Yeah, that won't happen. How many macs out there vs non macs? How many iphones vs androids? Oh yeah that's right, with both Apple is in the minority.
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
Time to split up Tim Cook.
This makes about as much sense as getting upset that the most utilized road from point A to point B requires a toll, calling that a monopoly, and demanding a lane just for me put on the same highway with no toll
Apple created the platform and the App Store; what concession should anyone have? People are still making apps so it must be profitable, leaving greed as the only motivating factor.
Anyone coming at it with the altruistic pretense of “its not fair“ is absurd.
That isn’t what we’re talking about though. What we’re talking about is purchases within an app, not purchases in the App Store.
For Apple to require a 30% cut of in-app purchases would be like Google asking for a 30% cut of anything you ordered from Amazon in the Chrome web browser. Or for Google to disallow purchases from within Chrome if they don’t go through Google merchant tools. If it wasn’t for the requirement that you make purchases through their payment APIs, no part of those in-app purchases would have anything to do with Apple. The infrastructure to deliver the content doesn’t live on Apple servers, so why do they deserve any part of that once they’ve delivered the app to a user’s phone?
So when an app is free with IAP how does Apple recoup their costs for the platform those free apps reside on and the costs to deliver them to the users phone? It is exactly the same as asking a brick and mortar retailer to sell things at zero markup. Perhaps if apps weren't free this might be a different discussion. This is the way it used to be with games, buy the CD at Best Buy and then pay your monthly sub direct to the company. Bottom line is BB was able to get their piece.
Point taken! And you’re right to a point. But out of all the current lawsuits with the App Store … I don’t use any of them.
Spotify customer for a while now and can say I have tried Apple music, stayed on Spotify for features and set up, keep improving your service/app Spotify, stop blowing money on these damn lawyers else competition will catch up I'm gone. You can't sue your way to a larger customers base.
No Spotify is not “forced” to fork over 30%. Does Spotify have an app on Android? Because if they do they are paying the same 30%. Apple is doing all of the heavy lifting with this. Spotify is butt hurt because everyone knows how cheap they are in paying artists. Maybe artists should start boycotting Spotify until Spotify starts matching Apple’s payment to artists.
so when did Best Buy start selling groceries. I need to talk to the manager at my local Best Buy when I’m in there next and go “Dude, what the heck, where’s the groceries” I guess you never heard of markups some routinely reaching nearly 50%
Well if the argument is Apple deserves 30% because they provide the customers I could make an argument that it applies to Uber more so than Amazon, Netflix or Spotify. And is Uber really a physical service? You’re not buying a car, you’re buying a ride. I guarantee you if there was any way Apple could take 30% of every Uber transaction they would. Heck Eddy Cue basically said Uber wouldn’t exist if not for the App Store.
They could go the Sirius XM route and make their own portable music player. But if they want to be on someone else's platform, they will have to give something up.
Well I’ve just cancelled my Spotify Premium Student subscription, since they’re raising the monthly price while at the same time paying artists one of the lowest royalties per stream out of any streaming service.. something just doesn’t add up, no matter what way they spin it.
Looking forward to getting Apple Music for the lower $4.99 (and the 4 month trial that comes first) once my final month of spotify finishes next month😌
Looking forward to getting Apple Music for the lower $4.99 (and the 4 month trial that comes first) once my final month of spotify finishes next month😌
There are people that clearly just don’t understand the issue, as this analogy is not even coherent.
So many new sign-ups from Spotify trolls just to comment on this article. 😆
no one’s preventing spotify from developing a mobile phone, operating system and app store
One can only applaud Spotify's no doubt laudable motivation to do good for innovators and consumers alike. However, in their somewhat misguided enthusiasm, Spotify has perhaps ignored the wishes and interests of those customers that it appears to be determined to do good to. Spotify can already access more than 50% of all the devices out there in the market place that are Android based. As an iOS user, I can already subscribe to Spotify via the web. The "good" that Spotify apparently now wants to do me is to remove the protection that the Apple App Store provides me, that was one of the major deciders for me (and most of the people I know) to opt for Apple devices in the first place. Since there is no actual impediment to iOS users being able to sign up to Spotify online, this action is all about the protection that the App Store provides.
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. [...]
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. [...]
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'
One has to ask if Spotify, like most of the other major players that want to break the protection of the App Store, has significant Chinese ownership. It is notable that most of the others do. Is what we are observing really all about exposing more of us to Chinese and other unwanted surveillance? How could Apple insist on privacy requirements if their App Store model is broken, for example? One could see the likes of Google and Facebook dancing a jig over that one.
Hopefully the judiciary overseeing this case will not be fooled. Apple does not prevent anyone from subscribing to Spotify - they just have to do it over the web. Anyone who has not heard of Spotify is not actually missing anything, and anyone searching for streaming services would no doubt be able to search the web rather than simply searching the App Store. For example, I have subscriptions to various periodicals on the web that I read on my iPad without having bought them through Apple's systems.
Frankly I find these challenges to the App Store, by big players who have links to China, to be seriously sinister.
If your comment is about Spotify, then please note you can subscribe over the web without needing to go through the App Store. But of course your comment is not about that at all, it is just more anti-Apple sentiment
So jailbrake or get android. No one is forced to buy anything. Or have your customers use an external pay system. Sheesh this crap is way overblown
Antisteering policies are quite common and generally do not constitute anti-compete or monopoly concerns. No store (online or b&m) allows producers to hang a sign to an alternative payment option. Walk into any store and show me the banner to amazon.com or to their own site's sale page when they are running a special deal. Show me the link on Amazon where sellers can direct someone to an alternate storefront.
All sellers allow for a URL to the producer's web site - sometimes on packaging, a link in the App Store (yes, it does exist and actually does take you to the seller's web site), a link on the Amazon product page. But that gets people to the producer's site; from there it is up to the producers to direct their customers and close the sale.
Netflix's snarky "it sucks, but..." splash page on the login help is allowed and gets the point across that people need to have an account before trying to log in. Most people will naturally assume they need to go to Netflix.com and register. Or they will google it. Not that hard.
What is so magic about in-app subscriptions? What is stopping people from subscribing over the web? You would break the App Store model simply in order to save the average consumer a couple of mouse clicks? Do be sensible.