Users can purchase Spotify subscriptions through the browser right now. So there goes your entire argument.
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
Who are you to say what’s “reasonable”? Why shouldn’t Apple be allowed to decide how much Apple charges for Apples products and services?
Developers can choose whether it’s worth it or not. If it’s not they have other platforms to choose from, just as they always have. Or they can sell their subscriptions and content outside the app like Netflix does.
BTW, retail charges way more than 5% (and more than 30%) to stock stuff on its shelves. The console makers (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) also charge way more than 5%.
This line has been trotted out many times when talking about the App Store.
One question - Who cares? Henry Ford famously said his customers could buy a Ford Motor Car in any color so long as it's black. I am pretty sure they had Cherry Red as a color when the Mustang was released. Business evolves.
There is no way to accurately measure the exact financials of the App Store. Given the complexities of cost allocation and business operations at a company Apple's size and structure I would not be all surprised to learn they don't have an exact number. All we can accurately surmise is the gross revenue generated by the App Store. here is absolutely no way for any of us to accurately determine any other number - net revenue, gross profit, EBITDA, operating profit, net profit, etc. An, as I mentioned above, it is likely that Apple does not allocate costs at the level to have the App Store stand as a separate profit center.
For all we know the App Store may:
- (net) Lose a lot of money
- (net) Lose a little money
- Break even
- net Make a little money
- net Make a lot of money
That comment is a bit narrow-sighted. The reader app is a class of applications that only allow the consumption of streamed content or the sharing of files (cloud data storage). Not upload os user created content like an email or shared playlist / social postings. And the exception only allows the developer to place an app on the store that will not function without a subscription and not also require IAP or the ability to sign up in app. If any of the reader apps wanted to include IAP they could - and pay the fees.
The category exception applies to a class of app. NOT to a developer. If Spotify were to offer a version of their app that only streamed songs and did not allow any of the social aspects then that app would likely meet the requirements to be called a reader app. If not then they might have an argument to make about their app being singled out. (just a guess - I really not read every detail about the definition of "reader apps," but it is a reasonable assumption.)
By he same token if Netflix decides to publish an email client you can be sure they would have to work the same way that Hey did in the end.
Developers are treated equally. All developers have access to the same tools with the same fees structure. If the developer decides to publish a specific class of app then there may be additional options available to them FOR THAT APP.
Last edited:
I do use PayPal when shopping online - though I find the experience of hopping between websites to be less than stellar.
I'm not really sure what you mean by trusting MasterCard and Visa. There are other third party payment solutions (like Square and Braintree) that handle the credit card processing through the MasterCard and Visa networks for websites. Not to mention websites that save your credit card for future purchases. I don't want to see this payment model come to apps as well. Having to enter your CC into multiple apps that may or may not save it for later and having to trust their credit card processing solutions is potentially less than ideal. With the exception of Amazon I don't make online purchases from websites unless they take PayPal or ApplePay.
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.
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.
Yes there is. Ask Apple to divulge their App Store profits … ops … they will not … classified. I agree with you who cares.
I meant outside of Apple. They could divulge it if they account at a level detailed enough to actually come to the fully loaded bottom line. And they were so inclined to divulge. But for the likes of you and me - no way to determine the profitability of the App Store.
That would be great if this is the way this works but I'm not so sure. 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.
To add to that - using ApplePay would only really apply to third-party stores IF they support Apple Pay as one of the payment options. If not I would have to use my Apple Card number or any other credit card. That really does not provide the reassurances of the App Store. It also does nothing with regard to sales support, refunds, or subscription cancellation - all of which will likely be much harder. Just look at why Netflix opted to not use IAP. It caused them a churn problem with people hopping in and out of the service a month on, two months off, another month on...
Well if the crux of the matter is competition as of giving customers access to multiple payment options and related promotions and services as well as minimizing Apple control over third party business models, and not one of keeping Apple entirely outside the loop, for sure would suffice such purpose. Just replacing one single payment and service option by another does not really do that.
That paraphrase is entirely inaccurate considering they CAN do it on Apple's hardware through Safari.
Even worse user experience is every app asking the user to type in the credit card number again and again and again. Who knows if developer is storing your credit card number in plain text on a publicly open MySQL database.
Ah, let me explain...
- Spotify would like to be able to sell subscriptions in their iOS app for the same price as they do outside of iOS, so that they could charge $9.99 everywhere, instead of just via their website. And they wouldn't have to charge iOS users $14.27 to cover Apple's 30% cut, even though Spotify - in both cases - get $9.99.
- This would mean Spotify would get the full $9.99, leaving Apple with $0.00 to cover card processing fees, bandwidth, server storage, marketing, developers coding for the App Store and Xcode, the App Review team, the App Store Legal team, etc.
- Spotify want 100% of a subscription even though that would cost Apple money.
Wait, what was the question?
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!
I rather they use it to properly pay ALL the artist more fairly they have under contract instead having them sweat, bleed while their executives get paid ridiculous sums of money while they galavant across the net touting themselves as being righteous.
That is the beauty of it, people like you and me will prefer to go through Apple thus, the storefronts inside the storefront will either collapse or they have to offer compelling reasons for people to give up their credentials. All good either way
Nahh, you KNOW that if they started to collapse, there would be a NEW lawsuit alleging that Apple’s quality and relatability is adversely affecting their stores. So, they should be able to use Apple’s services and just put their logos on it.That is the beauty of it, people like you and me will prefer to go through Apple thus, the storefronts inside the storefront will either collapse or they have to offer compelling reasons for people to give up their credentials. All good either way
Oh oh oh, even better for Apple, their system means their control and stipulation and Apple can charge approximately …say another 15% on top of the 30%. Its doable I think. 😁Nahh, you KNOW that if they started to collapse, there would be a NEW lawsuit alleging that Apple’s quality and relatability is adversely affecting their stores. So, they should be able to use Apple’s services and just put their logos on it.