Ease up there. I'm not saying what Apple doing is wrong. I only said it is painful business-wise for Spotify to pay $3 to their streaming music competitor every time they sell a subscription.
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
Ease up there. I'm not saying what Apple doing is wrong. I only said it is painful business-wise for Spotify to pay $3 to their streaming music competitor every time they sell a subscription.
When your shop controls the entire platform for your customers, yes, it's within their rights. They're right to take Apple to task for this, they've went from being an innovative company with great products to whoring out subscriptions while squeezing out those with a fair hand in the game just because they own the OS.
Your example fails though in that we live in a free market where people can't be told not to run a business just to make sure someone else makes a profit. That's just not how it works. So for your examples to work it's fine for the landlord to open their own business but they have to give the other store owner the rent of their unit for free, promote them, pay the utility bills, and let them take some of their customers. That's not how it works either.
Spotify entered the music business 3 years after Apple, and they haven't invented anything. Apple owes them nothing. If Apple was forcing them out of business I'd agree with you, but they are not, if they had never invented the App Store and iPhone do you think Spotify would be as big as it is? I don't know of many businesses where you can force your competitors to promote your own business for free. TV stations don't promote their competitors, cable providers don't, mobile companies don't, where does it stop? Should they all have to promote each other just to be fair?
I realise your example is specific to this case as Apple is the service Spotify want to sell their products on, and Apple charges them a fee for any sales they make, but they don't charge for the app, and Apple don't charge them anything for apps being downloaded. Spotify need to work harder at finding other ways to make money and stop crying about it. If your business isn't profitable - hint: Spotify isn't profitable - then you are in the wrong industry and its time to move on. Why should Apple give them anything for free 'just to help them out'?
Sure, good idea.
Then EVERY SINGLE APP goes to a subscription model. Give their app away for free (which Apple is HAPPY to host and take a 30% cut of ZERO for, mind you. I don't hear anyone complain about that). Then charge 99¢ a month. Apple gets 30¢ - Sounds fair? No, it doesn't.
Why not? Samsung did their own smartphone after looking at the success of iPhones. And they make it better in some ways.
You can choose the person who built your house. Spotify can choose their own app store.
I think everyone gets wrapped up in whether Apple could do something versus whether they should do something. Sure- it's Apple's store- they could do and charge whatever they want.
But should they? First of all, it's almost legal extortion. IAP is great for developers who don't have the back end to charge for their own digital content. But why would companies like Amazon, Netflix, or Spotify want to use Apple's IAP when they have their own back end? It's like going to movies, not being allowed to bring in food, and then getting gouged for the food they sell. Sure, theaters can do it, but it's petty and the customers know they are getting screwed.
Finally, this ends up being end-user hostile because these companies always pass either the inconvenience or the cost to the customer. For companies that sell digital content (Netflix, Amazon, Spotify, etc), the results ultimately end up the same. As a customer, I either have to a) pay more to make up for Apple's cut (if I'm duped) or b) I have to find my own way with no guidance to an alternative purchase method.
I've always suspected that this IAP snafu happened because Steve Jobs was pissed at Amazon. Apple stuck it to Amazon when IAP first came out, and now Apple's still towing this line because it would look silly to about face. Apple usually tries to be good to developers (their apps keep the platform relevant) and customers and this move stands out because isn't friendly to either. Here's hoping Apple has a change of heart.
But should they? First of all, it's almost legal extortion. IAP is great for developers who don't have the back end to charge for their own digital content. But why would companies like Amazon, Netflix, or Spotify want to use Apple's IAP when they have their own back end? It's like going to movies, not being allowed to bring in food, and then getting gouged for the food they sell. Sure, theaters can do it, but it's petty and the customers know they are getting screwed.
Finally, this ends up being end-user hostile because these companies always pass either the inconvenience or the cost to the customer. For companies that sell digital content (Netflix, Amazon, Spotify, etc), the results ultimately end up the same. As a customer, I either have to a) pay more to make up for Apple's cut (if I'm duped) or b) I have to find my own way with no guidance to an alternative purchase method.
I've always suspected that this IAP snafu happened because Steve Jobs was pissed at Amazon. Apple stuck it to Amazon when IAP first came out, and now Apple's still towing this line because it would look silly to about face. Apple usually tries to be good to developers (their apps keep the platform relevant) and customers and this move stands out because isn't friendly to either. Here's hoping Apple has a change of heart.
Wow... Do we really want Apple to chase away (or cause the demise of) great services because they aren't big enough to create their own walled garden hardware/OS/Software ecosystem? Even if you only want to use Apple services, you still benefit when Apple "borrows" competitors' succesful ideas and implements them (e.g. iOS 10 Messages app).
Some of you need to try to think about what's best for the consumer....rather than running to defend Apple's unyeilding desire to squeeze every nickel out of you with somewhat shady practices.
The free market works when everyone looks out for their own interest. As a consumer, you should question why Apple charges a 30% premium for continued subscriptions and cheer any attempts to lower that amount.
It's the same misguided logic that makes consumers blame the cable company for rising costs, when the cable/satellite companies are always fighting their customer's battle to keep programming costs down.
The free market works when everyone looks out for their own interest. As a consumer, you should question why Apple charges a 30% premium for continued subscriptions and cheer any attempts to lower that amount.
It's the same misguided logic that makes consumers blame the cable company for rising costs, when the cable/satellite companies are always fighting their customer's battle to keep programming costs down.
When purchasing physical products, your arguments are sound. However, in this particular case, we're discussing an ongoing subscription.
So for an analogy, it would be like me buying a magazine or newspaper at a retailer, subscribing to it, and that retailer getting a 30% cut of that subscription price (and every subsequent renewal) even though all future issues are delivered to me independent of that retailer (via direct mail or the local delivery person).
Now it's a bit different in the App Store case because that in-app subscription payment process is being handled by Apple so there is a cost to recover. But I honestly do not think it is $3-4 (30% of Spotify's price). Especially if the App Store can move to Apple Pay, which offers lower bank processing fees than via credit cards.
Last edited:
If the App store bothers you so much, the obvious answer would be to not buy an iPhone.
If Apple started restricting Mac software to app-store only, I would sell my Mac and buy something else.
My point is not to say "okay then bye" because I agree with some parts of what you say. But I don't think there's any basis for a lawsuit or some sort of prosecution here.
Here's the thing. There are millions(?) of apps that Apple doesn't make money on. Because they are free. Further - some of these apps make money through ad networks - so the developer profits while Apple gets nothing.
Now all developers have to pay the $99 (is that still right) developer fee - so one could argue that Apple makes their money and provides the marketplace in exchange for that fee.
So there's an uneven playing field here. Apple is saying that if you are going to charge - they want a cut. Legit for using their payment system. However, if a company doesn't want to use their payment system, Apple is saying that the developer cannot in any way, link outside of that app to accept payment. That's where I think they cross the line a bit. Sure it's their app store. It's just a bit hedgy. They at least realize now that renewals shouldn't be the same 30%.
I don't begrudge them for wanting to maximize their profits and take a cut from successful developers - but it's a money grab. Let's not try and make it about costs for the billing and infrastructure.
People missing the point - If I buy a phone at Walmart, they do not get 30% of my Verizon contract for the service. Apple should get a cut of a purchase not of a subscription.
And for some magazines, using Inapp purchase != you have the right to enjoy member benefits. They often guide users to subscribe on website, then log in your account within app to use your sub membership.
If by letting someone sell in my store meant far more folks visited my store and perhaps bought and tried other products, e.g. Apple Music, why not? It is quite routine in retail.
Can you point me to the rule that prohibits apps from promoting a trial period? That sounds to me like Apple moving the goal posts. In the original article on Recode, it sounds like Apple was pissed that Spotify removed the iTunes billing option in the app, thus not allowing Apple to profit from Spotify's much larger subscriber base anymore in addition to their own:
"Spotify stopped advertising the promotion. But it also turned off its App Store billing option, which has led to the current dispute."
It's not suing Google because Google has more relaxed rules (and does not block the installation of apps that are not from Google's app store).
This is a two-way street. Without the richness of 3rd party apps, the iPhone wouldn't sell nearly as much as it does today. Apple benefits hugely from the apps, even if the app store itself didn't earn a single penny.
Right now the only thing harming spotify is spotify... The AppStore is just a new headache for them..
Oh look, a brain-washed, capitalist, anti-social, degenerate apple fanboy in it's worst manifestation.
I thinka fair middle ground here is to allow them to advertise lower prices elsewhere, butt make them advertise the benefits of buying in app if they choose to do so... I'd prefer to pay 3 extra dollars a month so Spotify has no access to my personal information and billing info, since Apple already does . This point is moot. It's apples infrastructure, follow the rules or develop elsewhere. Not allowing them to advertise payment somewhere else however, is slightly anticompetitive SO LONG as they make them advertise why NOT buying from the app is less convenient/secure.
Imho, Spotify is a just whining at this point. If it wasn't for iOS, you're half the size you are now.
I intended to add the caveat that the service could not offer a lower introductory price in order to do what you note. So Spotify would have to charge the same $9.99 for the first month as they do for the second and onwards months. You could also make a requirement that the service is not allowed to change their subscription price for in-app purchases for a period of a year. So if Spotify wanted to charge 99 cents, they would have to do so for the entire first year of a customer's service.
I'm suspecting that the PR Spotify did about Apple Music being such a boon to their subscriber base is whistling past the graveyard. Yes, I believe the numbers are accurate but I also believe that Spotify is very concerned the trend will reverse and the rate of new subscriptions has or will fall off, perhaps even a net decrease in total active subscriptions.
I have nothing to back this up, just my feeling.
I have nothing to back this up, just my feeling.
Why people think Apple has to allow anyone to do anything on their platform is beyond me.
Oh look,someone's who browses Apple news sites and calls them all out for absolutely no benefit to anyone at all. Continue wasting your time, mate. You're gonna go places!
