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
By usable, you mean that they secure their platform and guarantee what you get from their store is vetted. If someone sideloaded malware-ridden junk, people would blame Apple. Why should they set themselves up for that?
What @oneMadRssn said. As much as we all like Apple take a step back here.
You can't open a mall, says its open for business, allow stores to come in, charge them rent, notice they are doing well, open an identical store next to them, and then by default not charge yourself rent.
You can't open a mall, says its open for business, allow stores to come in, charge them rent, notice they are doing well, open an identical store next to them, and then by default not charge yourself rent.
No. The store has to not have any loopholes. If they did as you suggest, pretty soon, every app would be free-but-go-pay-us-on-our-own-website. Then Apple is in the position of running a huge store with no income from it. If a brick-and-mortar store let customers pay the manufacturers directly and walk out of the store with a widget that the store paid to have shipped there, paid to have on the shelf, paid to have a shelf for the widget to sit on, paid to have a store for you to go to (with lighting and employees and registers and whatnot)... and the store didn't make any money off the transaction, how long do you think that store would stay in business?
In other news, I'm shocked - shocked* - that Spotify would get behind a position that might let them gain a competitive advantage.
And it's not like you can't go buy the subscription outside the store, just that you can't put up banners saying, "hey, don't buy here, go across the street and pay us there".
Apple built the phone, the operating system, the store, the whole iOS ecosystem. Trying to claim that they're anti-competitive because they won't let others play in their sandbox is pretty egregious, when they built this all themselves and there are plenty of other sandboxes out there.
*: (Yes, also shocked to discover that there is gambling taking place in this establishment.)
What about Amazon not selling Apple TV or providing a Prime App? You can sell in your store what products you want. The government can't force you to sell a competitors product.
CRAZY!
Edit. Kind of like forcing Safeway Foods to sell Walmarts Store brands. Makes no sense.
CRAZY!
Edit. Kind of like forcing Safeway Foods to sell Walmarts Store brands. Makes no sense.
Even I'm not a fan of Spotify but I'm with Spotify. Apple is monopolizing the Music market. Where is EU and US laws of competition which fined heavily on Microsoft and Google in the past.
Let's all hope for an Apple complete monopoly with no competition at all. This is the only way for us customers to be satisfied. No choices, no complaints, no whining. Everyone happy. Come and join us.
I do wonder if anyone in this thread even bothered to read the original article. Spotify is not arguing against the revenue cut Apple takes for subscriptions. The issue is Apple will no longer approve the app if Spotify advertises a deal that tells users to go to Spotify's website to sign up. I think Apple will eventually get investigated by the US and EU on their rules blocking links to third party sign ups. Especially now that Apple is offering a competing service.
I know people here love Apple but it boggles my mind that so many think linking to a website should be illegal. Making it hard to compete with Apple not good for us users.
I know people here love Apple but it boggles my mind that so many think linking to a website should be illegal. Making it hard to compete with Apple not good for us users.
Side-loading already exists on Android and I don't see much of the "blaming" you mention: why should Apple be any different?
Apple would be a fraction of the size they are now if it weren't for the vibrant ecosystem of apps that other companies (including Spotify) made for iOS ...
According to Recode:
"This month, Spotify revived the campaign, but Gutierrez says Apple threatened to remove the app from its store unless Spotify stopped telling iPhone users about the promotion."
It's one thing that Apple doesn't allow links to external billing services, but what justification do they have to disallow promotions and ads in 3rd party apps? There is no such rule in the review guidelines AFAIR. That sounds extremely onerous if true, especially seeing how pushy Apple is with advertising Apple Music in the music app.
No one including Spotify is asking Apple to remove the approval process.Yeah, let's ditch the approval process so developers can submit fart apps, emulators, spyware, Chinese malware and whatnot, right Spotify?
Why? Of all the services I subscribe to, only CBS and HBO are done through the App Store. Those services have found a way to not charge an "App Store tax" - Additionally, they don't have to allow subscriptions through the app. Lots of other apps survive just fine without this.
So? Does Whole Foods provide the sales flyer to Trader Joes in its stores?
Are you sure that Apple isn't paying it's Beats/Apple Music division 30%? I would be willing to bet they are, for exactly this reason. Additionally, it will drop to 15% if Spotify users stay for a full year. And there are over 200 price point options that Spotify can set up. Is that not enough to offer a compelling option?
I don't know a single iPhone user that would want this. The App Store, and all it's protections, are what draw many people to the iPhone.
Not even remotely the same, but thanks for playing!
Last edited:
It's not like any of those things at all. It's more like Best Buy asking Wallmart for free floor space to sell it's Best Buy gift cards.
You never said why the store owner is required to sell his widgets in this particular strip mall. I heard that there is an eclectic one down the street that has all the same utilities, and parking services and even the same "store" lease opportunities, where the landlord isn't selling a competing inventory (well... They are, just not as attractively/publicly). The only negative impact this other strip mall has is that most of the people who walk through treat the mall like a swap meet, and aren't willing to pay the prices as they are labeled.
As a Developer, I have always seen a higher payout from Apple Device owners than other platforms, so I see both sides of the "Apple Tax" argument... I am willing to keep paying Apple 30% on App Purchases (including IAP) even on my Apps which haven't seen an update in almost 3 years... Because people on Apple's platform still want to buy them.
The biggest difference is that Apple and Spotify, don't have a non-compete clause in the App Store saying that since Spotify has an App in Apple's App Store, that Apple can't have a competing Music App (which they don't it's baked into the OS).
It does feel kind of Big-Brothery to me. I mean I get the whole competitive aspect thing, but not allowing apps to include any links to the web for subscriptions seems kind of excessive. At the same time, if that rule didn't exist then you might have a whole bunch of apps try to circumvent Apple fees.
I don't think there's a moral right or wrong here. I subscribe to a Apple Music family plan and recommend it to others. But this does put Spotify in a really tough spot and I sympathize with them. I assume profit margins in this market are low enough without 30% being taken off the top.
What if whenever you bought razors at Walmart, you could only buy replacement razor blades at Walmart? Or apply the analogy to some other product with refills?
Why?
"Hey, I have this really great restaurant. We paid a lot for the space, and the tables and other fixtures. What? You want to sell your food outside and let people bring it in to eat at our tables, and not pay us anything for using our tables? Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. But wait. You also want us to allow you to put advertisements for your food booth outside on our tables inside the restaurant? No. Don't think so. Thanks for playing, though."
Fanboys, obviously. They're abundant on Macrumors.
Seems to me that because Spotify waited a year to make a large stink over this, is just them being scared that Apple Music is rapidly catching up in subscribers and continuing to grow each month. So they needed to attempt to create some negative press around AM. (Oddly convient this pops up after it's known that AM is 15mil and growing)
[doublepost=1467310439][/doublepost]
How strange that people pro Apple are on an Apple related news site. I never would have thunk it.
[doublepost=1467310439][/doublepost]
How strange that people pro Apple are on an Apple related news site. I never would have thunk it.
I'm not sure about the logic of why Apple have refused an update if Spotify have (at this point) merely exercised their right to not offer any subscriptions through the iOS app?
I don't think Spotify deserves special treatment, if they want to sell subscriptions in their iOS app, they have to abide by Apple's app store rules. But if they choose not to do that at all rather than give Apple a cut, I don't think Apple should block an update (if it is otherwise complying with all Apple's rules). Spotify are cheeky for trying to put the promotion ad in there, Apple rightly rejected that, but I am not sure why Apple feel the need to block the update if the ad has been removed. I would hope it isn't out of pettiness to 'punish' Spotify, but unless both sides go into more details I suppose we just don't know.
I don't think Spotify deserves special treatment, if they want to sell subscriptions in their iOS app, they have to abide by Apple's app store rules. But if they choose not to do that at all rather than give Apple a cut, I don't think Apple should block an update (if it is otherwise complying with all Apple's rules). Spotify are cheeky for trying to put the promotion ad in there, Apple rightly rejected that, but I am not sure why Apple feel the need to block the update if the ad has been removed. I would hope it isn't out of pettiness to 'punish' Spotify, but unless both sides go into more details I suppose we just don't know.
If Apple keeps going with this practice they will only discourage app developers to offer their services on the ios system. The whole ios system is attractive because of the abundance of apps. Fully agree with you
30% is pretty standard in the software industry.
When big software companies that did not do direct sales of their software to consumers entered the market, they were interviewed about the 30% cut. All of them said the same thing, it is pretty standard for 30% cut when having 3rd party's sell their software.
The fee is a huge cut of the subscription revenue, regardless of whether Apple Music is catching up or not. The fact that Apple Music is growing just makes it more painful for Spotify (fair or not).
Spotify. Tell Apple to back off our you will take your customers to Android. That simple.