Spotify Now Offers Direct Audiobook Purchases on iOS Following App Store Rule Changes

[jlc1978]

Apple marketing and the cult of unwavering devotion is something else, isn't it?
It's quite a drug.

As is the cult of "Greedy APPLE doesn't deserve to make money of of the App Store."

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle with big corporations fighting over big money, neither is clean in that fight.

I get why small developers pocketed the windfall, I've done the same when my cost turns out to be less than I expected, but let's not argue lower fees will benefit the consumer. It's only a question of who gets the bigger slice of the pie.

In the end, the big players will do fine.

The real danger is as the landscape evolves smaller developers find themselves making less money in a more fragmented landscape with increased ease of pirating.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle with big corporations fighting over big money, neither is clean in that fight.

I'll agree with you on this point for sure!

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

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

Very likely that it wouldn’t fly under DMA in Europe:


1. Article 5(4): No Self-Preferencing

Gatekeepers must not discriminate in the treatment of business users. Charging vastly different fees — especially if targeting direct competitors — could be seen as discrimination.


2. Article 6(12): Fair, FRAND Terms

Gatekeepers must offer access to app stores and core platform services on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. A €2 million fee for Spotify and €99 for others would be very hard to justify as FRAND unless it were transparently based on objective criteria (like bandwidth usage or number of downloads).

 

[jlc1978]

Very likely that it wouldn’t fly under DMA in Europe:


1. Article 5(4): No Self-Preferencing

Gatekeepers must not discriminate in the treatment of business users. Charging vastly different fees — especially if targeting direct competitors — could be seen as discrimination.

I'm not sure differential fee schemes would qualify; it seem self preferencing is more about ranking products, allowing installation of competing apps, etc. rather han fees.

2. Article 6(12): Fair, FRAND Terms

Gatekeepers must offer access to app stores and core platform services on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. A €2 million fee for Spotify and €99 for others would be very hard to justify as FRAND unless it were transparently based on objective criteria (like bandwidth usage or number of downloads).

Revenue is a pretty transparent criteria; and one a number of entities use for their products.

It's hard to say what the EU will decide; but forcing Apple to host apps that make a lot of money for just a one size fits all developers fee would be extreme and not reasonable, IMHO.

Another approach is for Apple to see how much revenue per iPhone the App Store brings in each year and simply raise the price to cover the revenue; maybe charge for iOS upgrades as well to cover ongoing subscription revenue. Then make it simply a store - a developer fee gives you access, for everything else - payment, currency conversion, tax compliance across multiple jurisdictions, developers are on their own.

 

[bcortens]

Another approach is for Apple to see how much revenue per iPhone the App Store brings in each year and simply raise the price to cover the revenue; maybe charge for iOS upgrades as well to cover ongoing subscription revenue. Then make it simply a store - a developer fee gives you access, for everything else - payment, currency conversion, tax compliance across multiple jurisdictions, developers are on their own.

Okay, if you think giving devs access is only to the benefit of devs and that Apple has no self interest in its API updates lets do this:

Apple tracks how many hours per day a user spends in a 3rd party Apps.

For iPhones with Apps installed Apple shares 30% of the iPhone revenue based on the value 3rd party apps add (if users spend 50% of time in 3rd party apps then its 30% of 50% of iPhone revenue) - (distributed based on some formula based on time spent in app)
Devs will then share 30% of the revenue they earn through their Apps with Apple.

Sound fair?

After all, that is the value that those apps add to the iPhone.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

You can become your own Distributor. But I accept the correction of needing someone else needs to be the middleman with 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.

Well they aren’t a gatekeeper. And they get the revenue as they sell a streaming service you opted to make your music available on

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.

It’s a terrible analogy because the issue isn’t the price of the goods in the store. But the continued demand to take a cut outside the store. No mall demands a cut for everything you murchase on your iPhone because you happen to purchase it in their mall.

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.

Well Apple isn’t hosting the apps not providing any service for the ability to deliver in app functions.

And it is apples problem when they tries to demand payment for something they don’t have ownership over or access to.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I'm not sure differential fee schemes would qualify; it seem self preferencing is more about ranking products, allowing installation of competing apps, etc. rather han fees.



Revenue is a pretty transparent criteria; and one a number of entities use for their products.

You don't think that Apple charging a direct competitor (Spotify) completely different dev fees than they charge my company qualifies as discriminatory?!

It's hard to say what the EU will decide; but forcing Apple to host apps that make a lot of money for just a one size fits all developers fee would be extreme and not reasonable, IMHO.

Another approach is for Apple to see how much revenue per iPhone the App Store brings in each year and simply raise the price to cover the revenue; maybe charge for iOS upgrades as well to cover ongoing subscription revenue. Then make it simply a store - a developer fee gives you access, for everything else - payment, currency conversion, tax compliance across multiple jurisdictions, developers are on their own.

Well they've already fined them once for non compliance and charging them the same fee as everyone else is what is in effect happening now and has been happening for years because Spotify doesn't use App Store billing.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm not sure differential fee schemes would qualify; it seem self preferencing is more about ranking products, allowing installation of competing apps, etc. rather han fees.

This includes fees. Any form of self preferential treatment is unlawful.
Such as takings fee for Spotify while having no fee for their own music streaming service.

Revenue is a pretty transparent criteria; and one a number of entities use for their products.

It's hard to say what the EU will decide; but forcing Apple to host apps that make a lot of money for just a one size fits all developers fee would be extreme and not reasonable, IMHO.

Another approach is for Apple to see how much revenue per iPhone the App Store brings in each year and simply raise the price to cover the revenue; maybe charge for iOS upgrades as well to cover ongoing subscription revenue. Then make it simply a store - a developer fee gives you access, for everything else - payment, currency conversion, tax compliance across multiple jurisdictions, developers are on their own.

Apple can do that. It’s not smart but it’s their suicidal strategy and right to take it.

 

[jlc1978]

It’s a terrible analogy because the issue isn’t the price of the goods in the store. But the continued demand to take a cut outside the store. No mall demands a cut for everything you murchase on your iPhone because you happen to purchase it in their mall.

However, I can't walk into a mall store, take an item and pay some other store for it.

You don't think that Apple charging a direct competitor (Spotify) completely different dev fees than they charge my company qualifies as discriminatory?!

Not if it's based on revenue.

This includes fees.

Are they called out in the DMA? It seemed pretty vague to me.

Any form of self preferential treatment is unlawful.
Such as takings fee for Spotify while having no fee for their own music streaming service.

That would mean Apple couldn't charge anyone for a broad array of apps; which would be nonsensical. Apple doesn't charge itself a developers fee either, so that is out. The end result would be Apple forced to give free, unfettered access to their App Store, something I do not think Apple will allow to happen; nor do I think it is fair and reasonable for companies that make millions off of d/ls from the App Store to be on it and not pay Apple more than the small developer not making nearly as much.

I see the end more like the Mac - side loading and if you want to be on the App Store, pay the fee. Otherwise , go it alone. If the access to Apple's App Store user base isn't worth the price, you can ell elsewhere.

Apple can do that. It’s not smart but it’s their suicidal strategy and right to take it.

Oh, I agree. My point was Apple will need to find a legal way to keep the App Store revenue stream worth the cost of running it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

However, I can't walk into a mall store, take an item and pay some other store for it.

But when you go in to the mall and purchase a phone you won’t also pay a fee if you purchase Apple Music or iCloud when you get home.

Same thought process is with the AppStore. You purchase the app( inside the store) and gets home to purchase something else( not in the store)

Are they called out in the DMA? It seemed pretty vague to me.

It’s within antitrust legislation that DMA is written from as well as case law by the Supreme Court.

That would mean Apple couldn't charge anyone for a broad array of apps; which would be nonsensical. Apple doesn't charge itself a developers fee either, so that is out. The end result would be Apple forced to give free, unfettered access to their App Store, something I do not think Apple will allow to happen; nor do I think it is fair and reasonable for companies that make millions off of d/ls from the App Store to be on it and not pay Apple more than the small developer not making nearly as much.

No as Apple doesn’t compete with other services to be sold at the store. Example Apple does compete with movies and music streaming services. Apple can ask for 9$, while competitors can’t ask for the same price as they have to pay a 30% fee for every subscription.

Apple already allow Amazon app or uber to make millions for free at no cost outside the developer fee as well. And this distinction is largely seen as arbitrary in EU.

I see the end more like the Mac - side loading and if you want to be on the App Store, pay the fee. Otherwise , go it alone. If the access to Apple's App Store user base isn't worth the price, you can ell elsewhere.

It’s very likely the interest they want the iOS AppStore to go towards. Hence why Apple was slapped hard for trying to implement a Core technology fee for sideloading as an unacceptable request as a requirement.

Just how steam ( and games sold through it) on the Mac pays Apple 0% because they don’t want to be on the AppStore

Oh, I agree. My point was Apple will need to find a legal way to keep the App Store revenue stream worth the cost of running it.

They have manybkehal easy to do it. I suspect the mistake is trying to maintain their revenue stream will backfire tremendously on them and might even cripple their business model in the longterm as everything just becomes too expensive.

Almost how fastfood chains have crippled themselves as they get closer to gourmet food quality in price but not in quality just to try and maintain revenue streams.