I do all the time. However guess what my number one defacto payment choice is you got it Apple Pay and when the cash back is good somewhere I shop then Apple Card. I also use chase because the freedom card offers me 1 1/2% cash back and on Amazon it’s the Amazon chase prime card. See how that worked. All kinds of options and Apple didn’t have to change one thing. Funny how that works and I didn’t even have to sue Apple.
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 Executive Justifies Antitrust Pressure on Apple and Calls for Other App Store Payment Providers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This will be the future. There will not be a thing as a "Free" app anymore. Apple will charge the developers several thousand dollars or more to be in the App Store. I do think Apple should allow you to purchase from the developer (I would not). I think most people that use Apple products will continue to use Apples payment system costing the developer even more than there's piracy. If 30% is king developers then raise the price to cover the fee, but than again they seem to want to be in the App Store and receive all the benefits for free.
You are equating all of Apple's fees as simply a credit card transaction fee. All putting Square in place would do is shift the Tx fee. Apple could still demand a royalty or use fee based on the transaction. Let's use 5% for the Tx fee (yes it is high but go with it). If you use Apple for the CC processing the royalty is 30%. If you use Square the royalty fee is 25% and the developer pays Square out of the 5% difference.
Not arguing the 30% (or 15%). The amount of the fee is up to Apple. The developers can agree to them or not. I don't see any way the amount of the fee can be legislated - not without upsetting several very large markets.
As long as Apple can require apps provide both Apple’s and 3rd party IAP that wouldn’t be too bad. I doubt Apple would be allowed to do that though.
I’m mostly worried about apps that only support 3rd party IAP. While many have pointed out that I can just ignore those apps, what happens when there is one that I actually need (not just want)?
I don’t buy much online. I limit my purchasing to Amazon (since if they were hacked everyone would be screwed) and websites that take Apple Pay or PayPal (which is a pain to use). I don’t give my credit card numbers out anywhere else.
I've seen a lot of "unsuccessful" arguments in my life, but this has to be one of the worst. Who do you think paid for the marketing for the "There's an app for that"? Who created an App Store that developers could easily upload to, without having to host their own apps, keep track of updates and versions, and what devices support what versions? Who created hundred of APIs allowing developers an easy way to build apps(it would have been way easier to just create mobile website for most apps without those APIs, even creating a simple list of items, with that nice little rubber band bounce, would have been enough to just stick with a website instead of an app). Who creates documentation of all those APIs? Who created a platform popular enough draw in developers. A lot of start ups will create an iPhone version of an app to see how it does, before committing to the resources to develop an android version (easier to develop for, and more users willing to buy stuff on the iOS platform). And how can you tell a corporation that its profit margins are too high? supply and demand dictates how much extra they can change, if developers don't like, it they can move away from iOS, and Apple will lower it.
This guy and all like him: “We would be happy if we could use Apple’s platform for free, happier still if they paid us to be on it.”
This is not a consumer choice. This is a developer wanting to pay less choice. The likelihood that that prices will be lower to the consumer are almost nil. No subscription services reduced he price after the first year. They keep the extra 15%. Even Epic did not reduce the price enough when they snuck their own store into the app. The reduced the price some from official IAP price but it was still not the full 30% and, if I recall correctly, it was more than the price directly on their web store.
The fees and policies have not changed since the inception - goods and services that are CONSUMED within iOS are charged the fees. It has nothing to do with delivery. Talking about Uber or Amazon is just confusing the issue and trying to force an incorrect argument.
You're giving people too much credit, have you never had to help a parent or grandparent figure out something that seems incredible simple to you? People that hang out on tech forums to argue about these things are much tech inclined.
In the beginning of the App Store it was easier to argue Apple is brining customers to developers.”
By its very existence and relationship to the products it runs on Apple and the App Store bring customers to developers. That downhill snowball is pushed by Apple’s continued efforts and pulled by the gravity of Apple success.
Does Apple gain enough from Spotify to justify this hassle? Maybe it's time for Apple to flag Spotify as malicious company and ditch them from the platform and let Spotify do their business without Apple.
There already is a payment choice.
Option 1: Buy an iPhone and use Apple's payment method
Option 2: Buy an Android and use whatever common or obscure, secure or insecure payment you want.
The choice is yours. Choose Wisely. Don't complain to Apple if you decide that you chose wrong.
Option 1: Buy an iPhone and use Apple's payment method
Option 2: Buy an Android and use whatever common or obscure, secure or insecure payment you want.
The choice is yours. Choose Wisely. Don't complain to Apple if you decide that you chose wrong.
The judge asked Apple one good question. What does Apple do to keep the user in the app and spend money? They could not give an answer to this. Apple just wants to charge 30% off your purchase. Many people say they are afraid that their credit card will be stolen. Why don't you worry about your card when you order a taxi or food? You haven't used IAP. Believe me, if Apple allows you to use other systems for purchases, they will only be from large payment systems, because Apple will most likely build a special API for them.
How did Spotify create their app in the first place? With all the APIs (building blocks) Apple provides? Thought so. They feel entitled to all that intellectual property which Apple spent billions in R&D to create. People always talk about the 30% just paying for hosting/bandwidth which couldn’t be further from the truth. These developers are not entitled to a free lunch. Such a sick betrayal of the entity that made their business possible in the first place.
I don’t worry about it because I use Apple Pay to order a ride or food delivery. 🥲
What developer would use 3rd party payment option if they still had to fork over a fee to Apple?
That's a very good argument. Kudos to Spotify's lawyers.
Now hopefully with the money saved, they can use it to hire more developers. You hear that, Spotify? I want Spotify Connect to work on my Homepod!
It's actually a terrible argument, and one that no halfway decent lawyer would make. The iPhone is not "infrastructure" in the way that railroads and telephones are. iOS is not a necessity for life or commerce. And iOS is a minority player in the mobile OS space.
Понимаете ли вы, что если другая платежная система поддерживает Apple Pay, вы сможете так же легко платить через Apple Pay, но без комиссии в размере 30%?
Is there something special about Spotify’s iOS app? If Safari on iOS completely supported progressive web apps would a Spotify web app be less featured than their iOS counterpart? And if developers aren’t entitled to a ’free lunch’ why are the majority of apps on the App Store free? I can download Facebook or Instagram and not pay anyone a dime. If you think Spotify wouldn’t have been possible without iOS would you say the same about Facebook or Instagram? Or how about Uber? Uber doesn’t pay Apple anything because Apple treats buying a ride in a vehicle to be a physical good. But how can anyone really say Spotify owes its success to iOS (and therefore Apple deserves a cut of their business) but Uber doesn’t?
Let's imagine Amazon can sell eBooks via their Kindle app.
Now, let's say I'm a writer, and I've written a book. I want to distribute it via the Kindle app but I don't want to use Amazon's payment method; I want to use PayPal, for example.
Can I, as a writer supplying a digital product to Amazon, insist that Amazon use PayPal for sales of my book, or do I have to use whatever system Amazon has in place?
Is Amazon's cut of an eBook sale similar to Apple's App Store cut? Are Amazon charging customers only the credit card charges, or are they charging for maintaining the eBook on their systems, marketing it, and development of the systems allowing that eBook to be updated, maintained, listed etc.? Are Amazon allowed to profit from their Kindle app?
As I see it, that's what Spotify (and some users on here) are asking for. You want developers to be able to insist Apple use a specific payment system for sales of their app.
Will they then also demand that the app or digital content, download or whatever is stored on specific servers? Who pays for that?
If Apple is forced to allow third-party payment systems, should they then also allow apps to be stored on third-party servers? What about paying for the bandwidth used; should that be determined by the developer?
If third-party payment systems are used, do Apple then reduce their cut to 28% for those developers? I mean, if they aren't supplying the payment system but are still supplying all the rest, can they still charge for that, or is the point here that Spotify want Apple to get zero money for all the work they put into the App Store and to cover its associated costs? If Spotify want the entire 30%, can Apple then charge Spotify for providing the services to the downloaders of their app, or are Spotify taking over everything, payment, distribution, marketing? Can Apple still charge for developing the App Store systems and improvements?
Breaking this down into "payment systems" leaves way too many questions about the rest of it. Apple is providing a service that encompasses all the above, and charging 30%/15% for it. Is that so bad?
Now, let's say I'm a writer, and I've written a book. I want to distribute it via the Kindle app but I don't want to use Amazon's payment method; I want to use PayPal, for example.
Can I, as a writer supplying a digital product to Amazon, insist that Amazon use PayPal for sales of my book, or do I have to use whatever system Amazon has in place?
Is Amazon's cut of an eBook sale similar to Apple's App Store cut? Are Amazon charging customers only the credit card charges, or are they charging for maintaining the eBook on their systems, marketing it, and development of the systems allowing that eBook to be updated, maintained, listed etc.? Are Amazon allowed to profit from their Kindle app?
As I see it, that's what Spotify (and some users on here) are asking for. You want developers to be able to insist Apple use a specific payment system for sales of their app.
Will they then also demand that the app or digital content, download or whatever is stored on specific servers? Who pays for that?
If Apple is forced to allow third-party payment systems, should they then also allow apps to be stored on third-party servers? What about paying for the bandwidth used; should that be determined by the developer?
If third-party payment systems are used, do Apple then reduce their cut to 28% for those developers? I mean, if they aren't supplying the payment system but are still supplying all the rest, can they still charge for that, or is the point here that Spotify want Apple to get zero money for all the work they put into the App Store and to cover its associated costs? If Spotify want the entire 30%, can Apple then charge Spotify for providing the services to the downloaders of their app, or are Spotify taking over everything, payment, distribution, marketing? Can Apple still charge for developing the App Store systems and improvements?
Breaking this down into "payment systems" leaves way too many questions about the rest of it. Apple is providing a service that encompasses all the above, and charging 30%/15% for it. Is that so bad?
Except no one uses Apple’s IAP when buying physical goods or when buying via the browser. Do security and privacy not matter when you’re buying toilet paper via the Target app?
Last edited:
How about Apple come up with a better way of charging developers for what it costs to maintain the App Store. Maybe every app has to cost something. Or maybe it’s based on the number of downloads. Or the amount of support Apple provides the developer. Right now what Apple is saying is you the developer wouldn’t exist without them so they deserve a cut of your business. But only if it’s a digital good. Oh and not for those digital goods they arbitrarily decide to exempt. No one in their right mind can say Spotify wouldn’t exist if not for iOS but Uber would. Yet Spotify can’t offer payment in app without handing over a portion Apple but Uber can. How in the heck does that make sense?
So once again the argument is that Apple is really a public utility not a private company entitled to make money on their products. That Spotify and others should be entitled to use the App store any way they want and if they want use Paypal, Apple needs to bear the cost of facilitating that. Funny how none of these guys ever say the same of the Google app store, the Microsoft Store, or any of the other arenas they play in.
30 percent for the first year and 15 thereafter is more than reasonable and fair which means that the proprietor get 70 and 85 percent of the profits. If these other companies don't like it, fine make the investment Apple did and create your own device, operating system, and ecosystem and before anyone suggests that these firms don't have Apple's deep pockets, neither did Apple at one time.
30 percent for the first year and 15 thereafter is more than reasonable and fair which means that the proprietor get 70 and 85 percent of the profits. If these other companies don't like it, fine make the investment Apple did and create your own device, operating system, and ecosystem and before anyone suggests that these firms don't have Apple's deep pockets, neither did Apple at one time.
Very unfortunate. The only driving force with a Product focus ( Not Revenue, Profits nor Services focus ) were Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall. Now it is clear no one in Apple is arguing about that against Eddy Cue and Phil Schiller. And it is also clear from all the Emails shown in the EPIC trial, Tim Cook don't really say much about Product decision / direction at all. I guess he knows ( as Steve Jobs has told him so ) he is not a product person. So he is doing his best not to get into product decisions.
