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 Legal Chief: 'Apple's Ability to Strangle its Competitors is Unprecedented'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, maybe Apple should go ahead and announce that they're taking a 30% cut from their own subscriptions as well. It wouldn't matter since the money would be go right back to them, but at least it'd shut people like Spotify and Epic up.
Can't be anticompetitive if we're taking a 30% cut too from all Apple Music and iCloud subscriptions amirite!
Can't be anticompetitive if we're taking a 30% cut too from all Apple Music and iCloud subscriptions amirite!
Okay I’ll ask. Why?
Normally I am in the "so don't use the platform" camp -- for example, with Epic. It gets dicier here though, because Apple competes directly in the streaming music space. The fact Spotify has to pay 30% to do in-app subs, and Apple Music does not because it's a 1P app, means Apple is leveraging it's platform ownership into a significant competitive advantage over all 3P apps. Pay to play for something like a game is fine in my view, because it's not like Apple has a competing version of Fortnight that's benefiting. In the music space it's different, because Apple Music has a huge advantage over 3P competitors in terms of being able to charge less to earn the same revenue, while still offering in-app subs.
If I were Apple's legal counsel, I'd strongly advise them to at the very least allow linkouts to the web for subscriptions where the app in question offers a service that competes with one Apple offers.
If I were Apple's legal counsel, I'd strongly advise them to at the very least allow linkouts to the web for subscriptions where the app in question offers a service that competes with one Apple offers.
Think about the App Store like a really nice shopping mall. Businesses pay rent, but they don't pay a percentage of their sales. Seems like Apple needs to offer some additional business models for in app purchase instead of taking 30% cut.
For example, someone downloads Spotify for free on the App Store. Spotify pays apple $1 for the download to a new potential paying customer to cover the hosting, financial transaction, app review, etc. If they subscribe to a monthly in app purchase, take 30% the first month, and then 30% once a year....
For example, someone downloads Spotify for free on the App Store. Spotify pays apple $1 for the download to a new potential paying customer to cover the hosting, financial transaction, app review, etc. If they subscribe to a monthly in app purchase, take 30% the first month, and then 30% once a year....
Interesting analogy. To me the difference here is that people are specifically searching for Spotify and the only place they can get it is the App Store (Best Buy). I would assume that Spotify doesn’t benefit that much from any App Store advertising. With most Beat Buy stocked products there are other places to get it from, so it’s in Best Buy’s interest to win the sale from their store - hence we don’t see practices like the one described.
The Spotify guy talks about it as if iOS is the only platform in the world!
At the end of the day iOS has cost billions to develop. Apple's ad fee's alone are in the billion dollars as year. They have taken numerous risks on that platform that others have laughed at (no headphone socket, walled garden etc..) so they have taken considerable risk. All of this needs to be compensated for.
You can't spend billions and billions of dollars building a customer base, an OS with api's etc.. so that anyone can sit on that platform and make money from your hard work. Hell no!
People need to remember that Windows is a paid for product. Android is paid for via its search business etc.. And even then there are multiple OEM's sharing the burden of creating these platforms. Apple is on its own. If something doesn't work (HomePods etc..) they eat the cost. Thats the risk of doing business.
Spotify seem to imply there is no risk to Apple doing business. As if the platform just exists out of thin air for everyone to make money off it. Just like any physical store, people spent money to build it, to advertise it, and get people into the store. No store on earth says go and buy this shirt next door where its cheaper.
At the end of the day, if 30% is too high then developers will move elsewhere and innovate on other platforms. Nothing is stopping them. There is no need to legislate where there is no monopoly. Let the market decide, just as we have always done.
At the end of the day iOS has cost billions to develop. Apple's ad fee's alone are in the billion dollars as year. They have taken numerous risks on that platform that others have laughed at (no headphone socket, walled garden etc..) so they have taken considerable risk. All of this needs to be compensated for.
You can't spend billions and billions of dollars building a customer base, an OS with api's etc.. so that anyone can sit on that platform and make money from your hard work. Hell no!
People need to remember that Windows is a paid for product. Android is paid for via its search business etc.. And even then there are multiple OEM's sharing the burden of creating these platforms. Apple is on its own. If something doesn't work (HomePods etc..) they eat the cost. Thats the risk of doing business.
Spotify seem to imply there is no risk to Apple doing business. As if the platform just exists out of thin air for everyone to make money off it. Just like any physical store, people spent money to build it, to advertise it, and get people into the store. No store on earth says go and buy this shirt next door where its cheaper.
At the end of the day, if 30% is too high then developers will move elsewhere and innovate on other platforms. Nothing is stopping them. There is no need to legislate where there is no monopoly. Let the market decide, just as we have always done.
It's that "massive investment of money and time" that justifies Apple getting a cut.
I agree that Apple has an unfair market advantage when it comes to competing services. I really don't see an argument to the contrary. They own the store, the product, AND the platform upon which other products can be built. This is monopolistic because of the third component. It's as if everyone had to sell at either Walmart or Target with no ability to make a direct sale to consumer.
Like Amazon, Apple can use the tremendous amount of data/metrics from within the ecosystem to collect app performance data and then competes with apps at a massive price advantage. There should be separation (at least arm's length) between the developer and the ecosystem for this to be a fair game. I'm in favor of the App Store being broken off from the main company and requiring Apple to negotiate its own terms. We can't let Big Tech keep doing this.
On the other hand of this, what's Spotify's ideal solution? They shouldn't be able to make Apple Music go away, they should have to pay something for software releases, updates, and novel innovation of years of App Store development. It's a tricky case because market alternatives to the App Store are not even available. That's literally the definition of a monopoly market. Lol.
Like Amazon, Apple can use the tremendous amount of data/metrics from within the ecosystem to collect app performance data and then competes with apps at a massive price advantage. There should be separation (at least arm's length) between the developer and the ecosystem for this to be a fair game. I'm in favor of the App Store being broken off from the main company and requiring Apple to negotiate its own terms. We can't let Big Tech keep doing this.
On the other hand of this, what's Spotify's ideal solution? They shouldn't be able to make Apple Music go away, they should have to pay something for software releases, updates, and novel innovation of years of App Store development. It's a tricky case because market alternatives to the App Store are not even available. That's literally the definition of a monopoly market. Lol.
Are you actually hearing yourself?
Even Microsoft couldn’t do that with their insane amount of money.
I thought you were just calling it a car thing, then I looked it up and learned that was its real name. 🤡
So how many times have you gone in to a physical store, say Best Buy and they tell you go to Target because they have the same item cheaper? It's Apples store they can run it how they want. You can argue that there should be more then one app store for Apple but if it's not controlled by Apple and you download an app and it bricks your phone you can't expect Apple to fix it.
Exactly this. Even if they aren't actual links for security purposes, Apple should include a mechanism that allows companies to alert users about the potential to sign up on their website. Apple could even include "benefits of signing up through the App Store include Apple payment processing," etc.
But they asked for trouble by completely preventing the acknowledgement of outside payment options.
I love Apple and I'm very comfortable in the walled garden, but forcing direct competitors to take a 30% hit is exactly why they're in hot water right now. I have a feeling that if it were Microsoft or Google doing this, people would be a lot more pissed off. It's disheartening to see so many say "well Spotify can build their own phone!" Completely anti-consumer. THERE IS NO OTHER STORE TO GO TO ON IOS IF THEY DON'T LIKE APPLES T&C. That's the entire point.
says the company that forced artists to give up music sales and accept 2 mills/play
The reality is though that not offering subs via the app store does not appear to have affected them too much given they have 155m paying subscribers. It's still the most popular music service so people will not have an issue paying outside of the app store.
This oft repeated response is just plain silly. How about you launch your own mobile phone? Do you expect every app developer to launch their own phone. The costs to do that are prohibitive and you know that. Apple worked hard and it was also in the right place and the right time and so now it one of the two mobile platforms. However Apple cannot abuse its position and I think we will soon see the US Government step in with regulations. Long overdue.
Apple sets ups the store, does R&D for new technologies for the store, pays the employees that handle the upkeep of the store, pays for the bandwidth for the traffic running through the store and creates/maintains the platform for making the apps. What you're suggesting is opening up a hole similar to a toy manufacturer having Target stock their items and including a QR code on the package that lets the buyer pay the manufacturer directly and walk out with the toy. Quibbling over the fee is fine, but letting devs actively market a way to pay that completely removes Apple from the equation doesn't really make any sense for Apple.
Last edited:
I think this is driving people more towards Spotify, especially in Europe so hopefully they win some way. I haven’t found anything tempting about Apple Music yet and I’ve tried it 3 times now on free trials.
Spotify sure didn't have a problem providing free streaming music undercutting everyone else who was selling tracks and CDs. They proudly called it disrupting the music industry.
Enjoy the disruption to your business now Spotify
No sympathy for them.
Enjoy the disruption to your business now Spotify
No sympathy for them.
Yeah I feel like the compromise to all this will be making Apple allow third party companies to place a statement on how To sign up for the service outside the app. I’m sure it will be a very limited and specific statement but hey consumers deserve the choice to save money.
a Few years back I signed up for YouTube premium through the app and was somewhat upset when I found out I was paying a few bucks extra than everyone else. Had I known I should’ve used the website I would have to save money.