Spotify CEO on Apple and Google: 'If You Want to Be the Referee, You Can't Also Be the Player'

[Sophisticatednut]

Right so theres no consumer benefit to any of this.

And it’s not begging the question as the consumer benefits aren’t part of the question. Is it harming competitors?

the exact same reason why Netflix, Amazon or uber doesn’t pay Apple a fee of sales made in their apps.

You can argue physical and digital goods are different, but the cost to Apple are equal.

Edit: if Apple increases their fee to 90%. Who will bear the costs?

If Apple had started at 90% fee and lowered it to 15% will companies pass on the savings or use it to benefit the business?

If Apple takes 0% fee if developers use their own IAP solution, who will benefit from the savings?

And what are the consequences going to be? A poorer App Store experience very unlikely as iOS is all about how nice & good it looks. The App Store won’t change because it would not make good business sense for Apple to start charging to use the App Store or get rid of free apps that’s just not going to happen. Will will end up happening is they will probably raise the developer fee for certain apps & make the money back this way.

Exactly, the response to a market benefit isn’t to worsen the experience of everyone at no benefit.

Apple already have hundred of not thousands of apps that pay 0% to Apple for transactions made inside it because of the arbitrary lines Apple have drawn

 

[Hails09]

And it’s not begging the question as the consumer benefits aren’t part of the question. Is it harming competitors?

the exact same reason why Netflix, Amazon or uber doesn’t pay Apple a fee of sales made in their apps.

You can argue physical and digital goods are different, but the cost to Apple are equal.

Edit: if Apple increases their fee to 90%. Who will bear the costs?

If Apple had started at 90% fee and lowered it to 15% will companies pass on the savings or use it to benefit the business?

If Apple takes 0% fee if developers use their own IAP solution, who will benefit from the savings?

Exactly, the response to a market benefit isn’t to worsen the experience of everyone at no benefit.

Apple already have hundred of not thousands of apps that pay 0% to Apple for transactions made inside it because of the arbitrary lines Apple have drawn

Ok my question would be why is it always the bigger companies that complain about Apple’s business practices & take them to court.
Amazon & Uber don’t come under the 30% policy bracket.
When netflix did this is what happened
As it turns out, Apple executives were unhappy with Netflix's decision, and made attempts to persuade Netflix to keep in-app purchases available.
Apple tried their best to keep Netflix as in app purchases but failed.
That makes no sense how would it worsen the experience because Apple don’t get their 30% cut?
Just think about it do you really think when this in app purchase restriction gets removed it’s going to make the experience of using the App Store worse?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Ok my question would be why is it always the bigger companies that complain about Apple’s business practices & take them to court.

They have the resources to do it.

Amazon & Uber don’t come under the 30% policy bracket.

An inconsistency on apples part showing the AppStore won’t burn down if this was the norm for competitors to Apple.

When netflix did this is what happened
As it turns out, Apple executives were unhappy with Netflix's decision, and made attempts to persuade Netflix to keep in-app purchases available.
Apple tried their best to keep Netflix as in app purchases but failed.

Indeed they failed because no sane person gives up 15-3% of their revenue for zero benefits. And now they have caved to the pressure of reader apps so they can tell the users to get to their website to subscribe, instead of not knowing why they can’t use an app with a login screen and zero information.

That makes no sense how would it worsen the experience because Apple don’t get their 30% cut?
Just think about it do you really think when this in app purchase restriction gets removed it’s going to make the experience of using the App Store worse?

I think the experience will get better when the restrictions are removed

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

You will probably find there is no major demand for it. That’s why they haven’t done it.

Even if that were true it didn’t stop them from crying Apple didn’t let them, only to not do it when it was finally possible

 

[Hails09]

They have the resources to do it.

An inconsistency on apples part showing the AppStore won’t burn down if this was the norm for competitors to Apple.

Indeed they failed because no sane person gives up 15-3% of their revenue for zero benefits. And now they have caved to the pressure of reader apps so they can tell the users to get to their website to subscribe, instead of not knowing why they can’t use an app with a login screen and zero information.

I think the experience will get better when the restrictions are removed

Exactly
I also think if Apple cut their 30% in the first place for all developers
Then Apple wouldn’t be having this problem now.
The argument goes if Apple took 10 to 12% like certain companies asked then there would be no court case.
But because Apple refused to drop the 30% it’s going to now have a situation where app developers can put a link on there app & by pass the 30% cut.
As I said before it’s all to do with money because if it was cut down to 10 to 12% Apple would still get that income for the App Store

 

[PlayUltimate]

Imagine a single company controlled the only way you could install software on your computer. That would sound ludicrous, wouldn't it?

I'm old enough to be around when that was the case. Prior to the ubiquitousness of Microsoft, there were many computers, that each had a different OS, that ran only software designed for that computer. If you wanted other software you had to buy their's, or licensed.

 

[picpicmac]

The EU argues that iOS users are loyal to the Apple ecosystem and are unlikely to switch to Android devices, and that app developers have to incur significant costs and efforts to adapt their apps to different operating systems.

Ok, but I am not one to simply accept what an EU commission says, as the last word on the subject.

As a American not only do I have a somewhat different cultural programming, but also perhaps (misguided or not) idea that I can switch from whatever to whatever else.

While I applaud the EU for enforcing interface standards (such as USB on smart phones, hence the iPhone 15), when it comes to people making buying decisions I think the EU is taking too heavy of a hand.

The EU is implying that the iPhone will be the defacto smart phone in Europe for the future, however long. I think such a position will likely be proven false sometime over the next couple of decades.

 

[Hails09]

Even if that were true it didn’t stop them from crying Apple didn’t let them, only to not do it when it was finally possible

The reason Spotify did that was to build a case to show Apple was prioritising Apple Music over other said music apps.
Then showing Apple rejecting app updates & then wanting to know in advance new features that Spotify wanted to put in their app
Then also mentioning how apple’s behaviour changed when they launched Apple Music.
To then mention the 30% cut and how Apple deliberately undercut them in price.
That’s why they did it.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

The reason Spotify did that was to build a case to show Apple was prioritising Apple Music over other said music apps.
Then showing Apple rejecting app updates & then wanting to know in advance new features that Spotify wanted to put in their app
Then also mentioning how apple’s behaviour changed when they launched Apple Music.
To then mention the 30% cut and how Apple deliberately undercut them in price.
That’s why they did it.

Yeah that’s exactly what I was hinting at lol

 

[mrochester]

Exactly
I also think if Apple cut their 30% in the first place for all developers
Then Apple wouldn’t be having this problem now.
The argument goes if Apple took 10 to 12% like certain companies asked then there would be no court case.
But because Apple refused to drop the 30% it’s going to now have a situation where app developers can put a link on there app & by pass the 30% cut.
As I said before it’s all to do with money because if it was cut down to 10 to 12% Apple would still get that income for the App Store

I suspect Apple will continue to get revenue equivalent to the 30% commission as they'll simply restructure the app store fees to make up for what is lost. The one body that is unlikely to be worse off after this is Apple.

 

[Hails09]

Ok, but I am not one to simply accept what an EU commission says, as the last word on the subject.

As a American not only do I have a somewhat different cultural programming, but also perhaps (misguided or not) idea that I can switch from whatever to whatever else.

While I applaud the EU for enforcing interface standards (such as USB on smart phones, hence the iPhone 15), when it comes to people making buying decisions I think the EU is taking too heavy of a hand.

The EU is implying that the iPhone will be the defacto smart phone in Europe for the future, however long. I think such a position will likely be proven false sometime over the next couple of decades.

There is data to show that is pretty much the case that once your in the iOS ecosystem it’s harder for other mobile companies to get you leave and Apple knows this.

 

[mrochester]

There is data to show that is pretty much the case that once your in the iOS ecosystem it’s harder for other mobile companies to get you leave and Apple knows this.

There's nowhere else to go but Android, and for a lot of people that's a no no. If we had more competition, there'd be more places for people to go.

 

[picpicmac]

And if Black people and Woman don't like it, then they are free to start their own business for themselves with different rules.

Yeah, you've jumped the shark here.

You've confused several societal issues:

1) Anti-discrimination is enforced in societies because our modern civilization has accepted that people should not be punished for who they are.
1b) And a lot of atavists whine about that on various social media outlets.

2) Commerce based on what something is or is not is only partially regulated by government because in most (capitalist) nations commerce is seen as an exchange between parties in which the government's role is only to interfere to the extent as needed to protect people with respect to their fundamental rights. (Such as (1) above.)

What this means for the iPhone:
A) You have no right to own or use an iPhone.
B) However, if you wish to buy an iPhone the seller cannot open a phone store that excludes some specified group (e.g., black, or gay, etc) as customers.
B.1) This of course is a battleground in nations with special privileges for religious groups, wherein some nations (like the US) allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of religion, e.g. a cake baker who does not want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Next time, try to think through your posts before you hit "Post reply".

 

[Hails09]

Yeah that’s exactly what I was hinting at lol

Exactly that’s what Spotify & epic both did by showing examples over the years

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Exactly
I also think if Apple cut their 30% in the first place for all developers
Then Apple wouldn’t be having this problem now.
The argument goes if Apple took 10 to 12% like certain companies asked then there would be no court case.
But because Apple refused to drop the 30% it’s going to now have a situation where app developers can put a link on there app & by pass the 30% cut.
As I said before it’s all to do with money because if it was cut down to 10 to 12% Apple would still get that income for the App Store

Well in a sense we do agree. But actually I think if Apple lowered their fee I think it would have come anyway for the simple fact the fee isn’t the actual issue but everything else. At least in EU as the perspective of market competition.

Ok, but I am not one to simply accept what an EU commission says, as the last word on the subject.

As a American not only do I have a somewhat different cultural programming, but also perhaps (misguided or not) idea that I can switch from whatever to whatever else.

Think of it like this, EU thinks it’s ludicrous for Apple or any company to claim ownership over your private property you purchased with your own money. They don’t think it’s okey to treat it like leasing or rental services but with a straight face call it a purchase.

EU don’t think it’s okey to not give you a contract to sign before any money changes hands. Just how you would be mad at me for selling you a glass of lemonade just to pull out a contract saying you accepted it by drinking it and subscribe to selling your sole and donating 100$ to them every week.

When a company have interest that competes with market and user intrest, often the individual persons rights trumps a group’s claims to the same rights.

The rights of one goes before the rights of a group.

While I applaud the EU for enforcing interface standards (such as USB on smart phones, hence the iPhone 15), when it comes to people making buying decisions I think the EU is taking too heavy of a hand.

Well the same logical reasoning that was used to identify the need of USB c is done to identify the need for opening up the ability to compete on the Apple devices.

The EU is implying that the iPhone will be the defacto smart phone in Europe for the future, however long. I think such a position will likely be proven false sometime over the next couple of decades.

Well it isn’t. Example EU is currently investigating apples complaint that they don’t have enough monthly users of IMessage for it to be covered as a gatekeeper service.

They are using objective measurable criteria’s. And when Apple doesn’t meet them they won’t be under the same obligations. Just how Microsoft isn’t required to show a browser choice screen in EU.

 

[Hails09]

There's nowhere else to go but Android, and for a lot of people that's a no no. If we had more competition, there'd be more places for people to go.

I just don’t think it’s just that
I’ve seen a lot in my time where iPhone users will walk into a phone shop & the customer goes I’m here to upgrade to a new phone & the assistant will go oh what phone have you got. The person will say iPhone & assistant would just say here’s your iPhones here & not bother explaining about anything else.

 

[mrochester]

I just don’t think it’s just that
I’ve seen a lot in my time where iPhone users will walk into a phone shop & the customer goes I’m here to upgrade to a new phone & the assistant will go oh what phone have you got. The person will say iPhone & assistant would just say here’s your iPhones here & not bother explaining about anything else.

I suspect because most people who own an iPhone buy another iPhone when they upgrade their phone. Some people change platforms, but not many do. I rarely ever see iPhone owning people change to Android the same way I rarely ever see Android owning people change to iPhone.

 

[Hails09]

I suspect because most people who own and iPhone buy another iPhone when they upgrade their phone. Some people change platforms, but not many do.

I do think it’s a bit of the assistant can’t be bothered having to teach the person or have that person come back. As I’ve heard many times over the years.
Another factor in it is content you have bought over the years.

 

[mrochester]

I do think it’s a bit of the assistant can’t be bothered having to teach the person or have that person come back. As I’ve heard many times over the years.
Another factor in it is content you have bought over the years.

Yep. You can't run your Android apps on iOS nor can you run iOS apps on Android.

 

[Hails09]

Yep. You can't run your Android apps on iOS nor can you run iOS apps on Android.

Exactly

 

[mrochester]

Exactly

Nothing that can be done about that really.

 

[Hails09]

Nothing that can be done about that really.

That is a factor by both operating systems designed to lock you in. Just proves you don’t actually own the stuff on both platforms.

 

[webkit]

Because of the breadth of categories they control. You really can't deny that what Alphabet controls today are far different from the Microsoft/IE example.

In addition to Windows, Microsoft also established dominant position in office software like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, browsers with IE and some of the ways MS achieved dominance was declared illegal such as the Netscape restrictions, predatory pricing, etc. discussed earlier. It's not just about control or dominance, it's that PLUS anticompetitive behavior. Was what Microsoft did ok or should it have been broken up at some point like you feel Google should be?

 

[mrochester]

That is a factor by both operating systems designed to lock you in. Just proves you don’t actually own the stuff on both platforms.

You can't run Windows software on MacOS and you can't run MacOS software on Windows either. I wouldn't call it lock in, it's just how it works.

 

[icanhazmac]

In addition to Windows, Microsoft also established dominant position in office software like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, browsers with IE and some of the ways MS achieved dominance was declared illegal such as the Netscape restrictions, predatory pricing, etc. discussed earlier. It's not just about control or dominance, it's that PLUS anticompetitive behavior. Was what Microsoft did ok or should it have been broken up at some point like you feel Google should be?

There is/was a case for breaking up MS over the dominance of Windows and Office. One could say no single entity should have been able to control both a 90+% OS and a 90+% Office suite. That said, I am not sure it would have been a good idea without an industry standard file format for all office style suites. It wouldn't do anyone any good to have had Word, Word Perfect, Pages, etc. with similar percentages and all different file formats. I guess another approach would have been to "force" all suites to support the file formats of the other major players but I can see that as problematic too.

I still don't have much of an issue with IE, if someone had made a compellingly better product the public would have bought into it. A probably poor food analogy, if one hot dog is free or a hot dog that has 1 dot of ketchup on it is $2, which one will you order?

I always viewed pre-installed apps as very basic and just good enough for home use, like MS Works used to be. Including these free never seemed like much of a problem. Thankfully, while Office is still dominant, there are better options if you want to blaze a new trail.

I also still consider the control and dominance Alphabet holds today to be exponentially higher than any that MS has ever had. YMMV