It is not Apple's user base. It is a Spotify user which also happens to have an iPhone for which he has already paid lots of money. That money includes the OS and the ability to download Apps through whatever means are offered. If Apple does not allow direct App downloads, it is their choice, but then they must allow users free downloads through other means.
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 Now Offers Direct Audiobook Purchases on iOS Following App Store Rule Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Never think of APIs or specifically access to the APIs as a service. As an iPhone owner you have paid for the possibility that any App that wants access them is allowed to access them. There is no OS without API in case of general purpose devices/computers.
Btw., you don't actually need any Apple development tools for software development.
Not me, or my wife. We were looking to get streaming music and replacing Audible with Spotify seemed like a sensible move, until we tried it out. We listen to 40+ hours of audio books a week, so the 15 hours a month was a non-starter.
The other problem was, at the time, the books were treated like a playlist, so you had to search for the book and then find a playlist that had been put together in the right order. Chapters were also appearing in random playlists, for us. Organising podcasts at the time was also anything but logical.
We stuck with Audible for audiobooks, PocketCasts for podcasts and went with Apple One Family instead - I was already using Apple TV+ with a free subscription and a couple of other services, so we just bumped it to Apple One.
Oh, totally. We buy the phone once, and after that, we should expect nothing more from Apple. Forget ongoing access to maps, weather data, Siri queries, push notifications, or major software upgrades delivered for years—all magically free. And heaven forbid those services be subsidized by third-party developers earning 70–85% of their app revenue on the platform. No, I’d much rather get nickel-and-dimed for every feature individually. That sounds way more sustainable. /sarcasm
Are you a developer? Because APIs—and the robust support Apple provides through documentation, training, and developer tools—are absolutely a service. They’re maintained, versioned, and extended over time, and they enable third-party innovation on the platform. That’s not just infrastructure; that’s strategic value.
You’re right that it’s technically possible to build web apps using open tools without touching Xcode, and Apple doesn’t monetize that directly. But that also reinforces the point: the iOS ecosystem does include access tiers, and Apple chooses to invest in and monetize the native side, where it provides far more integrated capabilities and support.
As for your claim that iOS “couldn’t exist” without open APIs—of course it could. Apple could build a closed ecosystem with only first-party apps that access popular platforms and services. Whether it would be nearly as successful is another question entirely. But let’s not pretend third-party access is some baked-in, uncharged right. It’s a value exchange—one that benefits both sides.
That would be an easy solution: Let us choose a default maps, weather and phone assistant. I personally don’t mind if Apple puts major updates behind a paywall, it’ll stop them from bugging me to update from iOS 17.
I’m not sure most consumers are eager to return to the days of paying premium subscriptions for basic GPS functionality. The current model—where global mapping data, weather services, and other features are subsidized by App Store commerce—is a far more accessible and scalable solution for the average user.
As for putting major iOS updates behind a paywall, that might seem appealing if you dislike update prompts, but it would introduce serious fragmentation. Developers would face higher costs and complexity maintaining compatibility with a wide range of older OS versions—especially for users who choose not to or can’t afford to upgrade. In the long run, that hurts innovation, security, and user experience across the board.
"Major software upgrades for years"? This had been one of the major selling points of iPhones before Samsung and Google started to offer even longer periods. You have been paying for them from the beginning. Of course iPhone owners expect this.
"Access to maps"? If I remember correctly, Apple wanted force us to use that crap before they allowed Google Maps back to iOS.
Siri queries? Even if Siri did anything useful, this is part of the OS for which you have already paid.
Weather data? Really? There are tons of free Apps.
Push notifications from Apps are sent by the Apps. There is no service from Apple involved.
And the rest of the post: sorry, I don't want to offend you but I don't think you know about things you are writing about.
Last edited:
Yes, I am a developer. And I have been an OS developer specifically. And therefore, believe me, you have already paid for APIs through paying for your device including its OS.
And if iOS was a closed system it would have disappeared years ago already. There is no question about it.
Yes. Artists can upload their music and don't pay any fees to Spotify but they do have to go via a distribution service.
You can also advertise merchandise and concert events on your artist page, including links to your own site to purchase them and Spotify doesn't take a cut.
Last edited:
So they still have to pay, unless there is a free distribution service. Maybe that is what Apple should do, charge to be on teh service on a sliding scale by revamping teh developer fee.
Physical merchandise, which Apple also does not take a cut. Does Spotify let them sell their stream but host it on Spotify? No, they don't. Spotify, I doubt, would let you use their service as a host but commercially stream music bypassing them .
Once you pay someone a per single or per album distribution fee. Like I've said, Apple will probably have to change its fee structure to comply with teh law and court rulings while protecting its revenue stream.
The EU, and depending on how the final EPIC case ruling goes, may provide the push to do that; what will be interesting is how competing app stores are handled.
As I pointed out above, you must get a distributor to put it on, and you can't set your per listen charge you must accept Spotify's.
It most certainly is, just as Lidl's or El Corte Ingles, or more likely a mall where you pay for space and possibly a cut of revenue.
You and I bought it knowing how it works. We made our choice freely.
Why? It's there product and as long as you know what it allows it's your choice to buy it or something else.
Until Apple introduces new features you want or stops security updates and signing the OS release. I remember the days when Apple charged for MacOS, and even briefly some iOS updates due to an arcane accounting rule; if they went back to that the outcry would be huge.
Of course, a combination of iOS upgrade costs and trade in value could drive more upgrading, so well, Tim what do you think?
Developers would have issues as well as they would likely have to account for a larger user base of non upgraded phones that may not have the latest features or updated APIs, making it more difficult to support their app.
Given developers simply pocketed the windfall when Apple dropped their cut from 30% to 15%, I doubt we will. I also doubt most smaller developers will find a cheaper but as profitable service as Apple's.
Greedy developers./s
Yes distribution is the cost of doing business if you are producing music, you realise all businesses have costs right? The fee isn't paid to Spotify so your argument is moot.
As for sliding scale developer fees, yeah they could... if they want another huge fine in Europe.. sure.
I can borrow audiobooks from my library all day long, physical and digital.
Last time I checked, those "free" features are included by Apple for the cost of the phone -- a phone that is one of the priciest on the market and a phone that Apple makes a very hefty profit on. They are free to change that if they want.
People forget that the iPhone only exists because there are people that want to buy it and use it. It needs to be useful. It needs to run the apps people want. All these excuses about "Apple's user base" and "magically free apps". etc., are people who chose Apple over Android for a reason. Without the apps people want, the iPhone goes away.
Of course you can. But the audiobook publishers don't make money on people borrowing books from the library, do they?
it’s free. You don’t need a distribution service to have you music in Spotify
Spotify doesn’t allow any sales because they purchase the music from you and pay royalties for the advertisement revenue and subscription fees to you.
I’m not sure what you even mean, there’s no fees or payment per single or album distribution fees.
You don’t need a Distributor. Having a per listening charge doesn’t make any sense either. Spotify doesn’t have a store, and they don’t sell music.
It’s your product the second you purchase it. It’s neither the users. Lidl and El Corte Ingles purchase goods and sells them.
Should moblie and ISP’s get a cut too? Am I their user base? Without my cell provider and ISP my iPhone wouldn’t do much.
This is a much better experience for the customers, and how it always should have been.
👏
👏
I find it interesting that people are willing to give 30% to a $3T+ mega corporation (and in some cases vociferously defend it) but developers don’t immediately reduce their prices then they’re greedy b*astards.
Apple marketing and the cult of unwavering devotion is something else, isn't it?
It's quite a drug.
Last edited:
Magically free? Do you not know why Apple put so much money into Apple Maps even though to this day they're still behind? It's because a map app is a gold mine for user data. A map app knows where you work, where you shop and where you play. On the other side, businesses pay for preferential placement when you search (for example) a restaurant.
It would cost Apple nothing to allow alternative app stores but they'll never do that unless forced because they make too much money extorting developers.
Also, developers making money on "Apples platform" only happens because Apple only allows that option. My phone is not Apples platform although I'm forced to use it due to lack of options.
Developers can make universal apps that work on all devices but Apple can set any fee they want and developers have to pay or they lose access to those people. Most people have only one phone (work doesn't count) and therefore the only way to reach them is via a middle man sucking up profit because they can. I'm all for Apple being able to charge whatever they want as long as their are alternative stores to compete with them.
Last edited:
Paying a cut to the company that hosts and distributes your product is a cost of business as well.
Not sure why you think that. As long as it's a fee to be on the store and not required if you aren't it should pass muster.
Per Spotify:
Getting music on Spotify
Distributors handle music distribution and pay streaming royalties.
Work with a distributor to get music on Spotify.
See our preferred and recommended distributors
These distributors meet our highest standards for quality metadata and anti-infringement measures.
Note: Most distributors charge a fee or commission. Each service is unique, so do a little research before picking one.
If you’re a signed artist, your record label probably already uses a distributor who can get your music on Spotify.
But as a gatekeeper why should they get any of the revenue generated by my music? They didn't make it, after all. Charge for accesss to your service, and let each artist price their product as they see fit for listening and ad fees.
Which is why I think the mall model is a better analogy as bringing the customer to the store. But in either cases, a company is allowed to markup the price of a product.
I think Apple needs to change its model, but still has a right to get paid for hosting apps if it wants to, and get more from more successful ones, just like EPIC does with its products used by 3rd party developers; as well as allow sideloading to end any lockin and monopoly arguments. That 3rd party stores won't be able to compete well with them at a lower price point to be attractive is not Apple's problem.
You already are paying them for the service so no.