I'm not one of them, but a lot of people much prefer Spotify – why wouldn't they want to use it on an iOS device? As much as I don't care for Spotify (I mostly don't like the interface), their shared playlists are ubiquitous, something that I very much envy as an Apple Music user.
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
Best Buy takes a big chunk of every phone, tv, appliance, etc, etc, etc that is sold in their stores - they made none of it, but they did build the store
also Amazon takes a big chunk of everything sold through their web site. This is perhaps a better analogy
If they allow third party payment systems, Apple would have to be allowed to charge for that - otherwise they are doing app hosting/discovery for free and I can guarantee that $99/year doesn't cover that
. I'm not sure that 30% is too much as it is standard and far less than what developers were getting charged before app stores and Steam (plus it does already drop to 15% now for most, especially subscriptions).Also, again, this would have to be something done *for everyone* not just Apple.
“When” is when exactly? 1 year? 5 years? 20 years? There are tons of music streaming apps on the App Store, many of which are probably turning a profit hand over fist (in exchange for selling user data, of course, and Apple doesn’t take a cut of that revenue). I don’t think Apple is the demon everyone makes them out to be. Have they done some ******* things, absolutely. But they’re never going to eliminate the competition as much as they’d like to in an ideal world.
Bill of attainders are not only bad form, but unconstitutional. So yeah, Spotify's not getting an "Apple law."
I have to admit that I was pretty confused when Microsoft submitted an amicus brief for Epic – do they really not think that their Xbox walled garden isn't going to be next if Epic's suit is successful? Epic may say that they're perfectly hunky-dory with Microsoft's 30% cut, but that tune will quickly change if they have a precedent to work with.
Could not agree more. Made the same point above. These moronic comments get trotted out every time there is a competition discussion.
How about the telcos taking a 30% cut of every Apple App Store sale? Same argument. 🤣
Well said. Any customer that wants to spend money bad enough will find a way (within reason, of course). “Inconvenience” is very subjective and there are plenty of people that don’t understand what’s a true inconvenience vs being spoiled and spoon fed everything. Just because you’re the customer doesn’t mean you’re waited on. A payment link isn’t unreasonable.
Spotify doesn’t want to pay. Plain and simple. They don’t want to pay Apple. They don’t want to pay their artists. And they probably don’t want to pay their employees well either. They want to steal the Apple user base and artist’s music for their profit (and they can’t even make one), then spit on Apple and the artists for the privilege of doing so. I see bankruptcy in their future. The cost of doing business is not equal to zero and they’d love for it to be.
I’m the last person to use the “corporate greed” card but this definitely is corporate greed. It’s one thing if you can negotiate a lower rate based on volume but they want to cut to the chase and say no, we’re not giving you a dime and have already thought about ways to circumvent the system. As we saw with Epic, acting upon those ways is a breach of contract and subject to termination.
Last edited:
I was being sardonic
But yes, if Apple's garden falls, then it falls for MS, Sony, etc ... basically the entire console model goes.
Absolutely not. The fact of the matter is that no matter how many scary messages are on the screen, no matter how much Apple tells people they're doing x at their own risk, if iOS doesn't work it's Apple's fault so far as they're concerned. And ultimately, that's Apple's problem. Sideloading in iOS is a horrible idea.
Oh, I know, lol. Just saying.I was being sardonic
But yes, if Apple's garden falls, then it falls for MS, Sony, etc ... basically the entire console model goes.
But yeah, just mystified why MS would want anything to do with Epic's argument.
ask yourself. Have you ever gone to a store, any physical store and picked up something off the shelf and went to the register to pay for it, but just then the manufacture of that item you picked up slid in front of the stores register and said "hey, mind paying me directly for that item? I can save you 30 to 50% off the price??"
le's see Spotify move here, if they raise the price on the WiFi option I'm out and move back to Apple Music, this move from Apple is bold and super aggressive trough competitors.
Seams Sonos will support Apple Music lossless, no plans for Spotify.
This is a huge hit on Spotify.
Seams Sonos will support Apple Music lossless, no plans for Spotify.
This is a huge hit on Spotify.
What exactly is the problem for Spotify? They are the biggest by far and their service is available on many more platforms than any other audio streaming service. Is being no1 with a monopoly position in the music streaming market not enough for them?
I'd argue that the value that those apps bring to the platform more than makes up for whatever hosting fees they lose. And if not, then they should be more upfront about it and charge more than $99/year. But I really don't think that's the issue – iOS with Facebook or Instagram or What's App, etc., is greatly diminished. Apple's getting plenty of value out of them.If they allow third party payment systems, Apple would have to be allowed to charge for that - otherwise they are doing app hosting/discovery for free and I can guarantee that $99/year doesn't cover that
Also, again, this would have to be something done *for everyone* not just Apple.
I'd also bet that the majority of developers would stick with using Apple's payment processing anyway, simply because it's simple and damn near every iOS user has a credit card on file with Apple. Sure, they'd lose the big ones, but they're not even getting some of them as it is, like Netflix, Amazon, etc. I think the amount of antitrust pressure-relief it'd bring would be worth the loss of revenue.
I really want to sum this up simply.
1) Apple made the iPhone. it's there platform, they don't have to share with anyone, ever. Zero requirement to do so.
2) Developers want in on the iPhone/iOS ecosystem. They can make money doing so.
3) Apple says, OK sure BUT you must pay us 30% cut, which is cheaper than any store at the time and since.
4) Apple says, if your not charging for your app (Ad's or otherwise just want to be free) you may do so, zero cut for us!
5) Developers, cool that sounds pretty good.
6) Apple already sells music (iTunes). Spotify wants to sell subscriptions. Cool they do so, 30% cut on renewals. Cool.
7) Spotify, well we really don't want to give you anything really. Can we just have them go to us directly?
8) Apple, sure they can. Just don't advertise that fact on the App Store. You can get them in any other way you want.
9) Spotify, but that makes it harder for us... Can't we just not pay you and yeah.???
10) Apple, FU Spotify. You want this business or not? We made the phone, and the system to distribute FFS.
11) Spotify, yeah we know but still just let us leach man... It's hard out here in these streets. You making mad doe.
12) Apple, listen.. You hear that? That's me not giving a F. You want the full cut, make a phone son...
You can sub out EPIC in that for Spotify if you wish.
1) Apple made the iPhone. it's there platform, they don't have to share with anyone, ever. Zero requirement to do so.
2) Developers want in on the iPhone/iOS ecosystem. They can make money doing so.
3) Apple says, OK sure BUT you must pay us 30% cut, which is cheaper than any store at the time and since.
4) Apple says, if your not charging for your app (Ad's or otherwise just want to be free) you may do so, zero cut for us!
5) Developers, cool that sounds pretty good.
6) Apple already sells music (iTunes). Spotify wants to sell subscriptions. Cool they do so, 30% cut on renewals. Cool.
7) Spotify, well we really don't want to give you anything really. Can we just have them go to us directly?
8) Apple, sure they can. Just don't advertise that fact on the App Store. You can get them in any other way you want.
9) Spotify, but that makes it harder for us... Can't we just not pay you and yeah.???
10) Apple, FU Spotify. You want this business or not? We made the phone, and the system to distribute FFS.
11) Spotify, yeah we know but still just let us leach man... It's hard out here in these streets. You making mad doe.
12) Apple, listen.. You hear that? That's me not giving a F. You want the full cut, make a phone son...
You can sub out EPIC in that for Spotify if you wish.
Ironically, this is exactly what happens to bricks-and-mortar stores when shoppers check out items there, and then whip out their phone to check Amazon's price. Amazon gets the sale while essentially using the B&M store as their free showroom.
You think that advertising should be free ?
The one single problem I have found with Apple’s rules is that a developer cannot direct their customers to their own website.
Apple should offer a developer agreement where you can opt to pay Apple to host your free app on the App Store for a nominal per download fee and those developers who opt to do that are free to direct customers to their website to sign up for subscriptions.
And a payment link should be specially handled in that it informs the customer that they are leaving the app and dealing directly with the developer for support purposes
Apple should offer a developer agreement where you can opt to pay Apple to host your free app on the App Store for a nominal per download fee and those developers who opt to do that are free to direct customers to their website to sign up for subscriptions.
And a payment link should be specially handled in that it informs the customer that they are leaving the app and dealing directly with the developer for support purposes
It does ... and notice how prices of subscriptions don't go down by 15% when it happens.
Spotify has a much stronger argument than Epic, though. They're a direct competitor to Apple, so the 30% cut, which Apple Music does not have to pay, puts them at a marked competitive disadvantage. And unfortunately for Apple, #1 doesn't count for much if they're found to be using their position as the platform owner to compete unfairly in a given market. This is going to change sooner or later – it's just a matter of whether or not Apple or the Courts make the change; Apple would be wise to do it themselves in order to limit the scope and severity of the change.