Apple is very involved in iOS app development since they created the SDK. And every developers use of that SDK agreed to the Licensing and Developer Terms.
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds.
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 CEO Daniel Ek Speaks Out on Dispute With Apple Over App Store Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is very involved in iOS app development since they created the SDK. And every developers use of that SDK agreed to the Licensing and Developer Terms.
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds.
There is absolutely a duopoly on app store platforms between Google and Apple. There is no reasonable way to distribute mobile software without going through them. Also, in the US, Amazon has something like 70%+ market share by volume on online marketplace platforms (not counting platforms that only do payment processing, and don't offer a unified store, like Shopify and PayPal). None of their competitors like eBay, Wayfair, Rakuten, Walmart have over 10% individually. If you're an online merchant, you pretty much have to use Amazon. That is absolutely a monopoly.
Apple currently has different terms for different companies. I really don't see a difference between Uber/Lyft and Spotify, or between buying a Spotify giftcard in the Amazon app versus in the Spotify app. In both instances, Apple charges the latter but not the former.
I think to make it fair, Apple has to relinquish control of either the App Store or Apple Music. They can't own both. Since the former is impractical, most likely, spin out a seperate company for Apple Music and iCloud and such, so that that the new company has to pay the same 30% fee to Apple.
Alternatively, if Apple wants to keep both the platform and music subscription service under one roof, they should drop all fees related to the App Store. No fees, period. Let the developers choose their own payment processing vendor, so they can shop around for the best rates.
Spotify is "Spot On", but don't expect anything to happen about it.
The US DOJ Anti Trust division is NOT going to take any action against established US Monopolies. We have to put up with Apple/Google/Amazon et al. because if the US government enforces anti-trust laws we'll just end up having to put up with Huawei, or some other Chinese monopoly. The Chinese Communist Party will surely do everything in it's power to replace a US monopoly with a Chinese monopoly. 5G anyone?
If you think this hasn't happened before you are wrong. Lucent was a spin off of AT&T, the monopoly forced to split up by the US government in 1984. But Lucent could never compete with Alcatel because the French government allowed Alcatel to operate as a monopoly - this enabled Alcatel to overprice within the French market to undercut prices on the international market. This put Lucent at a disadvantage in the international market for their products. In the end, Alcatel bought Lucent. Now the US does not have a 5G equipment manufacturer. The Chinese Communist Party learned from this and now Huawei is the result.
Now do you understand why we are in a trade war with China?
The US DOJ Anti Trust division is NOT going to take any action against established US Monopolies. We have to put up with Apple/Google/Amazon et al. because if the US government enforces anti-trust laws we'll just end up having to put up with Huawei, or some other Chinese monopoly. The Chinese Communist Party will surely do everything in it's power to replace a US monopoly with a Chinese monopoly. 5G anyone?
If you think this hasn't happened before you are wrong. Lucent was a spin off of AT&T, the monopoly forced to split up by the US government in 1984. But Lucent could never compete with Alcatel because the French government allowed Alcatel to operate as a monopoly - this enabled Alcatel to overprice within the French market to undercut prices on the international market. This put Lucent at a disadvantage in the international market for their products. In the end, Alcatel bought Lucent. Now the US does not have a 5G equipment manufacturer. The Chinese Communist Party learned from this and now Huawei is the result.
Now do you understand why we are in a trade war with China?
Isn't the dev fee $99.00 per year? Compared to subscription income for the service that fee is nearly free.
That's hypocritical. They do want it for free. They don't want to pay the 30% at all or any "tax" as they all put it.
They want to be on the platform and not pay for it. Period. It's not like they are offering a different rate say, 10 or 15%. They are strait up saying, this is unfair to everyone that didn't build the platform for which they all benefit from. Cut us all a break on this revenue tax, so we can make more money and better compete with Apple Products on an Apple Platform.
Since they have the advantage (Spotify) of having more consumers than Apple. They should be able to re-negotiate with the record labels in getting a better deal. Cheaper than Apple Music. That way they make more.
I think Apple should be forced to do one of two things:
1. Either allow outside App stores
Or
2. Stop taking a cut of sales, instead moving to a price structure where every for profit business has to pay the same intial one time fee per app for Apple to host on app store and also Apple can charge for updates to app as well as that makes work for them.
I prefer the second option, but either would be more fair than the system they have now.
1. Either allow outside App stores
Or
2. Stop taking a cut of sales, instead moving to a price structure where every for profit business has to pay the same intial one time fee per app for Apple to host on app store and also Apple can charge for updates to app as well as that makes work for them.
I prefer the second option, but either would be more fair than the system they have now.
subsequently the service will charge you the "fee" like how Spotify had $12.99 on IOS for a while. Even though you could just go to the website and sign up for the same service at $9.99
With these companies the customer always ends up paying.
What if Apple has more consumers? Then your scenario falls apart.
Why should Spotify get treated differently than say Uber?
This second option is the model MS uses (or used) for games on XBLive. An upfront fee and a fee per patch. there was a cheap indie tier for small devs.
I think everyone fails to understand how this works, and why it's so much.
1) Apple created the platform (AppStore)
2) They created an EASY way to purchase (renewals/subscriptions) via this store for ALL the apps that need it.
3) Customers (You and Me) don't have to worry about the apps being "Safe" or correct or anything like that.
4) You deal with Apple if something is wrong on ANY app purchase.
5) Apple has wide reach GLOBALLY. Big platform (Store if you will). Everyone gets to see your app IMMEDIATELY.
6) A physical store would upcharge to sell any item it has. This is no different.
7) You can just have an app on the store that requires an account to use. But, you have to do the activation outside of the app.
8) 30% cut maybe high, I don't know. But, it's not like that doesn't get them anything. So it should be an argument over price.
They could just be a web app or something, and for-go the appstore. But, they know there is money to be made on the platform.
So, they have a choice and ways around if they want to use it. It's not as clean and convenient. But, that's what 30% gets you.
Spotify didn't make the AppStore. Apple did, just like Googles PlayStore etc. There is a cost to selling any product in any store.
Just like if you go to a grocery store. They don't all carry the same thing every other store carries. Most things, yes. But, one store will carry something the other doesn't. Or even for different prices, sales etc.
And that’s exactly where you’re wrong: For all devs but Apple. It’s their playground, they make the rules. But if they are playing on their own playground, those rules should apply for them, too.
I believe Spotify has more currently. Everyone goes to the labels to strike a deal. Apple did this earlier when they came up with the iTunes music store. Selling singles for $.99, and $9.99 albums.
Everyone else followed suit and some complained about it (even the labels, as they got FAR less than a would have given them).
Uber prices are different from Lyft. Different times of the day are different prices too. Where your going, etc.
Ultimately, if Spotify doesn't like the price they have to pay to play. They have the choice to not be on the platform. They can sell there stuff on Google.
And exactly how much does Uber pay to be on the Apple platform? Airbnb? Travelocity? Walmart? Zulilly? That's right, nothing.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "better compete with Apple Products on an Apple Platform" because that is really what this is all about. The "Apple Tax" is being applied to markets in which Apple is acting as a competitor thereby artificially increasing the cost of doing business when competing with Apple than when operating in a market where Apple doesn't participate. That's the only hypocrisy here.
Is that really a fair comparison? A bricks and mortar store landlord will generally charge rent to the tenant, often based on the square footage.
I’m not aware that many landlords take a cut of the stores revenue unless things are very different abroad than here in the UK.
A similar charging mechanism would be Apple charging Spotify a flat monthly fee for its presence in the App Store - or even a fee per download - but taking a 30% cut of ongoing subscriptions is something entirely different.
Ultimately it has to be argued that Apple’s charging is bad for consumers. The 30% cut most likely wipes out Spotify’s profit margin, forcing them to increase the price they charge to iOS users subscribing through the app. After a trial period, it appears they’ve decided to remove the sign-up option altogether.
This is more like Walmart selling third party branded items (where they get a cut) and selling WalMart branded items for less money next to them. Apple isn't a mall, their brand is affected by any app in the app store. If you download an app and it crashes your phone, you go to Apple to get it fixed, not the individual app maker. If you buy an item from Macys, you don't go to the mall if it has a problem.
You missed one very important aspect of number 7. It is only when you are in a market in which Apple is also competing that you have to do the activation and purchase authorization outside the app. In fact, you are absolutely prohibited from even mentioning external signup is even available. On the other hand, if you are not in a competing market with Apple then you are free to use your own signup and payment methods within the app and Apple won't say a word even though the consumer doesn't even have the option to use the Apple in-app purchase method.
Last edited:
30%/15% isn't high... prior to app stores, if you wrote a program or had a service and either put it up on a web page, or do a thru a trusted distributor was very costly...
- dragging people to your web page was futile and require lots of ad dollars, and people won't want to give you their credit card.
- selling your service thru a trusted distributor with a known audience was also costly, the distributor would take a sizable fee.
With app stores, its alot easier, especially for small time devs, 30%/15% is nothing and you get to release your app immediately.
Once you get big like Netflix things are different though. They got big enough and said all subs must go through the web page.
[doublepost=1552598944][/doublepost]
Malls in north america takes a cut of your revenue AND charge a minimum per square foot.
Malls advertise their mall and drag lots traffic in, so they sorta become like vested partners your business.
They want you do well because they get a sizable cut.
With services sold at the mall its slightly different, but the vendor still have to report their revenues to the mall, and negotiate rate.
Last edited:
The difference in prices between Uber and Lyft are not only irrelevant to the discussion, it was not even my question to you. My question was, and still is this:
Why should a company like Uber not have to pay the revenue cut that Spotify does?
What does a board game have to do with Spotify whining about the apple store rules that have been in place for ever and are the same for everyone?
The actual real reason is not just from the 30% (which is a weak argument), but it's the fact that Apple has infamously been known to make app submission processes a very rigorous battle on their platform when you are competing directly against their 1st party apps.
It's common for landlords of retail spaces to take a cut of gross after a threshold has been reached. Even when doing well tenants find themselves working for the landlord.
But this is more like an apartment complex where the management company strongly "encourages" the residents buy services and appliances through them and then adds a big fee for itself and penalizing buying directly from vendors by sticking them with troublesome connections and limiting access to the buildings to make repairs. On top of that the apartment management decides to go into business for itself, undercuts the other vendors by not charging itself a fee. And it's the biggest apartment management company in the world.
So why is it bad to profit from selling items from ones store? Walmart, Amazon, and pretty much every other store out there makes money from the products they sell. Sometimes stores sell there own store branded products cheaper than the name brands. That practice is welcomed by everyone except for the name brands.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t know specifics so I can’t really say. I’ve never heard anyone say anything bad about the Spotify app though. Is that causing them to lose customers?