sets up Apple to be Anticomeptitve, we have an issue.
What is surprising to me is that the very way the OS and the store are run hasn't been contested, at least not as far as I am aware, and I consider myself relatively up to date on these things.
Greedgate is alive and well, Apple is getting more disgusting everyday.
I'm skeptical. If that's the case then Spotify needs to lay that out and make their case. Or hire better better programmers and get the job done.
It's irrelevant because you're talking about the customer and I'm talking about the developer. The ability for customers to seek out the Spotify website on their own doesn't change the fact that Apple is purposefully hindering a developer's ability to promote their own services from within their own applications.
I may be wrong in this, but I do believe that, based on limits within iOS itself, mobile safari can;t play audio/video in the background. That would render spotify in Safari borderline useless to almost everyone, I would think.
We have competition laws in the developed world for a very good reason - to stop excessively large companies using their size and heft to destroy the competition. This is precisely what Standard Oil did, and that is precisely what Apple are doing in this circumstance.
If Microsoft hadn't been kept on a leash way back when, Apple might not of recovered in the manner that they did. This has to be a prominent feature of a healthy economy.
If Microsoft hadn't been kept on a leash way back when, Apple might not of recovered in the manner that they did. This has to be a prominent feature of a healthy economy.
At its core this is simply terrible customer service from Apple as the iPhone buyers are the ones paying the 30% subscription premium, not to mention these are likely younger folk who they can't afford to lose to Android.
[doublepost=1467328833][/doublepost]
They are providing the ONLY way cable can be viewed, I know you're trying to make it like it has to be a 1-1 comparison. But it doesn't, and as absurd as my example is, I think it's just as absurd that Apple forces the user into a very bad user experience to try to cut out competition. For all the lip service apple gives about the user comes first, it's a bunch of BS. Their greed is more than showing that in cases like this. It's completely unnecessary and turns people off. They aren't getting the money because these companies aren't opting into it so what good is it doing at this point?
They are providing the ONLY way cable can be viewed, I know you're trying to make it like it has to be a 1-1 comparison. But it doesn't, and as absurd as my example is, I think it's just as absurd that Apple forces the user into a very bad user experience to try to cut out competition. For all the lip service apple gives about the user comes first, it's a bunch of BS. Their greed is more than showing that in cases like this. It's completely unnecessary and turns people off. They aren't getting the money because these companies aren't opting into it so what good is it doing at this point?
Last edited:
The biggest problem is that a Spotify web app would only be a good solution for streaming. It'd be hard, if not impossible, to store media for offline playback on the device as they likely do in their native app with the current web standards. Even if standards bodies added these to the standards they manage, Apple could take their merry ass time implementing them.
The other problem with that is that Apple has been letting all of the old hooks in Safari that let web authors make their web apps appear alongside native apps in the home screen fall into almlst disrepair since iOS 7.
Last edited:
Right. You can do the same with Pandora and many other apps. Apple is not allowed to prevent people from paying for services outside of their platform.
The reason they don't allow apps to encourage people to go to their own site and pay is because it's a less than ideal experience for the user. It's far easier for a user to simply pay in the app itself and have it processed through their iTunes account which is already linked then to send them to a website where they have to enter their information along with credit card info, to sign up.
Users are free to choose where they pay for a service. Those that do so through the app itself are doing so not because it means Apple gets a cut but because they find it easier to do.
It's part of the AppStore policy not to have links etc directing customers to purchase a subscription outside of the app. If the companies don't like it. Then just have the app on the AppStore and advertise your service on the radio, internet, tv, newspapers or whatever other ways you can. You want Apple to advertise for free, not happening.
Apple made the OS and AppStore along with its rules. Spotify abided by these rules until Apple because a threat to them, when they entered the music streaming subscription business. So now Spotify think the rules are unfair!??? Spotify, the government and no one else anywhere has no right to call foul play.
Do what Amazon did and make a phone. Team up with blackberry or something. There are so many options and possibilities out there all they have to do is think and push through till it becomes a reality. But no, they want to be lazy, sit on their bums and cry bloody murder. GTFOH with that garbage.
Apple doesn't have to offer these services for free. They could start by not treading software like music singles. They could, instead of slurping off of the top of each transaction, offer a developers program that is not free (costs $1k-$5 per year per developer) like other platforms do and have done. It's not that hard.
They've never let the App Store mature any until just recently. And the stuff they introduced isn't what their developer community was asking for - the developer community wants to be able to offer people who use their software paid upgrades. Not particularly subscriptions.
I agree that calling the App Store a monopoly isn't exactly fair or entirely honest, but they are being super stubborn when they really don't have to be about this.
In the end, this is why open platforms like the web will eventually win out (if not now, in the future).
You miss Spotify's point. Spotify isn't asking for a reduction in Apple's payment fee. Instead, Spotify wants to advertise alternative payment options within their app—including a link for convenience, allowing its subscribers to pay a rate equal to Apple Music. Others can still pay the surcharge for the convenience of using Apple's payment service.
Exactly this. Why should Apple give preferential treatment to a competitor? It is the same for all apps on iOS. This is the major point here. It is the standard cost of doing business on iOS, it isn't a set of policies specifically pointed at competitors. That would change things, but that is not what is going on here.
[doublepost=1467330400][/doublepost]
@OldSchoolMacGuy just said it best. It isn't convenient for the user at all. It sucks for the user. Also, again, @Defthand 's point stands. The terms are the same for every app, not some detrimental treatment specific to apps providing a service in competition with Apple's own.
Fine, make it a simple splash page that says to login or go on a web browser to sign up. No link necessary.
Free apps in Apple's app store from devs still have to pay Apple the yearly developer fee.
That's exactly what's wrong with Apple's model, it's abusive and ridiculous for all service-like apps like Spotify, Tidal, Netflix etc. Please remember the 30% cut model was designed 5-6 years ago or so primarily for a single-purchase app. The model is now outdated for service/subscription apps and it needs to change.
Apple is getting destroyed by Spotify in terms of subscribers so they resort to this. Why am I not surprised.
Resort to what, exactly? Enforcing their AppStore policies that apply to all developers and apps and have been in place forever?
Yeah. But they could have just one eeb app and never have to make a mobile app for anyone. Think of all of the saved money.