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
How does Apple sound in their case against Qualcomm? And isn't apple like at least 10 times bigger than Qualcomm(in terms of revenue anyway).
And as a user, I dont want to pay 10 companies per month. It is much better for me to
Isnt web apps possible? See how wechat can do that. can anyone pay from websites? Yes. Can they remove payment option in their main app? As far as I know, Yes. Netflix had.
As a consumer, I am glad that I pay through apple. No need to worry about hacked credit card and customer details.
[doublepost=1552644900][/doublepost]
All you saying is Spotify is losing 30% has nothing to do with them having an unfair disadvantage over Apple. Spotify has the same exposure as Apple if not even more because Spotify is almost synonymous to music streaming. I know more people using Spotify than Apple Music and these people are very happy with the service. If somebody is getting free exposure and success of Spotify is because of the Appstore. They chose the route to use the Apple service just like Amazon uses UPS, FedEx and USPS to ship their product. Now Amazon uses their own service to deliver their product and it cost less for them to do so. If Spotify keeps whining of paying more, then they better off delivering their service somewhere else like start their own. I bet it's not easy and not cheap to do that route.
As long as they are not preventing competition. They will be fine. No one is stopping Microsoft from creating a new phone and platform (which they had). Nor Nokia, or Palm or anything of the sort. They are all allowed to create and compete. IF you're going to use it on Google or Apple's platform. Then you pay. You have choice. This "show" the EU is doing is mostly just complaining that there is a lack of other competition. We would all love 10 or so competing companies. But, it's not always practical or possible.
Having an iPhone or a Android phone isn't a requirement or a right. You can live just fine without. And if the EU ends up making either of these business have a harder time operating in said countries. They can go back to the flip phones, and no apps. Plus a pull out of all the tech talent that comes with in their respective areas.
An Apple user can do the same thing, they just need to go to Spotify's web page to register.
As iOS devices are a similar platform to game consoles then yeah, why not, do it like Microsoft and Sony do. Just ship apps on copy protected read only media that you can plug into your devices to load the apps on. That would be perfect, works for all consoles, digital store and physical media. Just like Sony and Microsoft, Apple can control the applications but you can buy them from wherever you want.
It's funny, you countered your own argument. Amazon doesn't own a shipping platform (yet). Amazon can choose between UPS, FedEx, USPS, a ton of small third-party last-mile carriers, or they can do it all on their own by hiring drivers directly. Tons of choice.
When it comes to mobile software distribution, there is no choice. You have to use Apple and Google. It's not an either/or, it's both; because you can't distribute using the PlayStore on iOS and you can't distribute using the App Store on Android. It's a bonafide duopoly. It's not a choice when you must use both. And to make matters worse, both are pretty lockstep in how much they charge.
Having a duopoly market power is fine on it's own. Nothing wrong with that. But using that market power in one industry (mobile software distribution platform) to disadvantage competitors in another industry (streaming music) is an abuse and is about as clear cut of an antitrust violation as you can get.
It's no different than when Rockefeller controlled the railroads, so that he could distribute his oil for nearly free and charged his competitor oil companies way more to distribute their oil. He used his monopoly in distribution (railroads) to disadvantage competitors in another industry (oil). That is literally where most antitrust law comes from.
Have you heard the internet? You can stream audios and videos online without distributing through Appstore. Too bad Spotify is not confident enough to provide service without Google and Apple that's sad. Netflix is very successful of not providing in-app purchase anymore same thing with Amazon Music well Spotify can cry all they want but not getting it for free. You got to pay the ticket for a bus ride and you cannot ask Rockefeller a free ride for your goods either. By the way Amazon uses some of their plane to ship their products.
Apple isn't competing with Netflix yet. Later this month, when Apple launches a competitor to Netflix, I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix joins Spotify in this complaint.
Also, have you tried streaming music through the browser on iOS with the screen off? It doesn't work.
Web Apps is not any kind of alternative to a platform-native apps. Probably half of functionality Spotify offers via native app would not be possible via HTML5. And why should Spotify and their customers be relegated to a second-class citizen experience on a platform? How do you expect Spotify and others to be able to complete against Apple Music (and soon Video)?
3rd party content providers should not be subjected to uneven playing field and being treated as 2nd class citizens when competing with Apple's own services. This is exactly what Spotify CEO is complaining about.
Try and see things from something other than Apple's perspective for once.
It's a nice attempt, but it's not exactly what happens here. Rather than Walmart, you should imagine the following...
1. You buy a new, luxurious house. You've paid a hefty sum for it, but it's worth it. The developer has built it using some of the best technology available on the market. Because the house is so great, they have you 5 years warranty on it, so when the doors start to creek or the drain is getting clogged someone comes in and does the maintainance for you, free of charge.
2. You love living in your new house, but obviously, you don't just sit arround in it doing nothing. You want to "live" in it, sleep, eat, watch TV, listen to music and so on. The developer has a division that serves other markets than housing, such as utilities, entertaiment, clothing, even take away restaurants. You can get your electricity, Internet, TV subscription even your food from a company affiliated with the developer. But you don't want to. You prefer ta TV subscription from another provider and you don't fancy the developer's cuisine that much either. So you order a different restaurant on your lindline and order your food in from a different take-away, but when it arrives the pizza boy wants to charge you a mark-up of 30% because your developer says charges extra if a) you want to eat the food at home, which they built; and b) you used the landline which they set up. You refuse, this is of no concern to you. The pizza boy gives in and his company soon goes out of business, because your home is not the only one in the vicinity built by that paritcular developer. And it's only the start. You wnat to order some new clothes online? You have to order them through the developer's affiliated delivery firm, or else pay a markup of 30%. Not happy about it. Well, you can always wear the clothes at your neighbour's place, but at home, you need to walk around naked, because the developer build the house and we all know that whoever builds the house calls the tune. No need to worry, it's a free country, as a consumer, you always have a choice. So you either buy all your stuff from/through the developers afiliated companies, or you pay a 30% markup or otherwise see one independent local goods and service provider close their business after another. Or else, if you don't like this arrangement you can always go and get yourself a new home. It is a free country, after all.
The developer is obviously Apple, and the home in this story is your phone. You - the customer - have already paid for your phone. You paid only once for it, but you still enjoy a few years of "free" (or rather - pre-paid) mainteinance and support. You've paid to Apple for developing it, including the utility access points. In fact you bought the house and paid for it through the nose precisely because it had a lot of the amenities and utilities. So, unless you want to tell me that your landlord or housing developer has the right to charge you 30% on every morcel of food, clothing and whatnot that you bought though a 3rd party but consume the house owned/built by them, then you should not support apple for charging you (yes you, not Spotify, because they either have to pass these cost on to you or go out of business) for every service you consume "through their appstore".
Besides stop acting like Apple is getting a free ride and Spotify has to pay the burden. Apple built the platform which cost a lot of money and it cost them 3 billion to acquire Beats to provide music streaming service. So basically they're sort of paying indirectly. Netflix is very happy of its current status they're in a position of you want Netflix signup straight to them no need in-app purchase. Sorry Spotify!
Everytime one of those teardown articles comes out, which shows the iPhone hardware only costs something like $250 to built, Apple fanboys are all up in arms talking about about how we're paying for the platform and the app store and blah blah it costs money. Which is it? Are the users paying for the platform as part of the cost of buying an iProduct? Or did are the developers paying for the platform through the 30% fee?
But Apple controls 100% of the iOS app store market.
Contrast that with Sony who does not own 100% of PS4 game stores. Other stores can sell PS4 games too. I don't see any malware on PS4. I don't see Sony going poor, PS4 devs still have to pay dev fees to Sony.
Apple Inc. v Pepper decision should come about this summer. A favorable ruling for Pepper would open the door to a future trial where consumer damages could be assessed in the billions. To avoid future lawsuits, Apple might be forced to do the unthinkable and open Apple’s closed app ecosystem to third-party app sellers.
Whatever dude funny how you start attacking me and you don't even know me. Next time stick to the argument. Sorry can't continue this anymore.
Microsoft was the leading OS being used world wide by consumers
here, ANDROID is the leading Mobile OS being used worldwide
IE was the most used browser by consumers
here, It is spotify which has the monopoly, not Apple Music.
Apple has had the cut of the subscription and app sales since the start of the app store, its not a NEW development. It was also the same when Spotify first landed on the App store and it is the same now. Nothing changed except Spotify is losing money more so this is a business move BY Spotify to save themselves from the same rules they USED to become a monopoly
Please educate yourself on history and context before making ridiculous historical comparisons.
I'm sorry you feel attacked, but my post literally didn't use the word "you" or any equivalent.
But Spotify _can_ sell their subscriptions without paying anything. The rules are: 70% if you sell the subscription through the AppStore (85% after a year), 100% if you sell outside the AppStore. Netflix does exactly that.
[doublepost=1552676071][/doublepost]
And they can even do that - as long as they don’t take payments through the app, and don’t advertise through the app.
[doublepost=1552678875][/doublepost]
The only thing that Spotify needs to do on their website is take payments. Like Netflix does. Just because Spotify complains, you shouldn’t assume they are actually right. Me and quite a few colleagues make an excellent living from the AppStore without anything going to Apple except $99 a year.
[doublepost=1552679096][/doublepost]
Let me explain this: Spotify can sell their subscriptions without paying Apple. With a free app on the AppStore. Just like Netflix, which read the AppStore rules and applied them to their business instead of throwing a tantrum.
[doublepost=1552679431][/doublepost][QUOTE="ctyrider, post: 27182323, member: 717570]To not even allow companies like Spotify to provide a link within their app to where their customers can sign up for the premium service is just bonkers. It's bad for the competition, it's bad for the market, it's bad for us, as consumers[/QUOTE]
Apple doesn’t allow advertisements to get past the AppStore _on the AppStore _. Spotify can advertise anywhere, for example on the macrumors site. Just not for free and at Apples expense in the AppStore.
AppleMusic isn’t free. Apple would get 70+30% of the Apple Music subscription.
[doublepost=1552679883][/doublepost]
Not the software, which is free anyway in this case, but the music subscription or anything else you charge for. That’s why Spotify ‘s complaint is so unreasonable.
i am afraid apple is a victim of its own success... the app ecosystem is now a fundamental component of how we all communicate and do business and so it is necessary to think about regulation in order to create a level playing field
fairness to consumers should be the prime consideration and apple clearly isn’t being fair to consumers in the case of spotify
congress will (and should) certainly act on this
All games have to be passed by Sony and are physically mastered at Sony licenced factories. You can’t make a Game for PlayStation without Sony’s approval or without paying Sony. Same with Microsoft and Nintendo, btw. And it costs more than 30% to sell games through 3rd party stores.
[doublepost=1552684766][/doublepost]
Only for those using iOS, who make up the minority of mobile device users. Spotify is the market leader by a massive margin, so their complaints should rightfully fall on deaf ears. If you want an even playing field then Apple should be able to sell songs and albums through Spotify for free.