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

[BaldiMac]

Yes they are. There is simply no need for Apple to gouge their excessive fees. The developers create an enormous amount of value for Apple.

Ahh. That's nothing but an appeal to emotion.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Ahh. That's nothing but an appeal to emotion.

And your post isn't a rebuttal. Some of the practices they employ to extract the fees are a disgrace also.

If the app store provides so much value why do they need to force people to use it?

 

[BaldiMac]

the hughlighted text was just emphasice. How did you miss the free of charge? or the prevention of preventing the conclusion of buisness contracts free of charge outside their platform?


7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including underdifferent conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.

I didn't miss those quotes. They just don't mean what you say they mean.

 

[BaldiMac]

And your post isn't a rebuttal. Some of the practices they employ to extract the fees are a disgrace also.

If the app store provides so much value why do they need to force people to use it?

Now you're changing topics. I didn't say anything about the App Store. Like I said, it seems you are trying to make points that have nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Now you're changing topics. I didn't say anything about the App Store. Like I said, it seems you are trying to make points that have nothing to do with what I said.

Ok, your original point was completely erroneous.

The entire point of this legislation is to prevent the likes of Apple and Google extracting excessive fees and self preferencing their own services on their platforms.

 

[BaldiMac]

Ok, your original point was completely erroneous.

The entire point of this legislation is to prevent the likes of Apple and Google extracting excessive fees and self preferencing their own services on their platforms.

My original point that you replied to was that Apple's support and development of iOS is of value to developers. How is that erroneous?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

My original point that you replied to was that Apple's support and development of iOS is of value to developers. How is that erroneous?

and the developers provide value to Apple in return. Nobody would care about iOS without third party apps and nobody would buy the expensive hardware.

Unfortunately Apple have become abusive to their developer community which is why they attracting so much regulatory scrutiny.

 

[BaldiMac]

and the developers provide value to Apple in return. Nobody would care about iOS without third party apps.

I agree. Again, you were arguing with stuff I never said.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I didn't miss those quotes. They just don't mean what you say they mean.

so what do they mean acording to you? that apple can take out a fee on anyone who want to sell somthing to a iOS user wihtout using theri services? as was stated they dont need to use any of apple's services.

And you agree with this idea? Assuming you do...here are some followup questions:

1) So, you think Apple should receive no remuneration for the development, improvement and maintenance of IOS as well as the support provided to 3rd party app developers (which money they make through the App store)? Assuming that you say yes, I assume you would suggest that Apple should be limited to making money off of their hardware sales only (correct me, of course, if I'm wrong). And, if you don't think that Apple should make money off of IOS, only hardware, then...

2) You think Google should not be able to make money through their App Store? Noting, of course, that google does not charge phone manufacturers for updates and developments of Android, which is open source and free. Google supports Android development through sales in the Google Play Store.

If a developer wants to sell iOS games through steam(giving them 30% and apple 0%) because it provides superior services, then they should be allowed to do so without giving apple a single cent, and if the developer wants to sell a game in the App Store and give apple 15-30% the they should be allowed to.

Just how Amazon store gives 99$ a year to apple only and 0$ for in-app purchases because they use their own payment processor, this should be allowed for any developer.

Do i agree? Yes as apple should be forced to compete on the merit of the quality of their services to convince developers and buisnesses to use their options, and not be forced to use inferior services by force.

2) and they can sell apps to android users without giving google anything by selling through the galaxy store or other random alternative option

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I agree. Again, you were arguing with stuff I never said.

You have no point really or you would argue it.

Apple have become a greedy, litigious company. More concerned with bullying a few extra pennies out of their developer community than actually producing anything particularly innovative. They are rightfully attracting regulatory scrutiny worldwide.

The OP sums it up, Spotify made music streaming mainstream. Apple were late to the party and tried to use their platform to hinder a competitor and help their also ran attempt.

Sad really because it didn't even work.

 

[BaldiMac]

so what do they mean acording to you? that apple can take out a fee on anyone who want to sell somthing to a iOS user wihtout using theri services? as was stated they dont need to use any of apple's services.

It means what it says and nothing more. It certainly doesn't say that Apple can't charge developers "any fee whatsoever."

If a developer wants to sell iOS games through steam(giving them 30% and apple 0%) because it provides superior services, then they should be allowed to do so without giving apple a single cent, and if the developer wants to sell a game in the App Store and give apple 15-30% the they should be allowed to.

Just how Amazon store gives 99$ a year to apple only and 0$ for in-app purchases because they use their own payment processor, this should be allowed for any developer.

Do i agree? Yes as apple should be forced to compete on the merit of the quality of their services to convince developers and buisnesses to use their options, and not be forced to use inferior services by force.

2) and they can sell apps to android users without giving google anything by selling through the galaxy store or other random alternative option

You sure are cavalier about giving away other people's work. If I sell access to anything you created or own, would you expect a cut?

 

[BaldiMac]

You have no point really or you would argue it.

I did argue it. You agreed with me. Though you didn't apologize for originally claiming it was erroneous.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It means what it says and nothing more. It certainly doesn't say that Apple can't charge developers "any fee whatsoever."


You sure are cavalier about giving away other people's work. If I sell access to anything you created or own, would you expect a cut?

nobodys work is given away. Why should apple have a right to someone else's money if they don't actualy use their services?

Exactly how Amazon store isn't forced to give apple anything. They could if apple actualy contributed a worthwile service to give away 30% of the revenue

And Apple is the one who sells the devices to people. Their rights end at the exchange of money. they don't own the rights of people to freely conduct business transactions without apple as a middle man.

If apple wants to be paid for their service, then they should convince people to prefer their services.

 

[BaldiMac]

nobodys work is given away. Why should apple have a right to someone else's money if they don't actualy use their services?

Except developers actually do use their services.

Zxactly how Amazon store isn't forced to give apple anything. They could if apple actualy contributed a worthwile service to give away 30% of the revenue

Amazon isn't providing anything to people who don't use their store. Apple is providing developers an entire development platform, support, and services.

And Apple is the one who sells the devices to people. Their rights end at the exchange of money. they don't own the rights of people to freely conduct business transactions without apple as a middle man.

They certainly have rights subject to the licenses and agreements that they enter into.

If apple wants to be paid for their service, then they should convince people to prefer their services.

You seem to be deliberating equating multiple things here. You're argument is that Apple can't charge "any fees whatsoever" regardless of what services they provide developers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don't think this is a fair analogy. If I buy a soccer ball from Amazon through their app, that soccer ball has no direct interaction with IOS. Apple charges fees only for products that will utilize IOS (Digital products and Apps). To that end, I can't buy a digital movie from Amazon through the Amazon App.

How is it unfare? i can open up amazon store in safari, purchase kindle books, and opoen up the kindle app and read them on the same iphone...

But if it's done in the Amazon app using the same payment system, apple takes a fee? Even tho nothing actually changed
I can buy steam games at no cost. i can subscribe to netflix or buy a million other things that gets used on my phone, but for some reason as long as the purchase is done outside the app, apple doesn't take a cut.

i can start my own : music streamer app. And as long as I don't allow users to pay in the app and does it in safari, I keep all the revenue. But as soon as i employ my own payment system out of nowhere apple takes a big chunk out of it while apple did zero more work.

Contrary to one of your earlier points, I don't think the only service that Apple provides is "glorified payment processing." I see the entire IOS as a service that costs money to develop, maintain, and improve.

It's in the consumer's best interest that companies, such as Apple and Google, are allowed to charge for the service of building, maintaining and updating mobile operating systems. Take their ability away, and the operating systems will go away. How does that benefit the consumer?

We pay for the iOS through hardware sales, 99$ developer accounts, developers who voluntarily opt to use apple's IAP system.

Consumers aren't the main target here. It's about every other stakeholder that isn't apple as the interest of the MARKET, consumers are more a sidenote

And what do you expect the outcome of these forced changes on Apple to be? Or does it matter to you? For example, do you expect 3rd Party stores to lower prices of apps? That hasn't happened on Android. Does it matter to you whether or not the DMA achieves certain outcomes? Or do you simply think on principle the DMA should exist?

I'll leave this article here because it expresses much of the doubts I have about the effectiveness of the DMA:

Has The Digital Markets Act got it wrong on app stores?

Interesting article missing the point, weakening the market power isn't part of goal, or removing monopolistic power(having a monopoly is legal), network power and price is isn't the issue. It's the fact they prevent innovation and competition can't exist to challenge specific services and do a better job. Nobody is removing the App Store, it's giving more liberty to stakeholders.

Except developers actually do use their services.

Some uses it, not everyone. Thousands of Cydia apps or in house programs doesn't use their services.

Amazon isn't providing anything to people who don't use their store. Apple is providing developers an entire development platform, support, and services.

By force, Developers don't need to use Apple's developer platform, services and support. The only reason developers use it because it's the only available option

They certainly have rights subject to the licenses and agreements that they enter into.

good luck enforcing that in any European court. No contract was given to me to sign before I purchased my iPhone.

Your seem to be deliberating equating the multiple things here. You're argument is that Apple can't charge "any fees whatsoever" regardless of what services they provide developers.

no, my argument is apple cant charge any fee whatsoever IF a developer opt out of using their services. Just how apple takes a fee for games sold in the Mac App Store, but takes no fee for the Mac games sold in steam. or takes no fee for Mac games downloaded from safari.

 

[BaldiMac]

Some uses it, not everyone. Thousands of Cydia apps or in house programs doesn't use their services.

What do you mean be services in this context? You seem to have something very specific in mind when you use it.

Regardless, the claim that some don't doesn't change the fact that almost all of them do.

By force, Developers don't need to use Apple's developer platform, services and support. The only reason developers use it because it's the only available option

What gobbledygook. How could this make sense to anyone?

good luck enforcing that in any European court. No contract was given to me to sign before I purchased my iPhone.

More nonsense. Developers certainly enter into agreements when they join the apple developer program.

no, my argument is apple cant charge any fee whatsoever IF a developer opt out of using their services. Just how apple takes a fee for games sold in the Mac App Store, but takes no fee for the Mac games sold in steam. or takes no fee for Mac games downloaded from safari.

Keep moving those goalposts. And, again, what specific services are you referring to here? It appears that you are using "services" to mean "App Store" from context.

 

[sack_peak]

Competition is good. Just make sure the 1st party does not exceed 50% of existing markets of their platform.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

What do you mean be services in this context? You seem to have something very specific in mind when you use it.

Regardless, the claim that some don't doesn't change the fact that almost all of them do.


What gobbledygook. How could this make sense to anyone?

do you not understand that curently to develop and sell apps to ios users that havent jailbroken their devices, the only possebility is by using apples services irespective if you want to or not.

More nonsense. Developers certainly enter into agreements when they join the apple developer program.

You think you can't develop apps for Mac or iOS without a developer account?

Keep moving those goalposts. And, again, what specific services are you referring to here? It appears that you are using "services" to mean "App Store" from context.

My definition is by services is the Legal definition as established by EU as outlined below. And I haven't moved the goal post, you have just misunderstood my stance on freedom to x wihtout apple to ios users, and the freedom to x with the help of apple. AKA using none of the services below by apple

‘online intermediation services’ means services which meet all of the following requirements: (a) they constitute information society services within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12); ‘service’ means any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services. For the purposes of this definition: (ii)(i) ‘at a distance’ means that the service is provided without the parties being simultaneously present; ‘by electronic means’ means that the service is sent initially and received at its destination by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and entirely transmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means; (b) they allow business users to offer goods or services to consumers, with a view to facilitating the initiating of direct transactions between those business users and consumers, irrespective of where those transactions are ultimately concluded; (c) they are provided to business users on the basis of contractual relationships between the provider of those services and business users which offer goods or services to consumers;

1.	An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a)	it has a significant impact on the internal market;
(b)	it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
(c)	it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

(1)	‘gatekeeper’ means an undertaking providing core platform services, designated pursuant to Article 3;
(2)	‘core platform service’ means any of the following: (a) online intermediation services;
(14)	‘software application stores’ means a type of online intermediation services, which is focused on software applications as the intermediated product or service;
(16)	‘payment service’ means a payment service as defined in Article 4, point (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366;
(17)	‘technical service supporting payment service’ means a service within the meaning of Article 3, point (j), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366;
(18)	‘payment system for in-app purchases’ means a software application, service or user interface which facilitates purchases of digital content or digital services within a software application, including content, subscriptions, features or functionality, and the payments for such purchases;
(19)	‘identification service’ means a type of service provided together with or in support of core platform services that enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used;
(20)	‘end user’ means any natural or legal person using core platform services other than as a business user;

 

[BaldiMac]

do you not understand that curently to develop and sell apps to ios users that havent jailbroken their devices, the only possebility is by using apples services irespective if you want to or not.

I certainly understand that. I also understand the difference between forced and voluntary agreements. Developers voluntarily agree to develop for iOS under Apple's terms. The DMA will force Apple to make changes under threat.

You think you can't develop apps for Mac or iOS without a developer account?

No, but that's completely irrelevant to the point. Have you lost track of what we are talking about again?

My definition is by services is the Legal definition as established by EU as outlined below. And I haven't moved the goal post, you have just misunderstood my stance on freedom to x wihtout apple to ios users, and the freedom to x with the help of apple. AKA using none of the services below by apple

Hah! There is certainly a big difference between "services" and "payment services". I'm referring to the former while you're incomprehensibly referring to the latter.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Read what you just wrote, again...OF COURSE THE ONLY WAY TO DEVELOP FOR IOS IS TO USE APPLE'S SERVICES. IOS is an APPLE SERVICE. You can't code for IOS without using an Apple service.

iOS isn't a service, it's just locally run software on end user owned devices. You can write iOS applications on Windows

(10)	‘operating system’ means a system software that controls the basic functions of the hardware or software and enables software applications to run on it;

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I certainly understand that. I also understand the difference between forced and voluntary agreements. Developers voluntarily agree to develop for iOS under Apple's terms. The DMA will force Apple to make changes under threat.

Developers absolutely don't voluntarily agree to develop for iOS under Apple's terms. They can't sell to iOS users without agreeing to their terms, or hope the next jailbreak exploit will come out in the next 5 years.

Apple will be forced to allow developers to contact iOS users without agreeing to their ToS and convince them the normal way without the ability of market allure

No, but that's completely irrelevant to the point. Have you lost track of what we are talking about again?

No, but then I don't understand the point of your original comment.

Being a developer for apple devices without entering in to an agreement is normal.

Hah! There is certainly a big difference between "services" and "payment services". I'm referring to the former while you're referring to the latter.

I'm referring to both. iAP is using payment services developed by apple. so anything falling under the list of services

 

[BaldiMac]

Developers absolutely don't voluntarily agree to develop for iOS under Apple's terms. They can't sell to iOS users without agreeing to their terms, or hope the next jailbreak exploit will come out in the next 5 years.

Of course they do. That is how voluntary agreements work. You can't benefit from the agreement without agreeing to the terms. That’s not force.

Apple will be forced to allow developers to contact iOS users without agreeing to their ToS and convince them the normal way without the ability of market allure

More gobbledygook.

No, but then I don't understand the point of your original comment.
View attachment 2289592
Being a developer for apple devices without entering in to an agreement is normal.

The fact that some don't doesn't change the fact that almost all of them do.

I'm referring to both. iAP is using payment services developed by apple. so anything falling under the list of services

From this comment, it does not appear that you are acknowledging the actual difference.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This idea that the only service Apple provides is payment processing is at the core of everything you seem to be arguing, and it's just a really weird take. The idea that developing the OS, maintaining the OS, updating the OS, creating a development platform and development tools, hosting apps, hosting data, etc...isn't a service that Apple is providing should be beyond debate. And your apparent belief that such services should be provided for free by Apple makes this a pointless discussion.

I quite literary listed a bunch of services as legally defined that apple provides.

Maintaining the OS or developing the OS is them maintaining a product consumers purchased. If apple don't want to provide software updates, they can do that, but they do it because they benefit from it.

If a developer doesn't use apples provided development platform, development tools, hosting apps, hosting data, etc

then what is the developer paying for?
or do you not see that what is being persued is the exact same situation as on the Mac.

1. Mac App Store apps= paying apple 15-30%
2. Not using the App Store= keeping 100%

Currently the price apple asks is 99$ a year to use Xcode etc. using xcode and publishing on steam/ website costs 99$

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Of course they do. That is how voluntary agreements work. You can't benefit from the agreement without

then let them chose not to benefit from anything and sell their app to users in cydia or steam if they chose to.

More gobbledygook.

it's all perfectly outlined in the DMA

The fact that some don't doesn't change the fact that almost all of them do.

they do because they have to.

From this comment, it does not appear that you are acknowledging the actual difference.

I acknowledge the differences. i just listed most of the services that is't related to payments. only 3 points was related with payment services

 

[I7guy]

Competition is good. Just make sure the 1st party does not exceed 50% of existing markets of their platform.

Competition is great. But what isn’t great is government creating laws to force your IP to be used for free. That’s not competition, it’s regulation.