Best post on the thread. I wish people would remember the content makers who always get ripped off these days.
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 Files Complaint Against Apple With European Regulators Over 'Unfair' App Store Practices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then people/companies should stop developing apps for iOS devices if they have an issue with the fee Apple charges. You don’t get the government to force Apple to offer terms that you just happen to like better.
Looks like you completely missed the point. iPhone makes up the majority or apples revenue/profits. iPhone with no App Store or apps in this day and age would ruin the experience.
Apple were a very different company before the iPhone and were successful because of the iPod and Mac. Those two products make up a tiny amount of Apple’s profits today so an iPhone with no developers, no apps and no App Store would kill off the iPhone eventually.
That’s the main reason all other OS’s failed - there was no app support.
Not the same at all. They key phrase in that case was Microsoft’s abuse of a “dominant market position”. iOS doesn’t dominate the market for mobile OSes, as the Android fans are so fond of pointing out every chance they get.
Further, Apple allows all sorts of competing music services in The App Store (along with competing maps, e-mail clients, browsers and numerous other products that compete DIRECTLY with their own). Microsoft never had a store with competing browsers that users could pick from. If they did I doubt the case would have even went forward.
This is also why Google got into trouble in the EU (dominant market position and forcing OEMs to install certain software by default). The EU cases against both Microsoft and Google are similar, and neither is similar to this Spotify case against Apple.
Kinda wish Apple would allow the App Store to be an App "Mall." Use the one app, but allow it to link to other app stores/repositories. When adding/using a 3rd party store, maybe add a warning along the lines of "Apple can not be held responsible for the content of this store. Use at your own risk." These other stores could have apps that Apple would normally not accept, like gambling and porn. I admit, it's funny that so many of these apps (and TV shows) can show violent gun fights, gory autopsy scenes, etc., but heaven forbid you show a breast or a penis.
Without apps, no one would bother buying an iphone.
Grocery store analogy is irrelevant.
Manufacturers have a choice in where they sell goods. They have no other store option for iOS devices.
As for the App Store, Apple already gets paid by the developer to host the app download. It covered by the developer fee.
It doesn’t cost Apple any more or any less to host an app that uses a subscription than one that doesn’t.
Apple does not host the services that make Spotify function.
The way I see it, if a dev wants to use Apple for payment processing, Apple should rightfully be able to charge a fee for that.
But barring the option within the app to subscribe directly from the developer and even preventing the dev from even providing a simple link to subscribe externally, is monopolistic as they come.
Retailers have been selling their own brand products along side third party products since retailing became a thing. Walk into any supermarket and you will see third party brands along side usually cheaper first party store brands. This isn’t a new concept.
This has absolutely nothing to do with this pursuit. What were the other sources you read...wait...you only read the title of this MR article. Got it! Your "user experience" stems from the initial creation of a proprietary platform which can at any time restrict or eliminate what you enjoy. They also have the ability to impose restrictions on those services that you do use and not just the ones you have an opinion about because you don't use them.
To add, my Office Home subscription just came due the other day. $139.95 (CDN) for a full year. Since I’ve been a subscriber for many years now, Apple only takes 15% of the cut and gives the rest to Microsoft. So when Spotify whines about 30% they’re being deceitful and not telling the whole story.
Curious why Microsoft isn’t whining about Apple taking a cut.
[doublepost=1552489397][/doublepost]
This is false. I’d like to see you walk into Walmart and demand they hand over a portion of their fixed shelf space for your product.
Curious why Microsoft isn’t whining about Apple taking a cut.
[doublepost=1552489397][/doublepost]
This is false. I’d like to see you walk into Walmart and demand they hand over a portion of their fixed shelf space for your product.
I have retracted my earlier statement. I have some thoughts on this matter, but it’s late here and I hope to better formulate my thoughts after I have had some sleep.
Suffice to say, I am a happy Apple user precisely because of decisions like this. Otherwise, I would have moved on to android if it were choices and freedom I preferred.
That said, it’s no surprise that Spotify is doing this now as Apple Music continues to gain momentum and market share in developed countries (which is where the money is).
Bottom line - spotify is getting desperate, and it shows.
You’re right, Apple doesn’t allow other stores. Apple also doesn’t have a monopoly on smart phones. If Spotify doesn’t like Apple’s terms they can refuse to support Apple’s platforms and say you must use Android to access our service.
Spotify already pays Apple to host the download. Every developer does if they want to be in the App Store.
The 30% fee Apple wants is extortion. Apple does not have anything to do with the back end of Spotify’s services.
Sure... charge a processing fee if someone wants to use Apple to manage the monthly Spotify payment.
But forcing the dev to not be able put a link to allow users to subscribe directly within the app is petty BS.
While we can and should have a healthy debate on the actual percentage, the reality is that every 'store' makes a profit on what they sell... or they wouldn't stay in business for long. Products are bought at $x, marked up y% and sold to consumers at $z. Absolutely nothing is different here. In addition, every store has rules about what products it will or will not carry. Again, no difference.
Referring to this as an "Apple Tax" is at best disingenuous and at worst downright deceptive. It's Apple's cut for providing the infrastructure, payment processing and profit. It's not a 'tax'. Developers do not have to accept this. They just need to handle payment for purchases outside of the app / App Store. Customers, however, *like* doing this all-in-one. Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg situation.
Frankly, Apple is incredibly generous providing the infrastructure to distribute free apps without requiring any payment.
From my perspective, the challenge - and where Apple needs to be very careful - is the combination of store ownership with what could appear to be a censorship approach to deciding what products are sold. Because the Apple App Store is the *only* gateway into iOS, it needs to be as inclusive as possible while still enforcing minimum standards. We, the customers, expect Apple to require a generous layer of protections, ensuring that any app downloaded (purchased, free, or free+in-app) will not create a security gap, breach privacy, and will work well.
Spotify's assertion that they cannot connect Siri and HomePod to Spotify unless they also submit to the 30% overhead is a bit troubling though. If true - and I'm wiling to wait for more information - then Apple is indeed being at least somewhat anticompetitive. IMO, that should be the focus of Spotify's challenge... and what the EU investigates.
Referring to this as an "Apple Tax" is at best disingenuous and at worst downright deceptive. It's Apple's cut for providing the infrastructure, payment processing and profit. It's not a 'tax'. Developers do not have to accept this. They just need to handle payment for purchases outside of the app / App Store. Customers, however, *like* doing this all-in-one. Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg situation.
Frankly, Apple is incredibly generous providing the infrastructure to distribute free apps without requiring any payment.
From my perspective, the challenge - and where Apple needs to be very careful - is the combination of store ownership with what could appear to be a censorship approach to deciding what products are sold. Because the Apple App Store is the *only* gateway into iOS, it needs to be as inclusive as possible while still enforcing minimum standards. We, the customers, expect Apple to require a generous layer of protections, ensuring that any app downloaded (purchased, free, or free+in-app) will not create a security gap, breach privacy, and will work well.
Spotify's assertion that they cannot connect Siri and HomePod to Spotify unless they also submit to the 30% overhead is a bit troubling though. If true - and I'm wiling to wait for more information - then Apple is indeed being at least somewhat anticompetitive. IMO, that should be the focus of Spotify's challenge... and what the EU investigates.
Sorry, but that would be the case only if the courts decided that there was an iOS market and not a smart phone market. Apple controls a very small percentage of the smart phone market in Europe, and under 50% in the United States.
Then the answer is to not support Apple’s platform. This argument would hold water if Apple held a dominant market position but that is not the case. In the US it’s under 50%. In the EU it’s even less.
Uh, no. Imagine I put a display in Walmart for my product with a banner on top directing them to order direct from my website to save 30%. You think Walmart would accept this?
The sense of entitlement people have around The App Store is truly amazing.
You're just reaching and grasping at twigs for justification of your opinion that looks more and more abysmal.
Not a one-to-one comparison. In addition to what I've already stated, Apple also prevents users from using other app stores and side loading apps in general. I can buy food anywhere. Or my neighbor can give me food. I cannot load apps onto my iPhone unless they are on the Apple app store though, and Apple controls a huge portion of the phone market. Given all of the things I've mentioned in my posts, it seems clear to me that their fee structure is not only anti-competitive, but intended to be.
Spotify is not demanding any such thing.
Developers already pay to have their app listed in the App Store. It’s part of the annual developer fee.
Apple wants a piece of something they have nothing to do with.
If Spotify was in the Cellphone business I would understand....
Google provide the same thing for them for nothing.
Absolutely correct!! Hosting the app, paying for bandwidth, maintaining probably the best uptime in the industry should not be free.
Correct on all those points. Where the argument falls apart is the fact that you have other options for a phone besides Apple. If you don’t like the way Apple does it’s business then buy an Android phone.