If we had to use your store to buy everything we ever wanted, I would say yes you should have to sell those things. =)
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
If we had to use your store to buy everything we ever wanted, I would say yes you should have to sell those things. =)
Yea and you're still free to go and sign up via the website, just like every single Spotify customer.
Hence my post yesterday in the other stupid thread:
Internally, Spotify calls it "The Apple Tax on Stupid People."
Internally, Apple calls it "Our Customer Contempt Policy."
Wouldn't it be nice for Apple to treat customers respectfully and not try to rip them off?
But Apple isn't. A developer can promote their own services in their own applications via in-app purchasing. If they choose to do so, Apple charges them 30% to cover their costs to provide that functionality and service. If they feel they can provide that functionality and service at a lower percentage by doing it themselves, they can choose to forgo in-app purchasing: as many major developers have.
So Apple should give companies access to their customers, house the infrastructure for apps as well as support for free?
No they should let devs sell direct to users like every other os, don't force use of the store
What platform? Repeating the same silly argument doesn't make it any more valid. If Spotify works in a browser then I'm not sure Apple is really providing anything of value, platform-wise, since browser-based content delivery isn't tolled, shouldn't be, and frankly would be difficult if not impossible to toll anyway. You completely ignored all of my arguments and talked over them with the same stale talking point that I obviously don't agree with. Frankly I'm not sure why you even bothered to reply since your response addressed exactly none of my points.
As far as your argument that "you signed up to the rules" (no, I didn't, Spotify did). Well, it seems to me that there is definitely a point of contract law that does indeed apply here, and I frankly don't know the answer. Does Apple have in its developer contract that they can ding app submissions that remove in-app-purchase for apps that used to have IAP? Then I suppose you have a point. Otherwise I might construe (although I'm not a lawyer) rejecting an app submission simply for removing the IAP option as tortious interference with their business. In other words, I wouldn't assume, unless the developer specifically agreed to that condition, that Apple has a right to reject app submissions purely for this business model reason. I might imagine this will be litigated.
And why won't you address the anti-trust / monopolistic practices / rent-seeking-behavior argument? Perhaps because it has merit?
I don't think all would crumble down necessarily, but I do think there is a lot to consider. Security is one thing, but I also think Apple does some of this to protect their brand and image. Just consider how many Apple users don't have a clue. Ever seen a person with "no service" in the top left make a comment about a "****** phone?" You try to explain the difference between a computer running slow and slow internet but they just don't understand?
My point is that I think Apple has other motivations for keeping the current system. There are tons of users out there that think iPhones suck every time an app crashes or every time a photo fails to upload to Instagram. Apple "protecting" these users is often annoying to more knowledgeable users, but I understand it.
In terms of popularity I'm not sure how other options for downloading apps would fare. But eventually a grandpa would download an app from the web that crashes all the time and think his iPhone sucks because of it.
To me if a person really wants that kind of freedom with their device then Android is probably the better platform for them. That said, I've personally always found Androids customization and options to be more superficial than anything. Its no coincidence that Android fanboys would tout the varying capabilities of different Android devices but then almost unanimously choose a Samsung that was essentially the closest thing Android offered to an iPhone.
When Apple sets up a business in USA, don't they have to obey the laws?
Just my 2 cents
Yes, it does, and I love it! Because guys like you hate it and can't stand it. always dismissive of Apple's importance and impact. Always with the BS "Android did it first", "Eddy Cue should get fired", well... Spotify doesn't even care if google has the same rules about this.
You are confusing apps and music services/subscriptions. Apple has nothing to do with the latter yet collects money pretending that they do.
Very interesting analogy, I think I might have changed my mind on this. I had previously thought Apples terms were fair, although I always had reservations about them taking a slice of recurring subscriptions. Now however it seems clear that it can't be fair and equitable for them to do this.
The question remains though, is it legal? You say real world tenants have terms written into contracts to prevent a landlord from doing this. That suggests that a contract could exist without such language that would be legal, even if it would make the tenants business unviable?
It is somewhat strange to watch this. Tech companies arguing over how to make money, while the sources of their income, the artists and songwriters, earn only just fractions of what they should...
Here's an actual opinion from me, instead of just messing.
The App store is part of the reason I buy an iPhone.
Therefore, Apple has to provide the App Store in order to get my business.
This undermines the argument that Spotify is piggybacking off Apple's server etc etc costs.
Spotify should not have to pay those costs, because its presence increases the value of the app store.
That's a good argument. However, since about 600 people have commented already I am sure no-one will see these words of wisdom. Just messing.
The App store is part of the reason I buy an iPhone.
Therefore, Apple has to provide the App Store in order to get my business.
This undermines the argument that Spotify is piggybacking off Apple's server etc etc costs.
Spotify should not have to pay those costs, because its presence increases the value of the app store.
That's a good argument. However, since about 600 people have commented already I am sure no-one will see these words of wisdom. Just messing.
When Apple originally came up with the 30% cut were subscription apps even in the picture? It's one thing to take 30% of something that has a one time cost of $0.99 or $1.99 but should that apply to $10/mo subscriptions? Apple's cost in supporting the Spotify app isn't anymore than what it costs them to support free apps.
Well, I dont know about anyone else but I can answer that. Would I be ok with it???? No way. Want to know why??? Because its a horrible irrelevant analogy. Now, if Comcast started the "Comcast Shopping Channel" and Samsung requested to sell their tv's on it(its not their right to do so) Comcast agreed but only for a fee........yes, I would be fine with that.
Want to know why??? Because Samsung doesnt HAVE to sell tv's on the "Comcast Shopping Channel" They could put out magazine ads, billboards, radio ads, commercials, all informing people that they can purchase Samsung products elsewhere.
Likewise, Apple doesnt FORBID Spotify from selling their subscription for cheaper. They are free to do so, people can sign up for service on the web. Spotify has numerous options of informing people how to avoid paying the increased fee for the convenience of getting it through the app store. They can even pull their app and sell exclusively through Android. To say they are at the mercy of tyrannical Apple is laughable. It is not a companies nor an individual's right to have Apple market their product on the Apple App Store.This is how business works in a capitalist society. Request to sell your product in Apple's store.... Apple agrees under some such conditions. You accept that....or you dont. You have no RIGHT to compel Apple or any company to sell your product AND dictate terms of of that sale.
Here endeth the lesson.
[doublepost=1467353978][/doublepost]
You see????? Chi-Town gets it!!!!!
Dubious says the competitor that before Apple Music was the M O N O P O L Y.
Poor poor Spitify.
Again, and not sure why some are'nt getting this, Spotify can and does sell directly to the consumer. You DO NOT have to purchase Spotify through the app store. You can buy you rsubscription elsewhere AND STILL have Spotify on your Iphone and pay zero extra going to Apple.
So your wish is granted. People wanting Spotify arent forced to use the store.
Let me address your assertion. 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.
For the record, I've never said "Android did it first" or "Eddy Cue should get fired". I do not own anything Android, only one device I own is Windows, the rest I own are Macs/iOS. I'm an Apple fan, BUT, as I said, I do call Apple out when I see there is an issue at bay.
I'm not stressed at all about this situation. If it's proven to be anti competitive, then Apple should accept the consequences and restructure its business to operate better, right by it's own values, shareholders and customers.
Apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than IAP. [...]
Auto-renewing subscriptions should only be offered using in-app purchase and may only be used for periodicals (e.g. newspapers, magazines), business apps (e.g. enterprise, productivity, professional creative, cloud storage), media apps (e.g. video, audio, voice, photo sharing), and other approved services (e.g. dating, dieting, weather).
[doublepost=1467356305][/doublepost]Apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than IAP. [...]
Auto-renewing subscriptions should only be offered using in-app purchase and may only be used for periodicals (e.g. newspapers, magazines), business apps (e.g. enterprise, productivity, professional creative, cloud storage), media apps (e.g. video, audio, voice, photo sharing), and other approved services (e.g. dating, dieting, weather).
Auto-renewing subscriptions should only be offered using in-app purchase and may only be used for periodicals (e.g. newspapers, magazines), business apps (e.g. enterprise, productivity, professional creative, cloud storage), media apps (e.g. video, audio, voice, photo sharing), and other approved services (e.g. dating, dieting, weather).
[doublepost=1467356305][/doublepost]Apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than IAP. [...]
Auto-renewing subscriptions should only be offered using in-app purchase and may only be used for periodicals (e.g. newspapers, magazines), business apps (e.g. enterprise, productivity, professional creative, cloud storage), media apps (e.g. video, audio, voice, photo sharing), and other approved services (e.g. dating, dieting, weather).
If you sell your cars in my showroom, the customers can only purchase fuel from my gas station.