Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
Not exactly. You can sure do that if you wish. No one is stopping you. BUT, most stores will price match. Even with Amazon, so long as it is sold by Amazon (usually). However, not only is it mostly impossible for this to actually happen. The store simply would forbid such a thing from happening. You can't go to BestBuy or Target and not pay at the register. But in stead pay the manufacture directly and walk out the of store. That would be stealing, and it's not possible. What EPIC and Spotify want is exactly that. Let them handle the transaction within the AppStore. Like yeah, no... And yeah no, it's my iOS device. Apple made it, they can design it and make it work as they wish. If people, don't like it, they don't have to buy it. It's not like buying gas for your car or water to drink. It's not essential to life, and you have choices with OTHER platforms. Spotify does NOT have to sell anything on Apples platform. They could totally choose to not even offer an app on iOS. I wonder why they don't?...
 
It does ... and notice how prices of subscriptions don't go down by 15% when it happens.
Of course they don't. The entire concept of Apple's cut being reduced is to return some of that revenue to the developer/publisher, not to reduce the cost to the user. It's never been couched as anything but that.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Stewie
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
Since you are so educated in how much BB and Amazon make, can you use specifics other than a "big chunk"?

Obviously businesses are in business to make money. No one passes along a product at zero profit. But, Apple doesn't do anything but force software companies to sell to their Apple hardware customers through THEIR STORE ONLY at what is considered by most at a ridiculous 30% cost. Apple has nothing to do with in-app purchases, except accepting payment, yet they want 30% of that.

I could give all sorts of analogies, let's just say every time you used your CC, 30% was added to the bill by the CC bank. Would you be happy?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
Not exactly. You can sure do that if you wish. No one is stopping you. BUT, most stores will price match. Even with Amazon, so long as it is sold by Amazon (usually). However, not only is it mostly impossible for this to actually happen. The store simply would forbid such a thing from happening. You can't go to BestBuy or Target and not pay at the register. But in stead pay the manufacture directly and walk out the of store. That would be stealing, and it's not possible. What EPIC and Spotify want is exactly that. Let them handle the transaction within the AppStore. Like yeah, no... And yeah no, it's my iOS device. Apple made it, they can design it and make it work as they wish. If people, don't like it, they don't have to buy it. It's not like buying gas for your car or water to drink. It's not essential to life, and you have choices with OTHER platforms. Spotify does NOT have to sell anything on Apples platform. They could totally choose to not even offer an app on iOS. I wonder why they don't?...
That's not what Spotify wants. If that were so, they'd want me to pay Universal Music, Sony, et. al. directly for streaming music. Spotify is not the manufacturer in this case – they're the distributor, just like Apple. But unlike Apple, they're forced to pay a 30% cut of their revenue. Were Apple not the platform owner, and were this 30% cut not an obvious and significant competitive disadvantage for Spotify, this wouldn't matter. But they are and it is, and this is where the problem lies. Spotify has a strong argument that Apple is using it's position as the platform owner to stifle competition, and I believe that eventually they'll win that argument.

Epic, on the other hand, has none of this and is screwed.
 


Amid the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, Spotify's chief legal officer and head of global affairs Horacio Gutierrez penned an anti-App Store op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, where he summarizes Spotify's issues Apple.

spotify-complaint-apple-eu.jpg

Gutierrez says that Spotify is one of the few companies that insists Apple is a "ruthless bully that uses its dominance to hobble competitors."

Spotify has long been upset with Apple's App Store fees, as the 15 to 30 percent cut that Apple takes from subscriptions means that Spotify has to either raise its prices for those who sign up via the App Store or decline to offer subscriptions on iOS at all, which is what Spotify has opted for.

Apple's "antisteering" rules prevent Spotify from directing iPhone and iPad customers to the Spotify website to sign up, which Spotify argues gives Apple Music some major advantages.

Gutierrez points out the many regulatory issues that Apple is facing in Europe and the United States. The European Commission in April found that Apple breached EU competition law with Apple Music, and in April, the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee questioned Apple's App Store policies. Spotify, Tile, and others attended the latter hearing and said that if Apple's App Store rules aren't changed, Apple will take over the internet, "limiting innovation, squashing small businesses, and all but eliminating customer choice."

Spotify is asking the U.S. to speed up its regulatory initiatives against Apple with "urgent, narrowly tailored updates" to antitrust law to "end such egregious abuses."

Gutierrez says that Spotify isn't asking for special treatment, but wants "fair treatment," and he sums up his piece by stating that Apple's "ability to strangle its competitors is unprecedented." He say


Amid the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, Spotify's chief legal officer and head of global affairs Horacio Gutierrez penned an anti-App Store op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, where he summarizes Spotify's issues Apple.

spotify-complaint-apple-eu.jpg

Gutierrez says that Spotify is one of the few companies that insists Apple is a "ruthless bully that uses its dominance to hobble competitors."

Spotify has long been upset with Apple's App Store fees, as the 15 to 30 percent cut that Apple takes from subscriptions means that Spotify has to either raise its prices for those who sign up via the App Store or decline to offer subscriptions on iOS at all, which is what Spotify has opted for.

Apple's "antisteering" rules prevent Spotify from directing iPhone and iPad customers to the Spotify website to sign up, which Spotify argues gives Apple Music some major advantages.

Gutierrez points out the many regulatory issues that Apple is facing in Europe and the United States. The European Commission in April found that Apple breached EU competition law with Apple Music, and in April, the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee questioned Apple's App Store policies. Spotify, Tile, and others attended the latter hearing and said that if Apple's App Store rules aren't changed, Apple will take over the internet, "limiting innovation, squashing small businesses, and all but eliminating customer choice."

Spotify is asking the U.S. to speed up its regulatory initiatives against Apple with "urgent, narrowly tailored updates" to antitrust law to "end such egregious abuses."

Gutierrez says that Spotify isn't asking for special treatment, but wants "fair treatment," and he sums up his piece by stating that Apple's "ability to strangle its competitors is unprecedented." He says that those in a position "to do something" have now "seen past Apple's facade" and are now acting on the behalf of "innovators and consumers around the world."

Article Link: Spotify Legal Chief: 'Apple's Ability to Strangle its Competitors is Unprecedented'
It seems everyone wants to complain about paying Apple when half these companies wouldn’t exist without Apple devices IMO lol I get the frustration though. I also think the Epic Games lawsuit is a foot in the door for all these other whiners and will set a precedent Apple cannot afford to deal with.
 
Two things; Apple Music took huge inspiration from the innovation and popularity of Spotify to become the product we see now. Secondly, outside of North America where Apple Music is most popular, Spotify is still the most used music streaming service. People are paying more for it right now, but who knows how things change?

The silver lining here being at least we aren’t using iTunes anymore.
One could argue that Spotify took huge inspiration from the innovation and popularity of last.fm and pandora ?
 
Not exactly. You can sure do that if you wish. No one is stopping you. BUT, most stores will price match. Even with Amazon, so long as it is sold by Amazon (usually). However, not only is it mostly impossible for this to actually happen. The store simply would forbid such a thing from happening. You can't go to BestBuy or Target and not pay at the register. But in stead pay the manufacture directly and walk out the of store. That would be stealing, and it's not possible. What EPIC and Spotify want is exactly that. Let them handle the transaction within the AppStore. Like yeah, no... And yeah no, it's my iOS device. Apple made it, they can design it and make it work as they wish. If people, don't like it, they don't have to buy it. It's not like buying gas for your car or water to drink. It's not essential to life, and you have choices with OTHER platforms. Spotify does NOT have to sell anything on Apples platform. They could totally choose to not even offer an app on iOS. I wonder why they don't?...
How about this scenario. All iOS software developers left the platform in protest. Enjoy your iOS device with no software!

You are confusing consumers with the developers. It's not about "if people don't like it"...it's the developers that are getting ripped off, not the consumers buying the devices (except for the fact that app prices could be lower if Apple's fees weren't so high).
 
Offering lossless music and Dolby Atmos to all customers in the standard tier instead of up-charging is innovation.

It’s the same as any other product or service in the tech sector where prices come down and features improve as it’s feasible to do so.

Lossless streaming is really a matter of server space and bandwidth. Once that’s figured out and assuming the cost is minimal then Apple can charge whatever price point they want.

Additionally Amazon Music HD was already pushing subscription prices down at $14.99/month.

i had to laugh when i saw this, because i genuinely appreciate spotify, and i absolutely love its UI compared to apple music.

but lmfao, apple releases tags, tile cries. apple launches hifi up to HQ lossless and atmos, spotify cries.

ffs, spotify has been "teasing" the notion of hifi music streaming for *years* and hasnt done it even with Tidal offering now up to MQA. and Spotify is now *just* about to launch hifi.

top that with Spotify pulling their api for dj applications to access their library, and their UI/UX is now the only reason i care to stay with them. but that alone isnt enough to keep me.

but are we really supposed to feel sorry for spotify? or tile? you see your competitor start competing with offering new things and go "waaaaaaaaaah stop them!"

uh, no. YOU stop them. DO something. ANYTHING worthwhile. anything other than whine that your competitor supplies the devices and then offers them the services much better than yours.

still, i cannot emphasize enough that i despise apple's UI design.
 
It seems everyone wants to complain about paying Apple when half these companies wouldn’t exist without Apple devices IMO lol I get the frustration though. I also think the Epic Games lawsuit is a foot in the door for all these other whiners and will set a precedent Apple cannot afford to deal with.
Yeah, I get that sentiment, but it's a two-way street: without those apps, iOS wouldn't be nearly the success story that it is. Can you imagine the iPhone being such a massive success without apps? Apple clearly realizes incredible value from developers' apps being on their devices, just as developers realize incredible value from the same. Trying to argue that either party is wholly responsible for the success of iOS is specious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux
I can’t stand the new Spotify interface and Spotify told me to pound sand. I’m sure that’s Apples fault too?
It’s clearly identical to Apple music if you ever used it.

After my Sirius xm satellite radio trial expired I had withdrawals from trying to find something to satisfy my music needs, I figured oh well I have Apple Music why not, tried it didn’t like it, their playlists don’t get updated that often and it’s difficult to find specific genres in their List. Apple does have the biggest music catalog but they have a horrible way of sorting their content into more playlists.

I get Spotify for free for 6 months via my cellphone service so I tried it out. I found some decent channels but at the end of the day it ended up repeating the same new songs so wasn’t really drawn into, I mean it’s #1 in the music charts in the App Store because I found out people do prefer Spotify over everything else.

Tried Amazon music, Tidal, Pandora, and suddenly realized that Sirius Xm does have an app which is superior than satellite subscription and cheaper than getting it through your car and to be honest I’ve been using it ever since, I love the high quality audio mixed in with the live and radio feel of it, not to mention quality genre selection I actually prefer over all the others.

I end Up shazaaming all the songs I find on the Sirius XM app and it manually adds them to my Apple Music Library so it works but to say the least Spotify does this internally of course but I would rather have one to two apps than multiple.

I can also add that finding playlists on Apple sucks, try Finding top songs of the 1980’s by year and you get totally different artists and bands, not even the curated playlists by Apple are at the top, you have to dig deep and it’s frustrating, you don’t have this issue with Spotify for example, but those are my 2 cents on finding the right music service I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
It seems everyone wants to complain about paying Apple when half these companies wouldn’t exist without Apple devices IMO lol I get the frustration though. I also think the Epic Games lawsuit is a foot in the door for all these other whiners and will set a precedent Apple cannot afford to deal with.
Apple should remove all non-Apple apps from the AppStore and see how many iPhones they sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux
best buy does not take 30% of wow subs
best buy does not take 30% of pay tv subs
best buy does not take 30% of you internet cost
best buy does not take 30% of your cell phone plan
best buy does not take 30% of your xm sub
best buy does not take 30% of your grocery store bill
well if you go to a convenience store on the corner you will find prices are quite a bit higher on almost everything compared to say Walmart. app store is pretty much a convenience store. You don't have to shop at the convenience store. The developer can even force you to drive down to the Walmart instead and walk into the back of the store of the store to pay for your app.
 
They should thank Apple and the App Store every morning before the coffee
Time to split up Apple and jail Tim Cook.
Right, because the company that sells 4% of desktop and laptop computers worldwide is a 'monopoly'. The same company that sells maybe, maybe (!) 15-20% of phones worldwide! Are people really so clueless as to the meaning of a simple term being used against a company that is not anywhere near monopolistic.

Spotify is a whinging, whiny, brat. They barely even pay the artists streamed on their service, and yet call for special treatment. Maybe their executives should be earning less. They should simply pull their app from all Apple devices. That will get people's attention! And we'll see what happens after that.
 


Amid the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, Spotify's chief legal officer and head of global affairs Horacio Gutierrez penned an anti-App Store op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, where he summarizes Spotify's issues Apple.

spotify-complaint-apple-eu.jpg

Gutierrez says that Spotify is one of the few companies that insists Apple is a "ruthless bully that uses its dominance to hobble competitors."

Spotify has long been upset with Apple's App Store fees, as the 15 to 30 percent cut that Apple takes from subscriptions means that Spotify has to either raise its prices for those who sign up via the App Store or decline to offer subscriptions on iOS at all, which is what Spotify has opted for.

Apple's "antisteering" rules prevent Spotify from directing iPhone and iPad customers to the Spotify website to sign up, which Spotify argues gives Apple Music some major advantages.

Gutierrez points out the many regulatory issues that Apple is facing in Europe and the United States. The European Commission in April found that Apple breached EU competition law with Apple Music, and in April, the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee questioned Apple's App Store policies. Spotify, Tile, and others attended the latter hearing and said that if Apple's App Store rules aren't changed, Apple will take over the internet, "limiting innovation, squashing small businesses, and all but eliminating customer choice."

Spotify is asking the U.S. to speed up its regulatory initiatives against Apple with "urgent, narrowly tailored updates" to antitrust law to "end such egregious abuses."

Gutierrez says that Spotify isn't asking for special treatment, but wants "fair treatment," and he sums up his piece by stating that Apple's "ability to strangle its competitors is unprecedented." He says that those in a position "to do something" have now "seen past Apple's facade" and are now acting on the behalf of "innovators and consumers around the world."

Article Link: Spotify Legal Chief: 'Apple's Ability to Strangle its Competitors is Unprecedented'
Whine whine sob complain. The “innovators” at Apple were innovating long before your company even incorporated and now you want to benefit off Apple? Nah
 
How about this scenario. All iOS software developers left the platform in protest. Enjoy your iOS device with no software!
You’d never get all or even MOST software developers to leave the platform. Because, the vast majority are making a good amount of money with little in the way of cost and overhead even with the 30 or 15%. In fact, they’d LOVE to see a large chunk of their competition leave the AppStore :)
 
apple's closed ecosystem is very well becoming a monopoly. apple may have the legal high grounds, but their strict rules along with perhaps some weak competition, is overall screwing the consumers. even if i think apple has the legal high grounds against Epic, i still hope they lose.
'Weak competition' — the hundreds of millions of Android and other devices out there are fully available to all of these complainers. If Apple's app store is so 'closed' then why go there? Why purchase a phone which is famously walled-in! 9/10ths of the market is comprised of Android devices, and this is not enough for these companies like Epic and Spotify, who don't recognize that Apple created their own device, software, app store, and the entire mobile phone market as we know it today. All of those development costs should be recouped. Apple owes this to its investors, and to its future.
 
Except Microsoft and Google do exactly the same thing. Apple just has the deepest pockets so let’s all go after them first, right?

Yes there is a store other than Apple’s – as the article states, Spotify requires all users to sign up directly with them, and despite this, Apple still graciously allows Spotify to use the App Store for free hosting, etc.

As many have pointed out here, you don’t see Best Buy offering to stock and advertise products in their store with a sign on them saying the same product can be purchased at a lower price elsewhere. Lunacy to expect that of Apple. You should be outraged with all retailers.

That is not "another store," and you know it. Both Microsoft and Google allow different installation methods and different stores, which Apple does not. I'm not arguing that they should, but if they aren't going to, then they need to provide an alternative or else they're going to continue to be in hot water with regulators around the world, and rightly so.

I'm tired of the big box retailer comparisons – this isn't a big box retailer and the situations are not the same. This is an online app store on a platform that doesn't allow other app stores, unlike every other platform that exists in this space.
 
Since you are so educated in how much BB and Amazon make, can you use specifics other than a "big chunk"?

Obviously businesses are in business to make money. No one passes along a product at zero profit. But, Apple doesn't do anything but force software companies to sell to their Apple hardware customers through THEIR STORE ONLY at what is considered by most at a ridiculous 30% cost. Apple has nothing to do with in-app purchases, except accepting payment, yet they want 30% of that.

I could give all sorts of analogies, let's just say every time you used your CC, 30% was added to the bill by the CC bank. Would you be happy?

Apple is a digital store, not a CC payment service company. That’s an even worse analogy.

While I don’t know about current figures, back in the day stores were getting about 60% of the sale price for software. This came up during the trial when Epic admitted that the iPhone dramatically increased profits for software companies as compared to brick and mortar (which to be fair to brick and mortar completely different businesses which is why I don’t find such analogies used by either side as particularly germane).
 
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??"
Probably not...but 100% if they offered it, you would take up their offer
 
I can agree that apple has the right to its cut on payments done through App Store, but apple not allowing Spotify to direct people to its website seems shady

Tell me, who doesn’t know they can go to Spotify’s website and pay for a subscription?

Seriously…. Who?!?

It’s Apple’s store. They spend the money to maintain it and also drive business to your product via app promotions.

where else do sellers not pay a cut to a store to sell their wares? Want to sell your Clothing line in Macy’s? You pay them a cut. Period.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.