Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"gee, didn't we all bash apple for making artists front the bill for Apple Music trials?"
From the NYT article about the free Apple Music trials:
Mr. Cue said the company’s original plan was to pay a slightly higher royalty rate — at least 71.5 percent of the money it collects from sales, as opposed to the industry standard of about 70 percent — in exchange for the free trial.
So basically, Apple had negotiated a slightly higher normal rate to offset the free trials. Now they pay the same amount for both. The end result is likely the same. It was just a change in optics.

Free Spotify is not equivalent to a free trial of Apple Music. Apple Music trial users can pick whatever songs they want with no ads. Free Spotify users can't pick individual songs, and they have to listen to ads. Spotify pays lower rates for radio plays, but not zero.

IF you're upset about the rates that artists are paid, you should blame the organizations that do the negotiating for the music industry.

Do you believe Apple is voluntarily paying a higher rate than they are required to?
 
So you think you should be able to open a store and sell your items in the middle of midtown Manhattan where you will get traffic from Millions and millions of potential customers.... but not pay any rent for the store location? you would have access to all of those customers and make huge profits while not paying anything for the location that is granting you this access? Does that make sense?

rent? apple is charging for rent, utilities, food, everything.

terrible comparison.
 
I would appreciate it if you could point me to any Law, US or any other countries, that says Apple can keep NFC locked on the phones it had sold to the customers


that's not how the law works. the law doesn't define every permissible business practice.

does the law state "A company may be a car manufacturer, a charging service provider, a home battery manufacturer, and a robotics company"? no. that would be a ridiculous law to write...but that's what Tesla is doing.
 
You already know Spotify has the biggest pie, you're just willfully pretending to resist to play a character and get a cheap laugh. I understand this behavior.
So Spotify has the “biggest pie” and artists make more money from them — why is the EU doing their bidding again?

To “protect” consumers in the EU? Those same consumers who somehow managed to make Spotify the biggest despite evil Apple?

All I see is the EU trying to line their own pockets.

Spotify will be out of business within a few years anyway — I hope they enjoy their “protection” racket with what time they have left 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
From the NYT article about the free Apple Music trials:

So basically, Apple had negotiated a slightly higher normal rate to offset the free trials. Now they pay the same amount for both. The end result is likely the same. It was just a change in optics.

Free Spotify is not equivalent to a free trial of Apple Music. Apple Music trial users can pick whatever songs they want with no ads. Free Spotify users can't pick individual songs, and they have to listen to ads. Spotify pays lower rates for radio plays, but not zero.

IF you're upset about the rates that artists are paid, you should blame the organizations that do the negotiating for the music industry.

Do you believe Apple is voluntarily paying a higher rate than they are required to?

read the paragraph after your quoted text.

1% isn't going to offset new releases activity because that's peak listening time for the life of the album. especially true if the album sucks as there won't be any on going listens after.

"end result" is not the same.
 
Do your research. It's often been proven that many smaller artists benefit from being paid more on Spotify than Apple Music. It's just that the Sheep don't like that, so they like to bypass the fact. Spotify works much better than AM, and the way Spotify users listen promotes lesser-known artists more.

What do you prefer, getting $50 this month from AM or $300 from Spotify? Sure, you got paid more per listen on AM, but you got more reach with Spotify. I'm not saying that is the case for them all due to the way payouts work, but it's not just as simple as the AM pays more per listen.
Given this amazing Spotify “reach” and beautiful artist payouts, what exactly are they bitching about to the EU?

Why do they feel they need the protection racket to step in on their behalf?

Sounds like a monopolist in action 😂
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: wbeasley and LeeW
Except that what Spotify is looking for would be more like someone walking into a shop, picking up a product and being able to see copy promoting an alternative and possibly cheaper way to buy that product through the company's website. HP, for example, promotes its Instant Ink subscription and website on packaging for its products found in retail stores. Apple is preventing something similar with apps.

View attachment 2355783
If I were a retailer that product would never make it onto my shelves. Why would I sell something that directs my customers to leave and buy elsewhere?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
read the paragraph after your quoted text.

1% isn't going to offset new releases activity because that's peak listening time for the life of the album. especially true if the album sucks as there won't be any on going listens after.

"end result" is not the same.
Yes, for individual albums that were released when Apple began their music service and everyone was using their free trial at the same time, that may have been true. But years later, the trials will be more randomly distributed. Apple is paying the same average amount per customer that they would have been under the original terms.

Again, do you believe Apple is voluntarily paying the rights holders more than they are required to?
 
"Apple's rules muzzled Spotify and other music streaming services from sharing with our users directly in our app about various benefits--denying us the ability to communicate with them about how to upgrade and the price of subscriptions, promotions, discounts, or numerous other perks. Of course, Apple Music, a competitor to these apps, is not barred from the same behaviour."

This statement is a clear lie by Spotify. Apple doesn't muzzle Spotify, they charge them or limit what they can do for free. If you have to lie, then you probably don't have much of an argument.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FCX
aapl stock is not doing well today
aapl stock has not been stellar for awhile
NASDQ is not doing well today
NASDQ has not been doing well for a while.

In other news. There is a lot of pressure for Googles Sunder Pichai to step down as CEO, because Googles Gemini AI is racist.
 
By the EU's logic, doesn't Spotify now have to allow an artists the right to inform listeners that they can also listen to their music on another platform that supports the artist better? Artists...Sounds like a case to me! LOL
 
Spotify thinks they should freeload off of Apple's success instead of risking billions on R&D of their own platform.

Also
They don't want to go web only.
They think Apple should front the server bill to serve billions of copies of their app updated weekly.
They think Apple should run notification servers for free.
They think Apple deserves $0 for putting them on the front page of the App Store which gets half a billion visitors a week.
They think Apple deserves $0 for constantly building/updating not-perfect-but-way-better-than-other-platform developer tools.

Because somehow they think $99/year ought to be enough to cover those costs, right? Nevermind paying the human $20/hr to review their app weekly.

Stop whining Spotify. Maybe you should start paying more to the artists while you're at it, like Apple is doing.

I have to respectfully disagree here.

1. you have no idea and no inside information thta Apple did NOT use anti-discovery and sterring practices against the Music streaming competition of Apple Music. This is critical before ANYONE makes any opinion on the matter.

2. Apple ALSO does NOT want to go Web Only
^ pretty assinine statement as nobody yet has proven proper Music playlist and songs to remain local on device, especially when cookies cache and local site data is cleared from a browser.

Where do you get the assumption regarding apple not deserving $ for front page or building developer tools? Clearly they've made an app and they can choose whatever dev tools they want and STILL submit to the App Store.
 
No reason that general purpose computing platforms should be treated differently. I only bring that up because it's a common response to why Apple should be punished/fined. And general purpose computing platforms isn't even properly defined by a government body.

With a Tesla, I can be doing anything while I supercharge since it is downtime I must endure. I have posted to social media, watched YouTube, play games, read news, done zoom calls literally on the car's touchscreen. So why not open that up too?



No idea why people keep using that as an argument. No one said Apple is being forced to. Apple made this business decision well over a decade ago. There were no laws about "general purpose computing platforms" being forced to be open. Seems very arbitrary that Apple is punished for being successful.

Apple has made a lot of "business decisions" since the iOS App Store opened in 2008. Many of those decisions were harmful to developers and thus customers.
The most damaging decision was forcing developers into the "Family Share" revenue model in 2014, which forced developers to provide up to 5 copies of an App for one purchase price.
When the store opened in 2008 it offered a reasonable business model to develop mobile apps that cost "a few bucks", but that "few bucks" would be multiplied by the number of mobile devices that everyone eventually carried with them. This was not new, and something Microsoft was attempting for years with near zero success because the devices, and Windows Mobile sucked. The iPhone & iOS was much better so it gained traction.
So it was reasonable to develop mobile apps because the development costs were less than the costs of developing more complicated desktop applications. But development costs are never zero so there is a minimum amount of revenue needed for each device install. This was working well for many developers with viable apps up until 2014.
When Family Share came along it was NOT optional. If developers did not accept the new app store agreements they could not renew their developer account so at the end of their annual membership the account would lapse and all their apps would be removed from the store.
The common response to this criticism was no one was forcing developers to publish on Apple's app store, but this neglected to consider the number of apps already in the store that were developed with viable business cases which relied on the "few bucks" per pocket revenue model.

When companies take actions that harm markets, government ends up getting involved. My basic beliefs are this is not initially a good thing because governments are incompetent and just screw things up more. I've also come to accept this ultimately motivates companies to "let go" of their idiotic desire to control everything. The EU has begun to define market concepts such as "Gatekeepers", and regulations to limit their conduct. At some point we may see them define "General purpose computing platform" and regulations for them. This will end up costing everyone, including Apple more and more revenue until Apple realizes the only way to resolve the issue is "let go" and allow iOS apps to be distributed just like Mac Apps.

NO government or court jurisdiction is pursuing Apple for how Mac Apps are sold.
All of this will continue to get worse until someone at Apple realizes this and decides to "make all the BS go away" and just treat all their platforms like the Mac.

But Apple has let their "control freak" personality take over their rational brain, and now all the new EU app store features / agreements / polices are just another crap salad developers will have to sort through - this pushes them towards how Microsoft screwed up the mobile market from their beginning. It will be a long time before Apple remembers they make money selling hardware so that rational brain will be absent for a while.

Edit: imagine being a new mobile developer with a new idea looking at how to monetize your App in the EU. How many will look at all the new regulations and Apple's contorted polices to deal with them and just say screw it?
 
Last edited:
Except that what Spotify is looking for would be more like someone walking into a shop, picking up a product and being able to see copy promoting an alternative and possibly cheaper way to buy that product through the company's website. HP, for example, promotes its Instant Ink subscription and website on packaging for its products found in retail stores. Apple is preventing something similar with apps.

View attachment 2355783
The shop displaying the ink with that packaging should know they are doing themselves a long term disservice and pushing retail customers away.

We had a distribution company and distributors in each state,
Some were reluctant to handout our quarterly newsletters because it had our Head Office contact details on them fearing their customers would buy direct from us.

We had a policy to steer customers to their local distributor unless they had issues and wouldnt buy from them.
 
Last edited:
that's not how the law works. the law doesn't define every permissible business practice.

does the law state "A company may be a car manufacturer, a charging service provider, a home battery manufacturer, and a robotics company"? no. that would be a ridiculous law to write...but that's what Tesla is doing.
I think you are deflecting. I would like to see any law that states that it is a legal requirement that a particular feature such as NFC that is available on the phone that is sold to customers be available to only one party and not to any other parties. It looked like that was what you were arguing. Was that not what you wanted?
 
Apple has made a lot of "business decisions" since the iOS App Store opened in 2008. Many of those decisions were harmful to developers and thus customers.
The most damaging decision was forcing developers into the "Family Share" revenue model in 2014, which forced developers to provide up to 5 copies of an App for one purchase price.
When the store opened in 2008 it offered a reasonable business model to develop mobile apps that cost "a few bucks", but that "few bucks" would be multiplied by the number of mobile devices that everyone eventually carried with them. This was not new, and something Microsoft was attempting for years with near zero success because the devices, and Windows Mobile sucked. The iPhone & iOS was much better so it gained traction.
So it was reasonable to develop mobile apps because the development costs were less than the costs of developing more complicated desktop applications. But development costs are never zero so there is a minimum amount of revenue needed for each device install. This was working well for many developers with viable apps up until 2014.
When Family Share came along it was NOT optional. If developers did not accept the new app store agreements they could not renew their developer account so at the end of their annual membership the account would lapse and all their apps would be removed from the store.
The common response to this criticism was no one was forcing developers to publish on Apple's app store, but this neglected to consider the number of apps already in the store that were developed with viable business cases which relied on the "few bucks" per pocket revenue model.

When companies take actions that harm markets, government ends up getting involved. My basic beliefs are this is not initially a good thing because governments are incompetent and just screw things up more. I've also come to accept this ultimately motivates companies to "let go" of their idiotic desire to control everything. The EU has begun to define market concepts such as "Gatekeepers", and regulations to limit their conduct. At some point we may see them define "General purpose computing platform" and regulations for them. This will end up costing everyone, including Apple more and more revenue until Apple realizes the only way to resolve the issue is "let go" and allow iOS apps to be distributed just like Mac Apps.

NO government or court jurisdiction is pursuing Apple for how Mac Apps are sold.
All of this will continue to get worse until someone at Apple realizes this and decides to "make all the BS go away" and just treat all their platforms like the Mac.

But Apple has let their "control freak" personality take over their rational brain, and now all the new EU app store features / agreements / polices are just another crap salad developers will have to sort through - this pushes them towards how Microsoft screwed up the mobile market from their beginning. It will be a long time before Apple remembers they make money selling hardware so that rational brain will be absent for a while.

Edit: imagine being a new mobile developer with a new idea looking at how to monetize your App in the EU. How many will look at all the new regulations and Apple's contorted polices to deal with them and just say screw it?

So your claim is that Family Sharing of purchased apps has harmed developers in some meaningful way?

You realize that for purchased apps there was no way to offer paid upgrades short of creating a whole new app, which is where subscriptions come in.

With subscriptions, users who *actively use* the app pay for ongoing development and maintenance.

And guess what — Family Sharing of a subscription is *optional* 🙀

In fact, a developer can have different subscription options, with only some supporting Family Sharing!

Amazing!

As for a new EU mobile dev, they’ll use their brain and use the iOS App Store 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
Yes, for individual albums that were released when Apple began their music service and everyone was using their free trial at the same time, that may have been true. But years later, the trials will be more randomly distributed. Apple is paying the same average amount per customer that they would have been under the original terms.

Again, do you believe Apple is voluntarily paying the rights holders more than they are required to?

it was a while back so maybe some of you forgot how one artist changed Apple's paying for music... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.