You can do that and others can use other payment options. Everybody would be happy.
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
That's actually a terrible position to take and assumes that everyone has an alternative bit of computer technology aside from an iOS device. That's a good assumption if you make 100k/year, but not so well if you and your partner are making a combined 50k.
Yes, let the market decide — and they have. In the end, is the consumer calling for these options? I don’t think so.
They would be wrong, but most consumers giving their credit/debit card info to a developer, would assume that it’s Apple holding this info and not some sketchy payment system the developer signed up with. And all we would see in reviews is, “bought this app and soon after fraudulent purchases were made somewhere overseas. Apple pls help”. “Called Apple customer service and they said their was nothing they could do to help to me due to the fact that I gave my credit/debit info to some developer who uses his/her own backend for payments”. Or, somewhere in their home country at some place they’ve never bought from. Imagine Apple receiving all of these complaints and having to constantly remind their customers to only share that info with someone they trust.
If these are separate business, it's in their interest to generate as much profit as possible for each company. The Apple Hardware business would probably sell even MORE phones if people could run Android on them. Not doing that would NOT be in the best interest of the company.
You have to realise that the reason Apple can do business the way they do is because they do not need to make a healthy profit at all stages. They can give away iOS for "free" with every phone since you have to buy the phone where the profit is made, Apple software can't do that, they have to sell/license it, and why would they not try to maximise sales?
Apple: Your honor, this is a lie. We are NOT a neutral platform provider and never professed to be one.
I want unfettered access to sell my products on their network and determine if they will get a cut or not.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!
Yes, the campaign was promoting the iPhone, but it was beneficial to the developers as well, especially the apps that got mentioned directly in the ads. It's like the fish that cleans the sharks teeth, the shark get the benefit of clean teeth, while the fish get the protection of the shark. My argument was that Apple isn't doing nothing for the developers, Apple needs the developers as much as the developers need Apple, or they would just leave the platform. The argument of, should Apple charge less, or do more, wasn't what I was referring to.
As long as Apple is allowed to require devs to support Apple’s IAP along with other IAP methods that would be fine. But I’m not convinced Apple will be allowed to do that if they are forced to permit 3rd party payments. That’s where my concern comes from.
OK you’re not consuming an Uber service on an iPhone but you are using the iPhone to complete the transaction. How many people request Uber rides outside of the app on their smartphone? Now I’m not arguing that Apple should get a cut of every Uber transaction. What I’m arguing is you can’t really say Spotify wouldn’t exist without iPhone and iOS but Uber would.
I guarantee you developers would love to offer upgrade pricing. But that’s not good for Apple’s business model of growing services revenues. They want 30% of a monthly fee not 30% of a random one time charge. One is predictable, the other is not. And Apple cares more about wall street here than they do developers.
Great, next time you go to Walmart, Target, or others you can tell them what payment system they should use.
And I’m not arguing that Uber or Spotify would or wouldn’t exist. Yes, there are people here claiming Spotify should pay because they owe everything to Apple. I’m not one of them and don’t agree with that argument. I’m just arguing that Apple’s stance is the first part - is the service consumed on the phone? What is and is not IAP is not arbitrary and it is justifiable.
Edit: and I should stress Apple is *a lot* more lenient than other walled gardens which don’t all cross wallet or make devs pay for cross wallet functionality. Apple views its i-devices as consoles comparable to Xbox and PlayStation, Spotify and Epic want to force Apple to not have that business model.
Last edited:
You sort of can ... plenty of apps offer in-app purchases for new features or deluxe versions ... though I agree that’s not as straightforward as just upgrade pricing if you rewrite the app from scratch or something - though you can direct people to a new app for future upgrades since the redirect is in the App Store. Doing it all in-app would be cleaner I agree but there are ways to do it.
Because no one would download apps? Why would I have to pay £1 to download the Amazon app, or the Uber app?
You know the answer to this. Digital goods are not physical goods. It really wouldn't be right for Apple to get 30% of a purchase from Amazon, for example.
Free apps like Amazon and Uber add value to the iPhone. People buy a phone because they get access to apps to make their life a little easier. If Amazon's margin on a product is 2%, say $1, would Amazon really add $15 to the product just because you've bought it through their app? No one in their right mind would ever buy via the app, and Amazon wouldn't have created the app, which is likely why Apple don't charge for physical goods.
There is a small argument that Apple shouldn't charge for any digital goods - why does Apple deserve 30% of the price of some donuts in The Simpsons Tapped Out? Because those are the rules. You don't *have* to buy those donuts, just like you don't *have* to spend $10 to initially buy some other app. Is there a difference between the price of an app and the price of an in-app purchase? They're both downloads that provide value to you.
True, they could. But the odds of them licensing iOS are 0%. For the same reason they stopped licensing OS X as soon as Steve returned and sued Psystar for continiuing to sell clones.
They likely would not allow Android on their hardware due to the overall customer experience. They could allow it today if they wanted to. I'm sure Google would be happy to license their OS to Apple.
Last edited:
But the vast majority of Spotify customers, well over a hundred million, maybe two, pay nothing to use the app, so they ride for free and Apple gets nothing from Spotify to use the App Store while making billions from the advertising.
Everyone seems to assume that Apple will be allowed to require devs to include Apple's IAP in addition to 3rd party payment options but I'm not convinced that they will. Any court that would make Apple allow 3rd party payment options would probably see that as an abuse of their market position as well.
I mean that's already kind of a thing. Visa and MasterCard are accepted pretty much everywhere though Costco only accepts Visa. I've already been to places that won't accept my Discover card and American Express has an even lower acceptance rate than Discover. There are even stores that will give you discounts for using their store loyalty/credit card.
Also I'm not sure this analogy really fits since this applies to the consumer and not the developer making the app. As a consumer I have options for what payment method actually backs Apple's IAP - whether that be a credit card (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, etc.), PayPal via linked AppleID account, or cash via purchased gift cards.
Do you remember Windows Phone? How about Palm? Or maybe Blackberry??
The concept that it was some joint 50/50 thing with dev's is revisionist folly! The hardest thing to do is entice developers and that means creating a market for their software in the first place. Microsoft literally paid developers to make apps for the store! I remember Blackberry/RIM with all their developer outreach. It never worked. The devs' did not come. The reason they came to Apple is because Apple knows how to sell stuff in droves! Apple sold millions of ipods and knew how to sell iphones.
It's like the modern view is that Apple were always going to sell lots of phones and dont spend $1b dollars a year in advertising to make sure they sell phones! Somehow its mainly because dev's make apps that people buy iphones, not the huge apple stores dotted around the globe etc...
Yawn...can waste my time better by following a DC pols writings.....and with the same degree of moral authority and 'fairness ' factor/ :S.
Spotify executive Horacio Gutierrez has explained in a wide-reaching interview with The Verge why the company believes Apple is a "ruthless bully" and what it would like to see change.
Last month, Gutierrez penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that chastised Apple and some of its business practices. Now, Spotify's head of global affairs and chief legal officer has expanded on the logic behind the company's antitrust dispute with Apple.
Gutierrez's main justification underpinning the argument that Apple's App Store payment system is not a necessary part of its business is that it "wasn't part of the App Store in the beginning."
Apple's 30 percent commission on App Store sales and in-app purchases was also raised as an "arbitrary rate," and Gutierrez explained that it is not merely a reduction in commission that Spotify is looking to achieve.
Gutierrez explained that Spotify would like to see Apple return to its previous approach with the App Store and loosen its grip on rules and penalties.
Specifically, Gutierrez said that the market should be able to choose from a selection of payment systems on the App Store, and that Apple should be able to contend with other payment technology in a more competitive environment.
Addressing criticisms that Apple's rules and fees are valid given it built and maintains the App Store and the devices apps run on, Gutierrez explained that Spotify believes this should not be a reason to allow anticompetitive conduct.
In April, the European Commission found that Apple had breached EU competition law with Apple Music and the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee questioned Apple's App Store policies.
See the full transcript of The Verge's interview with Gutierrez for more information.
Article Link: Spotify Executive Justifies Antitrust Pressure on Apple and Calls for Other App Store Payment Providers
Be careful of those in industry who try to 'rally' the congress critters....usually the average consumer will be shafted. If not immediately then somewhere down the line. One of Con critters main purposes is to propose/create monopolies for their 'donators'.....
Spotify executive Horacio Gutierrez has explained in a wide-reaching interview with The Verge why the company believes Apple is a "ruthless bully" and what it would like to see change.
Last month, Gutierrez penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that chastised Apple and some of its business practices. Now, Spotify's head of global affairs and chief legal officer has expanded on the logic behind the company's antitrust dispute with Apple.
Gutierrez's main justification underpinning the argument that Apple's App Store payment system is not a necessary part of its business is that it "wasn't part of the App Store in the beginning."
Apple's 30 percent commission on App Store sales and in-app purchases was also raised as an "arbitrary rate," and Gutierrez explained that it is not merely a reduction in commission that Spotify is looking to achieve.
Gutierrez explained that Spotify would like to see Apple return to its previous approach with the App Store and loosen its grip on rules and penalties.
Specifically, Gutierrez said that the market should be able to choose from a selection of payment systems on the App Store, and that Apple should be able to contend with other payment technology in a more competitive environment.
Addressing criticisms that Apple's rules and fees are valid given it built and maintains the App Store and the devices apps run on, Gutierrez explained that Spotify believes this should not be a reason to allow anticompetitive conduct.
In April, the European Commission found that Apple had breached EU competition law with Apple Music and the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee questioned Apple's App Store policies.
See the full transcript of The Verge's interview with Gutierrez for more information.
Article Link: Spotify Executive Justifies Antitrust Pressure on Apple and Calls for Other App Store Payment Providers
Yeah...right! Sure the con-critters would approach/apply and perform what you want with NO adverse consequences for the average user....I mean, just look at their batting record. Oh....hows that soon to be increased to 15% Ethanol at the price of 'real' gasoline subsidy going for you? To note just ONE of their bastardizations of commerce....We always preach 'let the buyer decide'. I'll take my chances on the 'buyer ' determining the market winners. Not the prostitutes in DC.