They don't. Nor do they prevent me from doing it myself or going to any auto-shop but Apple does. Hence the difference.
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
Purchasers of the iphones have already paid for the platform and are the ones paying the apple tax in the app store or if don't want to pay it are blocked from full use of the platform they've paid for. Apple is cxxkblocking its customers too not just Spotify.
I realize that this comparison is very silly but I don't see any other way to make people understand. Consider this: if you own land and house on that land, are you free to do whatever you wish there? Are you free to commit crimes there? No, despite the fact it's your property and you've put tons of money into it, you're not free to do whatever you wish.
I think the same rule applies here. Yes, Apple built those devices, written the OS and gave birth to AppStore. However, they offer no other way to install apps other than AppStore. They are also direct competitor to other streaming services. This on its own is material for lawsuit and is reminiscent of what Microsoft did in 90's, except Microsoft was giving you ways to install whatever you wish and use it however you wish.
In such cases Apple's walled garden approach works against them and Spotify makes valid points. Apple breaks it's own rules (adviertisement notifications) and uses special APIs reserved for themselves (Siri, HomePod etc) which gives them unfair advantage. It'd be easier to see without Apple-tinted glasses, but then again, this is MacRumors forum.
PS.: What a times to live in. Apple is: phone manufacturer, computers manufacturer, software manufacturer, a payment broker, books store, music store, music streaming service, music gear manufacturer, watch manufacturer, fashion items manufacturer and soon TV shows producer. I guess groceries is next.
I think the same rule applies here. Yes, Apple built those devices, written the OS and gave birth to AppStore. However, they offer no other way to install apps other than AppStore. They are also direct competitor to other streaming services. This on its own is material for lawsuit and is reminiscent of what Microsoft did in 90's, except Microsoft was giving you ways to install whatever you wish and use it however you wish.
In such cases Apple's walled garden approach works against them and Spotify makes valid points. Apple breaks it's own rules (adviertisement notifications) and uses special APIs reserved for themselves (Siri, HomePod etc) which gives them unfair advantage. It'd be easier to see without Apple-tinted glasses, but then again, this is MacRumors forum.
PS.: What a times to live in. Apple is: phone manufacturer, computers manufacturer, software manufacturer, a payment broker, books store, music store, music streaming service, music gear manufacturer, watch manufacturer, fashion items manufacturer and soon TV shows producer. I guess groceries is next.
The Girl Scouts are a non-profit entity, IINM. Hosting a non-profit is a community good. Both Apple and Spotify are engaged in serious competition. Screw Spotify.
Microsoft OS, Microsoft browser, Microsoft rules didn’t work out so well. Hopefully Apple gets smacked down HARD for their anticompetitive policies, maybe then we’ll finally be able to set default apps. I’m sure that the fact that Safari and Apple Maps marketshare would plunge if iOS users are allowed to change default apps is the only reason why that restriction exists.
No.
The App Store doesn't apply one set of rules to media distributors and another to say, gaming companies. Apple extract a portion of ongoing revenues from all subscription-based services. Don't like the terms? Too bad. You're using a distribution platform that you didn't invest in the creation of. The 30% cut is your payment for such a commerce infrastructure. Take it or leave it. Or work around it.
That would be like mandating that Airlines show the price of a ticket at other locations. Or grocery stores showing you who has the cheapest cereal. I mean it sounds good, but there is zero incentive for retailers to cut into their profit margins to help a competitor.
Lets be honest, Spotify wants access to Apple's customers without having to give Apple a cut. Spotify also does not want to pay musicians more money, which Apple has.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/spotify-and-amazon-sue-songwriters-after-row-over-royalties-2459832
So Spotify wants more money from Apple customers and wants to pay musicians less. How nice for them right? C'mon now, they're just doing all they can to maximize profits.
I think everyone is missing the point here. Spotify does not say "we don't want to pay Apple %30 cut" since they were already paying that for a long time.
When Apple Music was introduced, Apple matched the price with Spotify. However, Apple is not paying any %30 cut and can still make more profit than Spotify which charges you the same price. What Spotify says is "if I have to pay %30 cut so that I have to make the $9.99 deal $12.99 to create profitable business where Apple can still charge its users $9.99 and make a lot of profit".
That's exactly why senator who is a presidential candidate for 2020 wants to break Apple by splitting App Store from Apple's control. Apple is now a competitor in the market but it uses its platform advantage unfairly. Of course, Apple should charge Spotify with whatever cut they want. However, Apple should not restrict Spotify from directing users to its own platform where people can get the service for $9.99. They might restrict this to many applications since they have to earn money from App Store. However, Apple hits two birds with one stone on this one which is completely unfair. They are making profit from App Store with %30 cut and restricting any directions to Spotify's own platform. So that is one bird which is fine. However, it causes Spotify to lose money if Spotify does not increase the price. Apple still charges $9.99 and hits the second bird. Do not forget Apple can send push notifications for deals. Another solution may be forcing Apple to add the %30 tax on Apple Music as well by making the price $12.99. But this is not users want.
Owning a platform and having rules do not mean that they are completely fair. Then, companies may think that "okey, the platform is mine. So I can do whatever I want".
Advocating Apple on this one causes trouble to us, THE CUSTOMERS. Competition will be lost, and therefore the users. This is basic economy principle.
I will give an example, a political one but it will clarify these. Let's say there is a governor in a district. And, there is company X in an industry. The company X accepts the district rules, taxes and all. After a while, governor sets up a company (Y) in the industry where company X is also serving for years. What do you expect from the governor? To apply all the rules and taxes on his/her company Y. However, governor is not paying any taxes for company Y. So that, company X finds itself in an unfair market. I think you will get the idea.
When Apple Music was introduced, Apple matched the price with Spotify. However, Apple is not paying any %30 cut and can still make more profit than Spotify which charges you the same price. What Spotify says is "if I have to pay %30 cut so that I have to make the $9.99 deal $12.99 to create profitable business where Apple can still charge its users $9.99 and make a lot of profit".
That's exactly why senator who is a presidential candidate for 2020 wants to break Apple by splitting App Store from Apple's control. Apple is now a competitor in the market but it uses its platform advantage unfairly. Of course, Apple should charge Spotify with whatever cut they want. However, Apple should not restrict Spotify from directing users to its own platform where people can get the service for $9.99. They might restrict this to many applications since they have to earn money from App Store. However, Apple hits two birds with one stone on this one which is completely unfair. They are making profit from App Store with %30 cut and restricting any directions to Spotify's own platform. So that is one bird which is fine. However, it causes Spotify to lose money if Spotify does not increase the price. Apple still charges $9.99 and hits the second bird. Do not forget Apple can send push notifications for deals. Another solution may be forcing Apple to add the %30 tax on Apple Music as well by making the price $12.99. But this is not users want.
Owning a platform and having rules do not mean that they are completely fair. Then, companies may think that "okey, the platform is mine. So I can do whatever I want".
Advocating Apple on this one causes trouble to us, THE CUSTOMERS. Competition will be lost, and therefore the users. This is basic economy principle.
I will give an example, a political one but it will clarify these. Let's say there is a governor in a district. And, there is company X in an industry. The company X accepts the district rules, taxes and all. After a while, governor sets up a company (Y) in the industry where company X is also serving for years. What do you expect from the governor? To apply all the rules and taxes on his/her company Y. However, governor is not paying any taxes for company Y. So that, company X finds itself in an unfair market. I think you will get the idea.
Last edited:
You don't think we, the users buying i-products are paying the cost of developing and operating the platform? We know the iPhone hardware typically only costs about $250 per phone, yet they sell it for 3x more. In those threads, the Apple fans always yell about the cost of the platform and all the stuff you get when you plug into Apple's ecosystem. Which is it?
Apple charges all subscription-based services a fee to operate within the App Store. Uber, Lyft, Amazon, ABnB...none of those are subscription services, so they'd be exempt from such an "Apple tax."
Not really. What they want is for the Apple fee to be applied uniformly, not just to markets where Apple is a competitor. What is the difference between hailing a car on Uber, paying for the ride, and paying for the tip all through the iOS app and purchasing a Kindle book from Amazon using the Amazon app? Uber pays Apple nothing, yet Amazon would be expected to pay 30%. Of course, in neither case would Apple be handling the transaction nor be remitting the fees to the provider as both Uber and Amazon handle all their own transactions.
They would also like to be able to directly link to the Spotify account signup from the app just like you can with Uber.
Apple doesn't compete with the gaming companies.
This is similar to the Amazon-branded stuff being sold on Amazon, which the EU is also looking at. It's fundamentally anticompetitive to make a platform open to third-parties, gain a monopoly in that platform, and then bend the platform to compete with those same third parties.
It's not the terms that are problematic. It's that Apple is a competitor on their own platform, and the terms are different for Apple than anyone else on that platform.
False, from Girlscouts.org “On average, Girl Scout council net revenue is approximately 65–75 percent of the local retail price of cookies; the amount shared with participating Girl Scout troops, referred to as troop proceeds, is approximately 10–20 percent of the local retail price.”
Apple is collecting the payments, paying for support people when people collect refunds, providing server infrastructure on said payment collection system. Nothing is free. Spotify is wrong on this one.
Apple is technically part of a duopoly in the phone OS space.
However, the App Store is not a "monopoly" in the sense that there is only one media-streaming choice. There are multiple. All of which are subject to the same rules regarding subscription services. Apple does not restrict your entry into the market. They require you to price your product in a way that accounts for your true cost of doing business -- which in this case, is the percentage Apple receives from your ongoing subscriptions acquired through the Apple App Store platform. Convenience costs money. If you can't make money with those cost constraints, you lose.
It should also be noted, Spotify informs potential new subs that they can save money by signing up for a subscription outside the App Store -- a process that Apple does not limit, nor takes a cut of. Problem solved.
Apple is under no obligation to make the Spotify service available to iPhone users. Apple has set the terms Spotify can offer their service to Apple's customer base.
Both parties at one time viewed the terms in their best interest. Now, Spotify wants better terms.
The yearly dev fee is $100. That doesn’t cover the cost of Apple’s support infrastructure. If you have a problem with a payment in the iTunes Store, there’s actual employees that field your questions. That doesn’t pay for itself.
You see, have you actually visited their website and read timeline, you'd know Apple forbids them to even mention it. Even in e-mails.
That's just it. Yes, I agree they should vet the apps if they want to ensure a certain level of security and quality for their products - but this is going far-far beyond that with the revenue they're generating.
Nothing stopping me from installing whatever I want onto my surface. Their practices are starting to get monopolistic.
The difference is Uber runs its own payment collection. You don’t pay for an Uber through the iTunes Store. There’s a big difference there.
The ecosystem isn't magic, it was a long hard road to get to where it is. If you don't want to be there take your ball and go play somewhere else. This is like a store complaining it has to pay rent to be in a shopping center. Go build your own distribution system if it's so easy.
yeah but when I signed up for Spotify, they sent me those exact e-mails. So unless that was stopped by Apple recently ...