That's what developers wants.
How will Apple collect money from Spotify if you can download it from the web?
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 on Apple and Google: 'If You Want to Be the Referee, You Can't Also Be the Player'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's what developers wants.
How will Apple collect money from Spotify if you can download it from the web?
I think a compromise solution would be lowering the fee to 15%, mostly to pay for the service apple offers with the appstore.
Instead we're getting petty arguments and security-impairing sideloading solutions.
I don't use spotify and I hope all the few apps I use will be available on the store even after the switch to sideloading.
Also, is paying on desktop so hard? I use tens of subscription services, but I don't pay any of them through the appstore.
Are people so lazy they can't bring themselves to start the subscription on desktop?
I really don't understand...
Instead we're getting petty arguments and security-impairing sideloading solutions.
I don't use spotify and I hope all the few apps I use will be available on the store even after the switch to sideloading.
Also, is paying on desktop so hard? I use tens of subscription services, but I don't pay any of them through the appstore.
Are people so lazy they can't bring themselves to start the subscription on desktop?
I really don't understand...
There is something sweet and cute about seeing one multi-billion dollar monopolist seeking the regulation of another multi-billion dollar monopolist. But it's a zero sum game: musicians and podcasters will see no additional income, and in fact are very likely to lose.
They want to know as the app is submitted. They aren't just letting them throw anything up on the app store. Every single app goes through a submission process. Spotify is just bitter that they can't hitch a free ride on Apple's train.
No one streaming music is making money and I doubt Apple Music (NOT paying the 15%) is making money either. It’s just not a profitable business by itself. Apple DID show the industry how to make money from streaming music, though.
1. Make a music service.
2. Make a hardware device tied to that music service.
3. Profit from the hardware device.
These companies do this completely out of jealousy and business strategy. If it was them who had the edge you can bet they wouldn't change their business practices to be fair to other companies. Give me a break.
I'm not sure it would. Take for example Amazon, where sellers pay an average rate between 10% and 15% to sell stuff with Prime shipping. The fact Amazon completes directly with these sellers by offering in-house competitive brands is still a huge problem.
The fee is irrelevant, whether it is 30%, 10%, or even 1%. The problem, as Spotify has said many times, is there is a direct conflict of interest when you both own the marketplace and participate in that same marketplace. We regulate this kind of thing in other areas such as finance. And but for the past few decades of super weak anti-trust enforcement, this kind of thing used to be very much frowned upon by anti-trust regulators.
I agree with you here, but is Amazon constantly getting sued over their cut like Apple is? My point was it might end up saving them money in the long run to bring their cut down if they keep getting sued like this.
Uhhh…
No I wouldn’t. Because that’d be 2 stores selling Rolex watches. The owner of the store is irrelevant.
Both stores need to purchase their Rolex watches from Rolex to then sell them at retail… and one of those stores is paying MORE for their Rolex stock than the other, and still charging the same price.
The other store is complaining they don’t want to pay rent in spite of paying less for their Rolex watches, all while having 500 million more clients than the other store. Why do they do that? Because they’re giving away their Rolex’s for free to 350 million people then wondering why they have no money and blaming everyone else.
I am sure the cost of litigation is less than what you're asking them to give up in revenue. Ultimately, lawsuits will never work here - this requires large-scape regulatory work to fix (which is why I applaud the EU for taking it on, and I also applaud the US for taking on Amazon in a similar way).
Apple’s entry in the commercial music market was the iTunes Store in 2003. Past that point, anyone entering the music market in ANY way were going to be competing with them eventually. Spotify thought they had what it took, but they’ve never turned a profit.
We all know that’s not the reason
The intensity of Apple’s restrictions started to change after Apple acquired a rival music streaming service and prepared to launch Apple Music, which was many years after Spotify brought music streaming to fans around the world. Faced with established competitors like Spotify, Apple started to aggressively move the goalposts of compliance with App Store rules to disadvantage rivals like us in favor of their own services.
Smartphones, I mean, it’s a stretch, but let’s just say you’re correct. In no way does that mean iPhones are required.
And that’s why it’s anti competitive
Because Apple now has their own music app that’s not held to the same standards.
Not a stretch at all. If you travel internationally you need to have your flight tickets, maybe vaccination proof in an email, message or app. Same for hotels, arranged transport etc. Paper tickets and boarding passes are long gone in many places. I would be happy with a small cheap flip phone but my life requires the functions of a smart phone.
The smart phone makes all of these easier, but you know, people did travel, provide proof of vaccination, arrange transportation, etc. before cell phones even existed...
A customer that patronizes WalMart is a customer of WalMart, WalMart’s customer.
Vendors engage with and provide goods to WalMart in order to be presented to WalMart’s customers.
A customer that patronizes “X town Mall” is a customer of “X town Mall”, “X town Mall”’s customer.
Companies open stores in “X town Mall” in order to be presented to “X town Mall”’s customers.
Just because the word “Apple” is added in a phrase doesn’t change the terminology of business. Although it’s clear some really wish it weren’t true.
Apple moved the goalposts? Apple’s rules have always been Apple’s rules. From the first day Spotify created their app, anti-steering was there, 30% was there and Spotify was like OHHHHHHKAY! Where do we sign? This is an arrangement we desperately want to be a part of!
Of course they did. Not possible now in many places. People used to pay 10 cents for a chocolate bar. What does that have to do with October 2023? Perhaps you live in the US where you are used to and forced to use antiquated banking and store payment systems.
Ok, then say “required for folks that travel internationally”.
Absolutely not required for everyone.
Listen punk (addressing Spotify CEO) anyone can do pretty much what the devil they like because we live (and breath) in a capitalist society where (mostly rich) people/companies get to dictate the rules of the (mostly unregulated) farming game. You bought into it. You keep buying into it. And if you complain about people not playing by the rules then I'll laugh in your (mostly laughing all the way to the bank) face. Now go farm some more poor artists! Cheers!
I wouldn't call it an easy task to tell wether Apple is running Apple Music at a profit or not.
The difference here is that Apple has it's fingers in all the jars and they easily spill over to make massive profit. So what if Apple Music is operated at even a huge financial loss? They probably don't care since Apple Music is just another "thing" to draw people into the ecosystem and thus buy more Apple-stuff.
Well, we know that it cost Apple quite a bit to actually be able to offer music:
Apple Corps v Apple Computer - Wikipedia
Some folks are having reading comprehension problems tonight it seems.Ok, then say “required for folks that travel internationally”.