Spotify Executive Justifies Antitrust Pressure on Apple and Calls for Other App Store Payment Providers

[Freimuts]

So then should Apple charge developer 0.20$ per GB download for apps using alternative payments? (the price is about the same as AWS S3 download costs, with load balancing and storage on three main continents).

Maybe give them 1 GB free included in developer membership fee, sames as AWS and telecom operators do... servers and bandwidth cost money.

So a single app version download would cost ~0.03$ for spotify or should Apple cover the costs for that too, since they have the infrastructure in place?

I think spotify simply starts to shake in the boots, because in 1Q2021 they had 13% lead in marketshare over Apple, Apple is gaining its place.

 

[someAlex]

Why nobody complains about Amazon, Walmart, BestBuy? They cut off provider's arm and leg even with alternative payment methods!
What about credit card companies? Why do they keep 3-5% of the turnover? Is it their money they using?
Why everybody accepts this?
Some companies get greedy with the time although they accepted it from the beginning...

 

[Ethosik]

Maybe I need to go to law school to get my head wrapped around all of this because I just don’t agree with these companies complaining about the rules of a platform that wasn’t created by them and is not mandatory for their business to survive. I am aware of AT&T’s past regarding monopolies and yes we can learn from that but damn it must really suck for Apple to have grown it’s business from the ground up- like Spotify, and for someone else to have someone else tell you that your success is hurting their business. I’m sure my analogy is not that cut and dry as there are caveats. However, my initial feeling is just that. Oh well.

Plus a previous argument from Spotify was Apple BECAME a competitor with Apple Music. But iTunes, iPod and music distribution by Apple existed before Spotify was even founded. Streaming music is just an evolution in how to listen to music in 2021. Therefore, Spotify became a competitor to Apple first with iTunes.

 

[farewelwilliams]

No one is saying to block Apple. Just allow alternatives. What if Apple then decided to only allow the Apple Card? You see the problem here?

of course you don't. Apple does no wrong! They've got the perfect system in place.

Do you not see the problem here?

"Looks like you want to sign up for Spotify. Here are your options:"
Apple payment: $10000000/mo
Spotify's third party payment: $9.99/mo

 

[farewelwilliams]

And no one can bring up privacy or security because Apple’s IAP only applies to digital good

Nope. You can bring that up because that's literally one of the reasons for enforcing it.
The reason why physical good are exempt is because people like Amazon would NEVER make a profit if Apple took 30% of every physical order. The exception for physical goods and services makes sense.

You're cherry picking the reasons.

I can also buy all kinds of physical and digital goods via the browser which also doesn’t use Apple’s IAP

Even more of a reason why it's nonsensical to force Apple to allow third party payment processors when a user can use the browser to buy the same thing.

In the beginning of the App Store it was easier to argue Apple is brining customers to developers. Can we really say that now?

500 million visitors a week? Free distribution including in China where you do 0 work in reconfiguring your app to make it China friendly (unlike Play store)? Apple reviews apps so customers don't even think twice about trusting an app ($99/year pays for barely 3 app reviews)?

Sure we can.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I do want alternatives. Why can’t we have choices?

Safari is your gateway to choice.

 

[Nogi Memes]

There is an alternative, take payments outside of the app. Like Youtube Premium does.

 

[ryuworks]

If the courts forced Apple to allow alternative payment methods, then so be it. Just take a 40% cut of every sale (and no discounts after the first year) as well as show a big warning sign telling users that their credit card info is being sent to third parties and Apple has no control over it and will not be legally responsible for any card theft resulting from a leak.

 

[Rogifan]

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.

You didn’t offer a defense to the argument that Spotify owes its existence to Apple but Uber doesn’t. Just saying those are Apple‘s rules isn’t a defense. I guarantee you if Apple thought they could get away with taking a cut of every Uber transaction they would.

 

[Rogifan]

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.

Isn’t the reader app category that Apple created arbitrary?

 

[Rogifan]

Nope. You can bring that up because that's literally one of the reasons for enforcing it.
The reason why physical good are exempt is because people like Amazon would NEVER make a profit if Apple took 30% of every physical order. The exception for physical goods and services makes sense.

You're cherry picking the reasons.



Even more of a reason why it's nonsensical to force Apple to allow third party payment processors when a user can use the browser to buy the same thing.



500 million visitors a week? Free distribution including in China where you do 0 work in reconfiguring your app to make it China friendly (unlike Play store)? Apple reviews apps so customers don't even think twice about trusting an app ($99/year pays for barely 3 app reviews)?

Sure we can.

My point is you can’t use the privacy/security argument when there’s lots of stuff bought in-app that doesn’t use Apple‘s IAP. Same with the browser. I don’t think it’s nonsensical for Apple to allow in-app digital purchases that don’t use their IAP. If they really cared about the consumer experience they’d let you buy a Kindle book in-app vs having to go to Amazon‘s website via the browser.

 

[crazy dave]

Isn’t the reader app category that Apple created arbitrary?

No how so?

 

[Rogifan]

No how so?

Because they created it to exempt certain apps. So Apple’s policy is 30% or 15% of digital goods…except when it’s not. To me allowing certain digital goods exemption from their tax is arbitrary. There doesn’t seem to be a a solid reason for it other than Netflix might leave and that would be bad.

 

[crazy dave]

Because they created it to exempt certain apps. So Apple’s policy is 30% or 15% of digital goods…except when it’s not. To me allowing certain digital goods exemption from their tax is arbitrary. There doesn’t seem to be a a solid reason for it other than Netflix might leave and that would be bad.

Okay under what circumstances is an app exempt and why is that bad? Go through it.

 

[ian87w]

From a user perspective, there's no issue of "competing" payment system. A user can register various credit cards with Apple, or even use gift cards available from various resellers.

So to me it simply sounds like Spotify not willing to pay a cut to Apple, and they already did that anyway. If they are still making a hissy fit about it, then they're after something else. Maybe some data that was available to them before Apple clamped it down, or something.

 

[farewelwilliams]

My point is you can’t use the privacy/security argument when there’s lots of stuff bought in-app that doesn’t use Apple‘s IAP. Same with the browser. I don’t think it’s nonsensical for Apple to allow in-app digital purchases that don’t use their IAP. If they really cared about the consumer experience they’d let you buy a Kindle book in-app vs having to go to Amazon‘s website via the browser.

No. You can use the security argument. Apps that use it are more secure. Apps that don't use it are less secure. Bulk of the apps are using it and therefore third party apps are generally secure. And it's not ONLY for security reasons, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing this.

It's not up to Apple to force Amazon to allow Kindle purchase in app, that's up to Amazon.

 

[Caviar_X]

If the courts forced Apple to allow alternative payment methods, then so be it. Just take a 40% cut of every sale (and no discounts after the first year) as well as show a big warning sign telling users that their credit card info is being sent to third parties and Apple has no control over it and will not be legally responsible for any card theft resulting from a leak.

Why wouldn't this warning apply to Safari and email?? Don't cherrypick your arguments to masquerade your obvious bias towards Apple.

 

[Rogifan]

No. You can use the security argument. Apps that use it are more secure. Apps that don't use it are less secure. Bulk of the apps are using it and therefore third party apps are generally secure. And it's not ONLY for security reasons, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing this.

It's not up to Apple to force Amazon to allow Kindle purchase in app, that's up to Amazon.

So you think Amazon’s app is less secure because it doesn’t use Apple’s IAP? What‘s your source for that? Also why should Amazon pay Apple 30% for a book purchase in the Kindle app? The Kindle existed before Apple’s App Store did. Nobody could credibly argue Kindle wouldn’t be successful if not for Apple. But if Apple deserves 30% then why do they not make Amazon offer IAP? Or why don’t they allow every app to be a ‘reader’ app where people purchase additional functionality/remove ads etc. via the browser?

 

[Rogifan]

If the courts forced Apple to allow alternative payment methods, then so be it. Just take a 40% cut of every sale (and no discounts after the first year) as well as show a big warning sign telling users that their credit card info is being sent to third parties and Apple has no control over it and will not be legally responsible for any card theft resulting from a leak.

Yet anyone can buy anything in Safari not using Apple’s IAP. And can buy non-digital goods in-app not using Apple’s IAP. Where is the proof there will be all this credit card theft if an app developer isn’t forced to use Apple’s IAP for digital goods?

 

[farewelwilliams]

So you think Amazon’s app is less secure because it doesn’t use Apple’s IAP? What‘s your source for that?

For one, typing in the number can easily be picked up on a security camera and the extraction can be automated.

Hacker's App Automates Over-The-Shoulder iPad Spying

A simple image recognition trick takes shoulder surfing to a new level.

www.forbes.com

Even Kanye got his 000000 pin leaked https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/...st-iphone-passcode-trump-iplane-apple-meeting

Also why should Amazon pay Apple 30% for a book purchase in the Kindle app?

They don't have to. They don't have to build a kindle app at all. Amazon can totally build a PWA that's far easier to install than a full fledged app.

 

[scottjl]

at this point spotify just comes across as a whining little bitch. they want this. they want that. they want it all, but they don't want to pay apple a dime for it. if they think it's so easy to build a phone and app store, why don't they just go ahead and make one for themselves?

they've lost me as a customer and they'll never get me back.

 

[koruki]

Been on Spotify since the beginning. Just canceled my subscription and moved to Apple Music, so tired of this and the HiFi option coming this month on Apple music pushed me over. Maybe spend more time and money improving your service Spotify.

 

[Krizoitz]

Spotify makes a very strong argument here. Users should have a choice on payment methods.

If Android didn't exist, this would be a clear cut antitrust violation. But Android does, so it's not so clear cut, but the argument should be discussed and perhaps a Judge should rule on it.

Users do have a choice on payment methods, they can use whichever credit card they want. Or transfer cash from their bank account in to Apple Pay. Or use gift card balance.

From a customer standpoint, requiring AppStore Apps to use Apples checkout system is not real much different than purchases through Amazon, including 3rd parties using Amazon marketplace requiring the use of Amazon’s payment system. Or WalMart requiring you to use their checkout counters when you shop in their stores.

Allowing Spotify, Epid, etc to bypass that for their apps is beneficial primarily to Spotify, Epic, etc. not necessarily the customer. Arguably the customer gets less benefit, because they now have to manage multiple payment accounts, have reduced privacy, greater chance of security breach, etc.

Think of it this way, is it better for you, as a consumer, if you can use one credit card at every store, or if you have to use a separate credit card at each store. That’s more akin to what Epic/Spotify/etc. want.

To those who say “fine let me choose, if you don’t like it don’t use it”.
First, that’s what we are saying to you about iPhone vs Android.
Second, by allowing more payment processors on the AppStore your forcing us to use them whether we want to or not OR forgo whole classes of apps altogether.

 

[crazy dave]

Because they created it to exempt certain apps. So Apple’s policy is 30% or 15% of digital goods…except when it’s not. To me allowing certain digital goods exemption from their tax is arbitrary. There doesn’t seem to be a a solid reason for it other than Netflix might leave and that would be bad.

You never went through why you think reader app category undermines Apple’s position ... rather than Spotify’s/Epic’s.

 

[Techwatcher]

Spotify is literally on thousands of different types of devices/electronics/cars, billions of devices overall, and they have an exclusivity deal with PlayStation. They need to shut up. No one cares.