Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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'

jameslmoser said:
Exactly. This is not how innovation and progress work. It would not be in the best interest of consumers for every company to develop its own phone and os so you could use their service. It would be like every every website having it own protocol or browser for you to use to access their site, every TV company designing their own video format, or every electronic company designing its own power plug.... obviously this argument can be taken to absurdum, which should be indication enough that it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This exactly! Perfectly articulated!
 
Clearly, no one in this discussion has had to complete a employer-mandated primer on anti-trust law. The question isn't whether Apple's payment management fee is fair. The issue is when Apple requires its use or makes it difficult for a service to inform subscribers of more affordable options. This too wouldn't violate antitrust rules if the size of the customer base is small. When a product or service becomes ubiquitous and impacts a sizeable consumer population, regulators have to ensure players aren't harmed by controls/rules set by one player. Or do I need to remind everyone that Apple conspired with book publishers to fix the pricing of ebooks while Amazon wanted to use its retail powers to offer cheaper book prices for its customers.
 
Do people forget about how inexpensive this is? I don't think any music subscription should be under the price of 3 or four full albums per month.

At the current rates, artists make $60-$85 per 10,000 plays. I think there needs to be an uprising of musician unions.

They're all criminal. They all believe hard work and success should be next to nothing in cost.
 
fortheus said:
When sign up as developer program doesn't they click on agree to Apple terms?

Just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
It isn't clear if Spotify is doing anything against the TOS. Basically they are showing an advertisement. They aren't directly linking to a third party payment service for Spotify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig
brendu said:
Fine, make it a simple splash page that says to login or go on a web browser to sign up. No link necessary.
Click to expand...

Basically the same thing. You're directing users who opens an app to an external source. You should be able to use the app without having to go elsewhere.
 
mozumder said:
I've never used the app to buy subscriptions. I always went to the website.

is using the app to purchase a subscription really necessary?
Click to expand...
Is it necessary? No.

However, it removes SIGNIFICANT amounts of friction for the user. When the user decides they want to purchase, the option is right there. Also, you need to be intelligent enough to realize there is an alternate purchase method and generous enough to care about this companies revenue that you will jump through hoops to be sure they get 100% of it since Apple prevents you from so much as mentioning the purchase is available elsewhere (or, god forbid, linking to it).

Can you imagine telling grandma - look, to get the spotify subscription you need to leave this app and go to this web page. Once there, click this link, then you need to create an account, enter your info, etc. Would grandma make it? Not likely.

Your conversion rates will be significantly lower. Likely so much lower that the loss of 30% of your gross revenue to your direct competitor is sadly justified by the increase in conversion.
 
"?
waitandwait said:
15m Apple Watch are sold (>50% of market share). Samsung at a distant 7m. Bad?

You can choose Android and your Spotify if you are so righteous
Click to expand...

I chose Spotify along time ago, and not impressed with Apple Music (just like many others). As as for an Apple Watch, I have chosen.. and it wasn't an Apple watch! I was excited about it but was disappointed with it's execution.

And I didn't go with Android wear either 😉

So there you go.. my righteousness was followed up with my wallet. it's a shame because i think OSX is amazing.. Just anything under Tim has been a disaster.
 
OldSchoolMacGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you really as naive as you sound?
 
macfacts said:
Free apps in Apple's app store from devs still have to pay Apple the yearly developer fee.
Click to expand...

And that about covers the costs of all the resources they provide developers, discounted admissions to WWDC, the cost of bandwidth so people can download all those apps, having a large team of people review all those apps, and the countless other costs. Apple isn't profiting big from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cigsm
Is it not funny all this time Spotify has not made one complain at all until Apple Music gained some subscribers and they probably lost a few either Spotify is crap now so yeah I said it.
 
PizzaBoxStyle said:
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).
Click to expand...
The reason why the web doesn't win out as much because of 1 performance and 2 piracy.
 
BaldiMac said:
Does Apple demand different terms from it's competitors in the App Store than it asks from apps that it doesn't compete with?

Seems like the answer is "No" to me.
Click to expand...

To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make?" If the toll is unfair, excessive and a prime example of rent-seeking behavior if I've ever seen it, whether Apple chooses to offer competing products in the space or not, it's still monopolistic practice. And yes, it's correct to say monopolistic because, let's not forget, it isn't possible to install a program on an iOS device without going through Apple. They have a monopoly on app distribution on their devices. It's true. Deal with it. There used to be a time when anti-trust laws mattered and were enforced and, wonder of wonders, people actually thought that was the right thing to do. It saddens me that people who aren't even employed by Apple are actually wasting their time advocating for Apple to keep and strengthen their monopoly position. Let's not forget that the ONLY party that is helped by a monopolistic power's position, truly, is the monopolistic power. Everyone else pays tribute.

/Guess that makes me a flippin' commie on this forum. Me and my silly idealistic idea that capitalism is about free markets and fair competition. Guess Adam Smith was a commie too.
 
kildraik said:
Do people forget about how inexpensive this is? I don't think any music subscription should be under the price of 3 or four full albums per month.

At the current rates, artists make $60-$85 per 10,000 plays. I think there needs to be an uprising of musician unions.

They're all criminal. They all believe hard work and success should be next to nothing in cost.
Click to expand...
Actually that isn't true. Users think that. If users were willing to pay more money then artists would make more money.
[doublepost=1467337096][/doublepost]
castlerock said:
To quote Hillary, "What difference does it make?" If the toll is unfair, excessive and a prime example of rent-seeking behavior if I've ever seen it, whether Apple chooses to offer competing products in the space or not, it's still monopolistic practice. And yes, it's correct to say monopolistic because, let's not forget, it isn't possible to install a program on an iOS device without going through Apple. They have a monopoly on app distribution on their devices. It's true. Deal with it. There used to be a time when anti-trust laws mattered and were enforced and, wonder of wonders, people actually thought that was the right thing to do. It saddens me that people who aren't even employed by Apple are actually wasting their time advocating for Apple to keep and strengthen their monopoly position. Let's not forget that the ONLY party that is helped by a monopolistic power's position, truly, is the monopolistic power. Everyone else pays tribute.

/Guess that makes me a flippin' commie on this forum. Me and my silly idealistic idea that capitalism is about free markets and fair competition. Guess Adam Smith was a commie too.
Click to expand...
You signed up to the rules. You don't get to agree to the rules then complain the rules are what they are. Like the infrastructure and the platform don't cost money to keep up and running. This isn't the government where people have a duty to complain. Why complain about the contract you agreed to. Every time Spotify has an update they start complaining about Apple.

You want 100% fair competition you build your own platform and compete with Apple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cigsm
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
eniaczz said:
Apple has deteriorated sooooooooo much
Click to expand...
At least the App Review has. The left doesn't know what the right is doing. I have an app that is about babies pooping in 13 languages. Half approved half not because Apple is saying that it is "offensive". The game is not graphic. No babies are depicted directly as pooping. What is most disturbing is that Apple maintains a "poop game" category in their search engine! The very term they are saying is disgusting and offensive! Worst, they have apps in the App Store that refer to sh*t which I pulled up from searching the App Store. Who approved those apps? I smell something worse than poop. I smell bias and favoritism.
 
TsMkLg068426 said:
Is it not funny all this time Spotify has not made one complain at all until Apple Music gained some subscribers and they probably lost a few either Spotify is crap now so yeah I said it.
Click to expand...
Actually they (and other music services) have complained about Apple's dubious methods since before Apple Music was even launched. Not to mention that Spotify hasn't lost subscribers, but grown faster than ever since then.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8558647/apple-ftc-spotify-app-store-antitrust
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/4/8540935/apple-labels-spotify-streaming
 
  • Like
Reactions: macfacts and jon3543
MyopicPaideia said:
Yup, they just did that.
Click to expand...

15% is still absurd. I wouldn't pay a 15% Apple tax any more than I would pay Panasonic 15% for use of the Netflix app in my plasma or Pioneer 15% for the Spotify in my AVR. This whole discussion is beyond stupid. I've never signed up for a service through an app on an iOS device, and you better believe I never will after learning how it works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt and trifid
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back