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
Didn't Beats by Dre have a streaming service when Apple acquired them. I thought that is where Jimmy Iovine came from.
Lots of ignorance here. Look up "Monopoly".
What exactly do you think would be free in this scenario? Are you sure you understand Spotify's complaint? I ask because Spotify isn't asking for anything to be free.
They're welcome to develop a Nokia Symbian app, or their own mobile device.
People are only outraged by what they can see publicly. Google pretty much own the digital ad world but I hear nothing about them.
Apple have 20% market share worldwide and maybe 50% is the USA for their iPhone product. Thats it.
These are not monopolistic situations because their are meaningful alternatives for everyone!
You can buy a non apple phone, laptop, tablet, speaker etc...
There is complete choice.
What the issue is here is that Apple have spent billions to acquire a lucrative minority of the market place and now others want access to that market without having paid the money to create it. Like really??
The MS monopoly situation was different because
a) MS were illegally threatening OEM's who wanted to sell other OS's etc.. further enhancing their monopoly illegally
b) MS had 95% of the market to desktop computing. There was no viable alternative. Even governments relied on the thing, what government relies on iOS for anything???
Finally, as Nokia and Blackberry will tell you, it's very easy to be no.1 and then nothing in this market. Digital is not oil, it's not gas, it has many players, and many opportunities to fail. MS's monopoly was actually an anomaly. And it was only kept its position illegally. Apple does nothing of the sort.
Spotify cannot create a business model that makes no money and then be upset that the lucrative customers they want come from someone elses platform that they didnt create and now the price to access that market is eating into profits they dont even make!
Apple have 20% market share worldwide and maybe 50% is the USA for their iPhone product. Thats it.
These are not monopolistic situations because their are meaningful alternatives for everyone!
You can buy a non apple phone, laptop, tablet, speaker etc...
There is complete choice.
What the issue is here is that Apple have spent billions to acquire a lucrative minority of the market place and now others want access to that market without having paid the money to create it. Like really??
The MS monopoly situation was different because
a) MS were illegally threatening OEM's who wanted to sell other OS's etc.. further enhancing their monopoly illegally
b) MS had 95% of the market to desktop computing. There was no viable alternative. Even governments relied on the thing, what government relies on iOS for anything???
Finally, as Nokia and Blackberry will tell you, it's very easy to be no.1 and then nothing in this market. Digital is not oil, it's not gas, it has many players, and many opportunities to fail. MS's monopoly was actually an anomaly. And it was only kept its position illegally. Apple does nothing of the sort.
Spotify cannot create a business model that makes no money and then be upset that the lucrative customers they want come from someone elses platform that they didnt create and now the price to access that market is eating into profits they dont even make!
First, any subscriber for a year only costs Spotify 15% commission out of which Apple handles all processing fees, costs, etc..
But under your logic, Amazon, Ebay, etc., shouldn't be able to charge a fee for using their platforms. Try listing a product on Amazon and not paying their referral fees (most pay at least 15 %), plus the per item fees for many items, plus the monthly fees, and of course, I still have my own shipping and handling fees, processing fees. You may not like it, but Amazon didn't spend billions and billions building and maintaining it's platform for you to use for free. And news flash, Amazon sells some of its own products on its own platform.
What you say is true, however, if you wanted to SELL that thing you made back in the day, you’d probably have to sell it through some sort of retailer. Very few folks were able to sell things independently back then, If you DID sell it through a retailer, most of them would take 50%, and their reach would be far, far smaller than what developers enjoy on the App Store. Apple’s 30% is a sweet deal, IMHO.
You make no sense. No one forced them to develop those apps and put them in the app store. Support and maintenance and marketing are not free. Apple was meticulously building this ecosystem for basically decades and now Spotify wants to ride it for free. What the **** is wrong with you.
Sure they are... they want Apple to distribute their app for free while Spotify alone profit from subscribers who pay to use it.
I’d say Apple benefits greatly by being able to offer this brand or other brands. Ask MS how mobile went for them when they couldn’t get such brands to even make apps for their platform.
If you own Apple stock you should be selling. Spotify is only the first. This 30 percent racket won’t last with no ability to allow redirects for payment.
Do you know what in a capitalisitc society monopolies (and duopolies) are regulated? With your logic, we should let monopolies exist because someone else can just come along and make their own.
Think about it. Why is it regulated? When you figure that out, you will understand why Apple is flirting with it (I'll let the courts decide I'd they are or not).
Again,so much ignorance. "Just make your own.." rofl.
Apple has a stronghold on mobile apps. A company cannot survive without being on the App Store.
If Spotify was no longer available on iPhones, nobody would switch to Android for that reason.
Either you're being intentionally obtuse about the subject matter, or you didn't read the info regarding their complaint. Suffice it to say, that is not what they're asking. I suspect you already know that.
I'm pretty familiar with it.
[doublepost=1552578792][/doublepost]
It's exactly what their complaint is.
In terms of world wide OS market share, Apple is hardly a monopoly. Not even close.
People have plenty of ways to subscribe to Spotify.
Let's just call this what it is: Spotify doesn't like that Apple entered its market. Apple has a strategic advantage due to the fact it operates in different but related markets, like manufacturing phones and tablets and running a digital store front. Apple is fully within its right to command 30% from Spotify, and there is nothing to prevent people from subscribing online so Spotify can avoid Apple's percentage cut.
Then you should understand that Apple can literally kill their competition if they want to. In America, when a company has this type of power, they get regulated. l
From day one they made developers aware that they take a 30% cut of App Store Purchases and then when they were introduced, in-app purchases, since the race to the bottom created the freemium market.
Nothing changed, no one was hoodwinked and there is still a majority of the market they can tap freely on Android.
Nothing changed, no one was hoodwinked and there is still a majority of the market they can tap freely on Android.
Apple should file a complaint that it is unfair that they have to spend billions of dollars a year to maintain the App Store platform and Spotify doesn't have to bear that cost.
We should also ask the Spotify CEO if he is willing to commit not charging podcasters to be on the new podcasting streaming service Spotify is building. After all, Spotify has some exclusive new podcasts and it would be fair for other podcasters to have to pay to be on Spotify's platform, right???? Of course we know that Spotify is hoping to build this part of their platform and then charge podcasters to be on it.
We should also ask the Spotify CEO if he is willing to commit not charging podcasters to be on the new podcasting streaming service Spotify is building. After all, Spotify has some exclusive new podcasts and it would be fair for other podcasters to have to pay to be on Spotify's platform, right???? Of course we know that Spotify is hoping to build this part of their platform and then charge podcasters to be on it.
To be clear, I'm not saying Apple has a monopoly. I'm just saying the argument is there. Courts and lawyers will decide.
It's complicated, but there does need to be a reasonable compromise. Spotify benefits from Apple's infrastructure and customer base, but Apple is allowed to skate by without paying a 30% royalty because they are the ones that collect the money, which allows them a competitive advantage based on pricing. Apple needs to pay the 30% fee and roll it into their Apple Music price.
Also, something everyone here needs to consider is...Web Apps. Spotify could create a adequate, solid user experience through a web app. Thus, by passing the App Store all together. Is it easier? Nope. It is available to them though and it’s for this reason I don’t see an issue with Apple’s model. I do think 30% is high and should be 15%, personally.
What do you mean? Isn't Spotify making one lol? Or are you just being the judge in this situation and dismissing it?