Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not sure you thought that one through. That money needs to come from somewhere.
The money should come from their customers. If they can’t make money from their customers with a 70% cut, then they’re bad at business. Apple makes far less than that when they sell hardware through places like Best Buy, Target, and WalMart and they’re able to make a profit.

Some folks just don’t know how to ensure that their costs of doing business are below the money they take in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mech986
Except that there wasn’t a single company categorized as any sort of gatekeeper or dominant platform under their new regulations. Either they are engaging in proxy trade wars via legislation or the regulatory environment has made it difficult for companies to succeed.
I agree that if the regulation had already existed 15 years earlier, the now-gatekeepers would have had more difficulties to become gatekeepers in the first place. I'd say that's a good thing. And it's not like similar efforts aren't also being targeted in the US from both parties, here's just the latest one: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/27/...n-warren-graham-tech-agency-antitrust-privacy
 
Ultimately, that does add some "red tape and bureaucracy", yes it does. But it would also go a long way to show their partners that publish on the app store, that they will be treated fairly and to the same standard Apple treats themselves.
I mean, Spotify, KNOWING that Apple was already in the music business for YEARS before them, thought it was a good idea to enter the music business on the back of Apple’s iPhone and Apple’s App Store. I would have told them at the time that they’ll never make a profit with that and I would have been right.
 
I just don’t understand where you can draw the line. Apple sold music first. They created the device. The OS. So a company can make hardware or software or services, can’t do multiple. Also Spotify not only created its platform it creates content for it as well.
 
Last edited:
Spotify is just making a whole lot of noise to cover up the fact that they don’t really have a viable business model to begin with. Nor should Apple be expected to prop them up, and I don’t see why Spotify should be allowed to amass a huge subscriber base on iOS, using Apple’s platform and infrastructure, without paying for access.

This is what it all comes down to - the equivalent of jumping the turnstile at the train station. Spotify wants all the benefits of operating in the App Store, without having to pay a single cent in return.

And they still aren’t profitable.

Spotify should just close down.
I think of Apple Music as the supermarket house brand. If Spotify is the superior brand why does it choose to lower itself to the same price as the house brand? Tidal charges more because it believed it’s superior. Why can’t Spotify?
 
100% agree. Most of these laws and lawsuits would go away, or never wouldn’t have happened in the first place, were it not for the absurd cut these companies require. It’s naked greed.

They created it so they can charge what they want. Also what bugs me is why does no raise these issues with Amazon who have destroyed multiple industries
 
Au contraire. Spotify, like Netflix, could offer sales of their service outside of the the App Store and not pay the 30%. There are many businesses that have apps on the Apple App Store that do not offer financial transactions through the store.
And so Netflix, by being a marketplace of other content, shouldn't also produce their own? Where's that crackdown?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FCX and iOS Geek
This moron CEO should spend less time on metaphors and more time trying to make a profit for his company. The App Store commission is not the problem — it is his business model. And users can go directly to Spotify to sign up, but they find out that more users want to purchase through the app — that is the value you get by paying the commission. If they don’t want to pay it, then they need to accept lower sub numbers.
So, I was just having a moment… thinking to myself “Why is he complaining? Spotify CURRENTLY is not paying any money to Apple because people can’t subscribe through the app (the only way Apple would make money off them), so where’s this complaint coming from?”

Your post made it clear, he really REALLY wants just wants access to Apple’s customers directly again. Apple’s millions of customers that, due to the way Apple’s built the experience, have credit card numbers ON file and are actually willing to spend money to subscribe for things. The customers that Apple has spent billions of dollars on researching and building devices, developing the OS and App Store for those devices, and shipping devices all around the world AND setting up a payment system that works in every country Apple does business for these users to securely and confidently purchase digital goods and services.

Every single person with an Apple device in their hand has that device due to the immense effort that Apple has taken to make that device desirable to them. And Spotify finds no value in that work and at the same time, finds tremendous value in that they, for some reason, badly wants access to those customers but not under the same terms that everyone else has access to them.
 
That’s interesting but it’s also about 15 years too late. How come Europe have never gone after them as well.

They did. Amazon avoided any big penalties though

 
That sounds more relevant to their FBA business. I’m talking how they priced items to put independent retailers out of business and even the big box retailers out of business. I’ve been a supplier on Amazon and they would bully you to give them pricing or they would threaten to remove your products. They are a nightmare to deal with
 
If you charge $10/month for your music service, it is anticompetitive to take 30% of your competitors $10/month music service.

If you owned a store in a mall selling (price-controlled) Rolexes and the mall opened their own store next door to you selling the same Rolexes, you'd cry foul.

But the mall analogy still isn't as bad as the App Store... The mall does incur lost revenue (not leasing finite space to another tenant) with their own store where Apple does not. And you can at least move malls.
So either Apple would charge itself 30%, in which case they would be putting money from its left pocket into its right; or there could be an argument that Apple charges 30% less then it otherwise would. Passing the savings onti the customer. (lol)

Spotify is just trying to argue that there should be two less players in the game.
 
I wonder if Apple's response will be to just remove the app from their App Store. People can then subscribe etc on the web etc minus the fee.
Last I knew, Spotify hasn’t allowed new subscribers via the app for years. They just recently made it so the few people they had using the auto-renewal feature in the app couldn’t do that any more.
 
That sounds more relevant to their FBA business. I’m talking how they priced items to put independent retailers out of business and even the big box retailers out of business. I’ve been a supplier on Amazon and they would bully you to give them pricing or they would threaten to remove your products. They are a nightmare to deal with

Those practices sound familiar

 
  • Like
Reactions: JamesMay82
Apple and Google's control over how billions of consumers access the internet is "insane."
How exactly are they controlling access? You're perfectly free to set the browser of your choice as a default search engine. And you can install a completely different browser if you don't like Safari.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
Europe has internalized that the referee can't be a player on so many levels in the world, high-tech and military just two of them. They love to tell others what to do.
Like state financing of Airbus and then regulation regarding aircraft design snd safety. Or state financing of airlines and then regulating aviation.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.