I signed up to Spotify using the main app, I don't have to pay the extra 30% fee. Why should I be forced to pay extra to sign up using the iPhone?
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
That's Spotify's decision to pass the cost along to the consumer. A business may charge one price on their site but then more on Amazon to account for the selling fee. That's how it works in marketplaces.
Do you understand why people say that? It is because Apple sued Samsung because Apple believes they invented rounded corners, scroll to bounce, round icons, icons being displayed in a grid formation, slide to unlock. Most Apple customers believe that so people are just setting them straight.
I think the charges themselves are fine. Whether it's 1%, 15%, or 30%, does not matter. Apple and Google can charge whatever they want.
The unreasonable part is Apple entering the music streaming business, and then using their mobile app store business to squeeze out competitors to the music streaming business. Apple should not be allowed to do that. Apple should receive a large fine if they continue to do so. Apple should not be allowed to prohibit apps based on criteria different than it applies to itself.
You quoted two of us but responded to just one so I'll have to assume you aimed your comments at me too.
No, I was not requiring a 1-1 comparison. I stated that what you described is an affiliate marketer situation and it happens all the time. There's nothing special about Samsung taking a fairly large cut of a subscription if a Samsung user subscribes from a Samsung platform. It's not illegal or unethical and in fact quite common even in scenarios where the affiliate isn't in the consumption stream at all.
Second Samsung in that scenario is NOT the only way in which cable can be viewed. There are many manufacturers of televisions just as there are many phone manufacturers and app stores. Further, just like in the Apple situation, Comcast would continue to be able to obtain subscribers independent of Samsung and be able to convey their programming to those subscribers on Samsung devices without any further fees.
Finally, armchair quarterbacking a company's strategy can be fun but seldom successful. I'm sure Apple has evaluated the business model of App Store much deeper than any of us can (lacking complete data). They've obviously done so enough to make a change in subscription fee structure for year 2+. If they felt this was cannibalizing their revenue due to opportunity cost in a way that outweighed other business concerns they'd adjust further. They've made the decision that this is the right direction given all factors and now they'll sink or swim.
The only thing you got right is that the free market works. What's best for consumers is for consumers to decide if they want Spotify or if they want apple. Apple will be just fine without Spotify. I'd go so far as to say they should just dump Spotify and watch them die out. People will not give up their iPhone just to show loyalty to a garbage app
And the whole thing is you have choice, on Windows. You're locked on the AppStore for iOS.
To be fair, the policy was in place prior to Apple participating in this market (streaming audio) and the terms have only gotten more favorable since entering. Second, they haven't prohibited Spotify at all, Spotify is available on the app store as it always has been. I saw reference to a Microsoft comparison but must have missed that post; if you referred to the Internet Explorer anti-trust cases in comparison to Spotify not having full system level access that could be a valid angle but only if Apple's marketshare gets significantly higher. Currently they are dwarfed by the various Google Android implementations and app stores. I did see your earlier comment about duopoly and understand where you are going with that but Android is fragmented enough to have multiple app stores and the environments compete enough that I would be shocked to learn of collusion between all those players (some of which seem to be bitter rivals). Price leadership is perfectly fine, collusion on pricing is not; I believe we have the former here.
I like your reasoning but I disagree. I would certainly feel frustrated if I were Spotify that a big dog just joined my fight but spending energy on value prop of my own service and differentiating from competitors would be a bigger focus than complaining of the advantages afforded to other players.
The iPhone would be as dead as a doornail at this point if they didn't allow free apps. They're not necessarily doing it out of charity.
Apple has set something up where they don't have to compete on the same playing field as their competitors. Something similar that I know most would be against here would be if Comcast/Verizon/whoever created a Netflix equivalent where your data cap isn't affected. I don't see how this is any better than what MS got nailed for in the past.
If the news was about exactly the same matter except for platform being Windows Phone and comapny Microsoft (replace with anything else, it's just example), comments would be drastically different.
Since it's Apple, it is fine. Especially on the forum where most people are die hard Apple fans.
I like how in the last news people were saying that Spotify should remove subscriptions from iOS app if they don't want to pay the Apple tax. Now Spotify tries to do just that and Apple blocks the update. People are still defending Apple and moaning about Spotify in this comment section.
To please Apple fans, Spotify should write an open letter praising Apple Music and close business soon after.
No, it's because Android fanboys can't withstand the reality that Apple has the superior product. And nobody cares about their launchers and custom fonts.
So? There is a difference between "no alternative" and "I want that one because it's good for me."
The web is a sweet alternative to distribute apps on iOS.
I curious about how you felt about Microsoft during the 90's? To bad buddy, if you don't like how Microsoft treated it's competitors in the web browsing business, make your own operating system? There's no inherit right to property other than what is granted by law. If Apple violated the law, they violated the law and need to pay the penalty just as Microsoft did back in the 90's. If Apple applies it's admission rules fairly, across every app submission I don't think there's an issue. The headline reads like Apple is arbitrarily approving and declining software on it's platform if it's a threat to it's own software offerings (See Microsoft circa 1990).
But it looks more like Spotify want's Apple to foot the bill for operating costs while it walks away with all the money.
Last edited:
I think it is bad form and ultimately bad for Apple. Why should I develop anything that relies on Apple when they cannot be a trusted platform? Apple isn't even reliably providing hardware anymore. Too much weight given to short term profit is undermining the company.
The "tax" is already paid in a yearly developer account subscription. FFS Google charges a one time fee of $25, whereas Apple charges $300 yearly for enterprise accounts. And why is it that they are only upset about Spotify wanting to charge through the web? Why not get upset with Netflix, Youtube Red, HBO Go, Hulu? Oh yeah, because Apple doesn't compete in that space. Apple is using their monopoly for extortion in this case.
I don't think the non-Google Android stores have any significant market share. And Google and Apple, in the mobile app store space, do not really compete at all. They offer nearly identical financial terms to developers, and when one changes their terms for better or worse, the other quickly adjusts. I would not say it is collusion, but they are certainly so close in terms and time to make it a distinction without a difference. Together, they are well north of 90% of the mobile app store market share.
With regard to the Microsoft/IE anti-trust case: Just like Microsoft did back then, Apple is using their share of the mobile app store duopoly to muscle out competitors in entirely different markets. Just like Microsoft was prevented from using it's desktop OS monopoly to unfairly disadvantage internet browser competition, Apple should be prevented from using it's mobile app store duopoly position to unfairly disadvantage streaming music competition. Our law allows monopolies and similar economic situations to exist when they arise in discrete markets, but our law does also prohibit using those monopolies and similar situations to wreak havoc on other markets. I think that is what Apple is getting dangerously close to doing.
As someone mentioned above in reply to one of my posts, the developers' nightmare is having such an idea/app so popular that Apple decides to copy it and implement it into iOS right as it reaches peak popularity. As it stands: it seems developers have to aim for a sort of goldilocks zone of app popularity: popular enough to be successful, but not so popular to warrant attention from Apple.
I admire your positivity around how charitable companies really are, however, it's not about covering the costs of running the App Store, it's not about hosting content and it's not personal. It's about one company basing their business model on the leveraging of another company's success.
The 'parasite company' will pay for that. Every time. Every industry. Everywhere. Once again - this is business, not charity.
Your point about free apps is completely moot. The developer is investing their own time and giving it away for free. They are not leveraging on Apple's success to profit *directly*. Therefore, they should not lose more than the developer fee that, presumably, covers all service costs (and then some...).
All of you making these "store" comparisons CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW STORES WORK!!!! Companies produce goods at a price, they then sell those goods to retailers like Walmart with an MSRP and it is up to the retailer at which price to sell the good to consumers. You cannot make this comparison with the App Store as developers pay a yearly fee to publish to the App Store, this is where Apple makes their money from developers. This extra fee is extortion via monopoly on Apple's part. Why are they not upset about Netflix, HBO Go, Hulu, Youtube Red, etc having outside subscriptions? Maybe because Apple doesn't compete in the video streaming space and they want to kill off Spotify to pick up those subscribers.
Again, Spotify and those other apps you listed are all operating under the same App Store rules. The only difference is that Spotify is deliberating breaking the rules to create some media coverage to pressure Apple to change the rules.
