Spotify Files Complaint Against Apple With European Regulators Over 'Unfair' App Store Practices

[inkswamp]

Nope not moving the goal posts. Can’t imagine why you think I am. Native apps vs web apps. Sure - webapps is an alternative for some apps but not all.


I love that comparison of the weather app - LOL. Yes, it’s sad. Try like for like.

Absolutely no reason for a Spotify web app you say? Don’t you think Spotify have considered this option of web app? Probably can’t provide good enough experience.

Spotify can create a complaint against Apple - let’s see how it goes. Hopefully the EU will hand Apple its ass like it did last time in the tax dispute. Apple are absolutely in the wrong - yes IMO.

Spotify should be given the option of using apples in app payments or opting out, and allowing subscription links in their app.

Stating that webapps is proof of iOS not being a walled garden is a ****ing stretch - mental gymnastics at its best!

I'm guessing you've never written an iOS web app and don't really realize what you're talking about. I imagine you're picturing some flat web page and don't realize how many hooks into the iOS API Apple offers to developers wanting to go that route. It's not as far-fetched as you seem to believe. In fact, if you go back to the original unveiling of the iPhone, you might remember that web apps was the original plan for iOS development. This has always been a part of iOS's DNA.

Regardless, you're wrong and being very defensive for some reason so believe what you will. I don't really care that much to keep arguing it with you.

 

[Stella]

I have done actually, I'm well aware of when I using a iOS web app ( hint: they feel 'off' vs a native app ).

Those initial web apps were a joke, I wasn't impressed at all. Apple didn't have a native store in place so be able to offer an SDK for third party developers ( in fact, Apple spun (highlighting that word ) the idea that native app weren't necessary LOL) .

There are numerous frameworks around today to make far better and polished web apps - for all platforms - than those back then.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/apple-app-store-turns-10/
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3251173/apple-goes-back-to-the-future-with-web-apps.html

I'm guessing you've never written an iOS web app and don't really realize what you're talking about. I imagine you're picturing some flat web page and don't realize how many hooks into the iOS API Apple offers to developers wanting to go that route. It's not as far-fetched as you seem to believe. In fact, if you go back to the original unveiling of the iPhone, you might remember that web apps was the original plan for iOS development. This has always been a part of iOS's DNA.

These are you opinions of both counts ( IMO, you are being rather defensive!). I'll let the courts decide who is right.

Regardless, you're wrong and being very defensive for some reason so believe what you will. I don't really care that much to keep arguing it with you.

 

[gk4]

You don’t seem to be grasping the idea of the tremendous value Apple provides by delivering customers to app makers. It’s not Apple’s job to allow other companies to use their media space (the AppStore) to promote ways for people to pay so that Apple gets nothing.

In your way of thinking: Apple creates the world’s richest app marketplace, that delivers multitudes of customers to app makers, but they should get nothing in return and instead offer up free space within that AppStore so that these companies can instruct new customers on the easiest possible way to pay that avoids giving Apple a dime for the customer they just prospected and delivered? This makes no sense.

You could literally use this exact argument as a justification why all major ISPs (which also provide TV services, VOD services, and even some limited radio services) should charge Netflix, Apple, etc. a fee.

Do you support your ISP charging Apple $x for every piece of media you bought from Apple? After all, your ISP provided tremendous value to Apple by delivering a paying customer to it. Should your ISP get nothing in return when Apple instructs its customers to buy media that takes away from your ISPs own VOD offerings?



In the second part of your post you note that if spotify could drive their own customers to signup, then they wouldn't need Apple and from there try to leverage that as an example that they are in fact using Apple. But if you read the article, it claims that

Ek notes that Apple "applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions" on the company. Over time, this has also included "locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch."

That complicates things a bit. Because now its not just Spotify allowing in app subs because they want to use Apple's exposure. It's spotify allowing in app subs because they will lose other platform benefits if they dont.

So it's now not as simple as Apple saying "if you don't think our exposure provides value, then simply don't take in app subscriptions and try to grow your base outside us". It's actually saying "If you don't take in app subs, we will place technical restrictions on you that make your app in inferior to competing apps".

 

[sidewinder3000]

You could literally use this exact argument as a justification why all major ISPs (which also provide TV services, VOD services, and even some limited radio services) should charge Netflix, Apple, etc. a fee.

Do you support your ISP charging Apple $x for every piece of media you bought from Apple? After all, your ISP provided tremendous value to Apple by delivering a paying customer to it. Should your ISP get nothing in return when Apple instructs its customers to buy media that takes away from your ISPs own VOD offerings?

Sorry, your argument doesn’t hold water. The comparison isn’t a parallel construction. ISP’s provide a generic commodity. They don’t deliver customers to Apple or any other company. And they haven’t created the world’s safest, richest app marketplace that connects nearly a billion users with safe access to developers across the globe.

No comparison.

 

[gk4]

Sorry, your argument doesn’t hold water. The comparison isn’t a parallel construction. ISP’s provide a generic commodity. They don’t deliver customers to Apple or any other company. And they haven’t created the world’s safest, richest app marketplace that connects nearly a billion users with safe access to developers across the globe.

No comparison.

I know you want to dismiss the comparison because it muddies your argument, but your distinctions are totally arbitrary. You may as well say the AppStore has an "A" in its name therefore is totally different from the internet and no comparison.

Your ISP delivers customers to Apple. By your initial definition, the value of delivering customers to a service needs to be compensated. Are you now moving the goalposts and adding additional qualifications whereby the party who delivered the customer does or does not deserve compensation?

 

[sidewinder3000]

I know you want to dismiss the comparison because it muddies your argument, but your distinctions are totally arbitrary. You may as well say the AppStore has an "A" in its name therefore is totally different from the internet and no comparison.

Your ISP delivers customers to Apple. By your initial definition, the value of delivering customers to a service needs to be compensated. Are you now moving the goalposts and adding additional qualifications whereby the party who delivered the customer does or does not deserve compensation?

You seem to be confused by the word “deliver”. In a retail or marketing sense, it means that someone has done the work of cultivating prospects and helped close the sale for a third party. You are falsely trying to apply that same term to networking, but it doesnt have the same meaning there. An ISP doesn’t cultivate prospects, market, or help close the sale any more than a cab driver does when “delivering” a passenger to a restaurant. Neither an ISP nor a cab driver are paid for their expertise, knowledge, or marketing savvy. They are the muscle, paid to provide a transportation commodity.

Let me explain this another way: Apple created a previously non-existent marketplace. A retail environment designed for commerce. ISP’s are an infrastructure. Apple the app retailer only gets paid when they help an app maker close a sale. ISP’s get paid regardless of whether people actually go on the web or not, and regardless of what sites they visit or what they do online.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

 

[gk4]

You seem to be confused by the word “deliver”. In a retail or marketing sense, it means that someone has done the work of cultivating prospects and helped close the sale for a third party. You are falsely trying to apply that same term to networking, but it doesnt have the same meaning there. An ISP doesn’t cultivate prospects, market, or help close the sale any more than a cab driver does when “delivering” a passenger to a restaurant. Neither an ISP not a cab driver are paid for their expertise, knowledge, or marketing savvy. They are the muscle, paid to provide a transportation commodity.


Let me explain this another way: Apple created a previously non-existent marketplace. A retail environment designed for commerce. ISP’s are an infrastructure. Apple the app retailer only gets paid when they help an app maker close a sale. ISP’s get paid regardless of whether people actually go on the web or not, and regardless of what sites they visit or what they do online.


Hope that helps clear things up for you.

I wasn’t confused by how you defined ‘deliver’ I only disagreed with your assessment on Apple delivering these customers. I would argue that Spotify cultivates their own demand and Apples role is much similar to the ISP.

if it could be shown that Spotify app installs were driven by users already knowing they want Spotify, then going to the app store and essentially saying “app store, take me here” would you put their service on the same level as me stepping into a taxi, already knowing which restaurant I want to go to and saying “cab driver, take me here”? Or would there be some additional function you believe the app store provides, even in that scenario, that would separate it.

 

[Timemaster]

I'm guessing you've never written an iOS web app and don't really realize what you're talking about. I imagine you're picturing some flat web page and don't realize how many hooks into the iOS API Apple offers to developers wanting to go that route. It's not as far-fetched as you seem to believe. In fact, if you go back to the original unveiling of the iPhone, you might remember that web apps was the original plan for iOS development. This has always been a part of iOS's DNA.

Regardless, you're wrong and being very defensive for some reason so believe what you will. I don't really care that much to keep arguing it with you.

I have done it personally and if you think that a web app is any where close to native app then I will say you never created either. I have delt with both. Webapps suck. They are a nightmare to do a lot of items and things never work right.
Once you start going outside or pretty basic items (like your weather app) they start to break down. The limitation are very real and the experince is crap.

Webapps for a lot of items are considered a stop gap not for long term. Where I am now we are going to do a web app for the short term as we need the item now and we can convert the current web app part use for web browser fairly quickly to work as a web app. It because we need it now but are also working on a native solution but it is a few months out. AKA we are using the web app to buy time. It has a lot of issues......

I think you are the one being defensive as your "solution" has been ripped to shreads and shown why it does not work. You will not find many professionally developers arguing that the web app is a good solution. This includes web guys. It is not a great solution but just something that works but provides a poor user experiences on across the board. Mix that with the nightmare debugging issues.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I wasn’t confused by how you defined ‘deliver’ I only disagreed with your assessment on Apple delivering these customers. I would argue that Spotify cultivates their own demand and Apples role is much similar to the ISP.

if it could be shown that Spotify app installs were driven by users already knowing they want Spotify, then going to the app store and essentially saying “app store, take me here” would you put their service on the same level as me stepping into a taxi, already knowing which restaurant I want to go to and saying “cab driver, take me here”? Or would there be some additional function you believe the app store provides, even in that scenario, that would separate it.

Getting sales from the AppStore is easy for Spotify. And they pay nothing upfront. Apple has created a marketplace where discovery, payment, and security are all top notch, and consumers spend like crazy. It’s where they’re already hanging out.

Getting sales via their own website requires them to spend a lot more money and time upfront on marketing in order to drive people there. Therefore, there is value in the AppStore.

If you ever saw Glengarry Glenross, the AppStore is the equivalent of “...the good leads! The Glengarry leads.”

 

[gk4]

Getting sales from the AppStore is easy for Spotify. And they pay nothing upfront. Apple has created a marketplace where discovery, payment, and security are all top notch, and consumers spend like crazy. It’s where they’re already hanging out.

Getting sales via their own website requires them to spend a lot more money and time upfront on marketing in order to drive people there. Therefore, there is value in the AppStore.

If you ever saw Glengarry Glenross, the AppStore is the equivalent of “...the good leads! The Glengarry leads.”

What is Apple doing to drive customers to them? Having an appstore doesn't drive any more customers than the existence of a search engine. In fact, Apple actively pulls customers away by driving people to their own services. If someone searches for and installs the Spotify app its because they were compelled to by Spotify's marketing.

If you read the article though, Spotify is even arguing that they'd prefer not to accept in app subs, but that they will lose other functionality (like use of the Siri APIs) if they turn it off.

 

[macfacts]

Sorry, your argument doesn’t hold water. The comparison isn’t a parallel construction. ISP’s provide a generic commodity. They don’t deliver customers to Apple or any other company. And they haven’t created the world’s safest, richest app marketplace that connects nearly a billion users with safe access to developers across the globe.

No comparison.

Those ISPs created and maintain those cell towers and cable lines. They deserve a cut. Without the ISPs, your iPhone would just be a iPod touch.

 

[Man Tai]

I think it is really unfair.
You need to pay $99 a year to let your app publish on the App Store.
And, if the user purchase in App, Apple will get 30% total income of in-app purchase.

Someone said that "Apple has no obligation to host your app on their store for free", it not free. The developer already paid it just like I mention it before.

Also, Apple has Apple Music service too, it totally unfair if Apple using the same standard.
Apple can collect the data from the App Store or from iPhone to analysis the user activity. For example, the App running time. The developer only can collect the report from there own App, but Apple can collect it from different Apps.

I need to pay for publishing, I need to pay 30% total income of in-app purchase, and you also are my competitor, you can collect the report from different music app to improve yourself. Is it fair?

 

[maverick28]

This is what I see in Apple's own Music app as of iOS 12.

So, Spotify isn't allowed what Apple allows itself? Or am I supposed to believe that Music ads are less annoying than Spotify? I don't use nor do I plan to. Why this crap pops up every time I fire up the app? Why can't they make it just a decent music player? Why everything is so crammed?

 

[sidewinder3000]

What is Apple doing to drive customers to them? Having an appstore doesn't drive any more customers than the existence of a search engine. In fact, Apple actively pulls customers away by driving people to their own services. If someone searches for and installs the Spotify app its because they were compelled to by Spotify's marketing.

If you read the article though, Spotify is even arguing that they'd prefer not to accept in app subs, but that they will lose other functionality (like use of the Siri APIs) if they turn it off.

What it boils down to is simple: Apple says if a customer comes through our door, we want a cut. If they come through another door, then no fee. And yet, Spotify is chosing to fight Apple to keep in app purchases, rather than doing what Netflix did recently and choose to not offer in app subscriptions.
[doublepost=1553322855][/doublepost]

Those ISPs created and maintain those cell towers and cable lines. They deserve a cut. Without the ISPs, your iPhone would just be a iPod touch.

THEY ALREADY GET PAID BY CONSUMERS.

 

[Tech198]

I think it is really unfair.
You need to pay $99 a year to let your app publish on the App Store.
And, if the user purchase in App, Apple will get 30% total income of in-app purchase.

Someone said that "Apple has no obligation to host your app on their store for free", it not free. The developer already paid it just like I mention it before.

Also, Apple has Apple Music service too, it totally unfair if Apple using the same standard.
Apple can collect the data from the App Store or from iPhone to analysis the user activity. For example, the App running time. The developer only can collect the report from there own App, but Apple can collect it from different Apps.

I need to pay for publishing, I need to pay 30% total income of in-app purchase, and you also are my competitor, you can collect the report from different music app to improve yourself. Is it fair?

if would be it people understood Apple's been always doing it..

 

[Nieloz]

It's supported on all the devices us Apple fans use.

We don't care about Google smart spying speakers for example.

Meh. Most soundbars don't support Airplay 2 but do support Spotify.
So I dont agree with you.

 

[gsurf123]

Spotify has a point here.
Apple is not only the owner of the App Store, they are also a competitor offering the exact same type of service.
Having a built in 30% “fee” is the epitome of an unfair advantage.
They are simply acting as a card processor in the transaction. The average processing fee is 5% or less literally everywhere else.
That would be fair.

And we can now confirm that you have never run a business and have no idea what overhead and labor costs.
[doublepost=1559654366][/doublepost]

Apple charges $99/year to keep hosting your app in the App Store. Then they throw a 30% tax on all IAPs on top of that. That's not what I call fair. E.g. Google only charges a $25 one time fee to be a Google Play developer, but then throw a 30% cut on IAPs. Not as fair as I'd like it to be, but more fair than Apple honestly.

Fair is not for you to decide. Again you are no different from the other posters here who have no idea the costs related to just keeping the store open. It is a lot more than credit card processing. How would you like it if someone told you that you were making to much money and needed a pay cut.

 

[Seend1983]

Competition is about better companies driving lesser companies out of business. Therefore, competition is always about having an advantage and is never "fair", otherwise there would be no winners and losers. Ask Kmart if it's fair that it can't compete successfully against Walmart and Amazon.