Why would anyone subscribe through iTunes when's it's more expensive??
The same people who post things like "How much is the Apple Watch?"
Why would anyone subscribe through iTunes when's it's more expensive??
Just Google "Apple Music Problems" and you'll see it's not working right for a lot of people.
Well at least you gave it enough time to truly see if it's for you.I've already switched back to Spotify after the Apple Music disaster.
It's been about a week. Do you really think Apple Music would launch bug-free? There are plenty of current and former Spotify users that still complain about Spotify's UI, app bugs and playback issues to this day.Its unfortunate. Apple music doesn't hold a candle to spotify. The music is so slow to play. Sucks, i was hoping to get rid of spotify and free up some space.
Why would it be a mistake? I'm sure Spotify studied the pros and cons before they introduced in-app subscriptions. Apparently it was quite successful for both them and Apple:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/24/pandora-spotify-apple-revenue/
I don't think anybody is "at fault" here. Personally, I don't see the problem in Spotify pointing out that their pricing is competitive with Apple Music's. Nothing wrong with that email.
Spotify did the same thing. The in-app option was only recently introduced (about a year ago, if I remember correctly).
Well... interesting comments. But this is the first I've heard of Apple Music being a disaster. From everything I've heard, it's very competitive to Spotify and other services.
Anyway... obviously Spotify is concerned that given time, Apple will be able to lure iPhone customers to Apple Music and they'll loose a large part of their subscriber base.
Disaster right now or not... Apple has the access to the content and is offering more services than most of the other services, this, plus add on top of that what they might do to merge in TV and Movie subscriptions into mix, and Apple will have a very compelling offering in the long run.
I think someday Apple will get sued for this, if they get too big.
Just like the Taylor Swift letter made it sound like Apple was not paying the poor artists when it was the record labels that these artists already made deals with. They got the same person who wrote Taylor's letter for her.Not surprising how the wording in their e-mail makes it seem like APPLE is the one charging users an extra 30% directly.
They are trying to buy market share. I love AM and wouldn't even consider going back to the Spotify mess...but some people like Spotify. The free markets can solve any issues. Spotify still isn't even turning up a profit. They are the Amazon of the music business constantly losing money while investors wait for a payout even though there is none.
Spotify wins
They "used Apple's service to develope their business"? Hardly. With the in-app purchases, Apple basically provides a payment service. I don't think anyone would disagree that they deserve a fee for that. It's just that 30% seems awfully high, compared to e.g. the transaction costs that banks take for credit card payments.If they use the app store, they pay the fee, because they're using APPLE'S SERVICE to make money. If they don't want Apple's service they can just sell the app and take care of account setup on their own web site. That's not so convenient for users... And that's the point. THEY USED APPLE'S SERVICE TO DEVELOP THEIR BUSINESS AND THEY NEED TO PAY FOR IT.
Oops... Apple get's caught with it's pants down ripping off customers.
Never has this slogan been more appropriate... Buyer Beware!
Silly Nefarious Apple![]()
Of course they can't. They can just remove them from the App Store instead, if they refuse to comply with their terms though.i dont think a company can tell another company what to charge for their services on their own site. this isnt north korea
They "used Apple's service to develope their business"? Hardly. With the in-app purchases, Apple basically provides a payment service. I don't think anyone would disagree that they deserve a fee for that. It's just that 30% seems awfully high, compared to e.g. the transaction costs that banks take for credit card payments.
BTW, Apple benefits at least as much from the app developers as vice versa. Who would buy iPhones if it didn't have the rich app ecosystem?
As I mentioned before, Spotify did not offer in-app subscriptions until about a year ago. Before that you could only sign up for the premium service through their web-site. They hardly "withered" during that time. They simply did a cost-benefit analysis and came to the conclusion that this additional option would be beneficial for them.Well, if Spotify tought it was high, they could have just stayed off IOS and withered.
You seem very concerned for Apple. I'm more concerned that there remains a healthy competition in this field. Before Spotify came along, Apple had a near-monopoly in digital music distribution. Without Spotify, there wouldn't be $10 music subscription services and there wouldn't be Apple Music either.Because IOS users have the most money and they are the ones spending it on services. But, no, they're being coy about why they used the App store in the first place. In this case, Spotify had much more to gain from this than Apple.
People were actually paying $12.99 for a service that costs $9.99? Also, it's pretty sad that Spotify was actually charging the higher amount to compensate for Apple tax.
I guess it wasn't really an option for them to eat the cost since so much of that $9.99 goes to the record companies.