Spotify on Apple's Response to App Store Dispute: 'Every Monopolist Will Suggest They Have Done Nothing Wrong'

[AppleScruff1]

Putting apple before Spotify is not putting apple before ourselves. Spotify is hardly acting out of benevolent concern for the consuming public. Nor do they even care about music.

Do you really think Apple acts out of benevolent concern for the consuming public? Serious question, no offense intended.

 

[bladerunner2000]

Oh no, they wouldn’t defend Microsoft or any other company for doing this, they just defend Apple.

Since I built my Hackintosh 4 years ago:

 

[silver25u]

Apple made their devices. Built their software. Built and runs the App Store. Built their payment system for that and subscriptions. And shared development tools to build apps. This isn’t free!!! DDUHHH

You conveniently "forgot" to include that they mandated their payment system as the only payment system AND banned any mention of another payment or signup method. That's like someone deflating your tire and then expecting you to be grateful when they are the only ones allowed to fix it.

 

[symphony]

They're consoles. Big difference. Lots of 3rd parties build personal computers though that can run Windows/Linux etc.. There are alternatives to Philips hues. You don't have to buy them. You can buy other smart bulbs from other companies. Apple doesn't let anyone build Macs and sell them on the market. That's text-book Monopoly right there.

It doesn’t matter if they’re consoles. Use your BRAAAINNNN! It’s their own products. And DERRPPPPP, yep, there’s alternatives to phones, tablets, and computers too, not just Apple’s!!! ‍♂️ smh loL your arguments are aWfulll

That’s not text book monopoly! ¡ They don’t have full control of anything other than their own produCTS!’ Own products!!!!!!’n

 

[Skoal]

Wait, you want to leave spotify, because they want to secure 30% more for the artists and right holders? How does that work in your mind? Those 30% Apple is skimming, is money they don't get.

Sure Spotify wants to give more to the artists. Sure they do.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Since I built my Hackintosh 4 years ago:

Hard to blame ya'!
Running a sweet 8700, GTX 1070, dual NVMe High Sierra Hack myself right now.

 

[Skoal]

Spotify are putting up the same response given by religious fundamentalists, flat earthers and children. Just because the writing is on the wall for their failed business model. Increased royalties will put them to the wall.

What?

 

[ericthered926]

Yeah... I agree with Spotify.

 

[PlayUltimate]

It is a monopoly because they sold me a device, then tell me what Apps I can put on it. That does not work with any other device you buy. If they leased the device that would be different. But they sold it to me and therefor they are being monopolistic unless they do one of two things; 1) basically approve any app that does not hurt the device's security, or 2) allow side loading of apps outside of the Apple store.

Would you accept a TV that only plays certain TV programs? No. How about a guitar that would only play classical music? No. How about a car that only goes to approved locations, for example, that do not serve alcohol. No.

Now you might say that I bought the device knowing this so it's my own fault. But the Apple App Store rules are capricious, arrogant, and stifling. I did not know that when I entered the Apple ecosystem and the rules have gotten much worse with time.

With computer chips being put in everything now, we have to stifle this nannyish behavior before it pervades every device. Think about a nanny Tesla, or a nanny refrigerator, or a nanny toaster that only toasts full grain bread.

You may own the device. You DO NOT own the software on the device; that is licensed and you agreed to the terms of that license.

 

[symphony]

You conveniently "forgot" to include that they mandated their payment system as the only payment system AND banned any mention of another payment or signup method. That's like someone deflating your tire and then expecting you to be grateful when they are the only ones allowed to fix it.

Well guess what? It’s their product, their platform, their service!!! They can do whatever the figgityyy fudge they wanna do. These companies should try building up what Apple’s accomplished if they don’t wanna play by their RULEZ.

What Apple does for these developers ain’t for free. They let developers build third-party apps for their platform regardless. It’s their OwN Platform. Spotify is nothing without Apple, if that statement isn’t true then they should build their own platform and devices, or only support any platform but Apple’s, lets seeeeeeee how far they get.

 

[bladerunner2000]

Hard to blame ya'!
Running a sweet 8700, GTX 1070, dual NVMe High Sierra Hack myself right now.

I'm still on a 4790k OC'ed to 4.4ghz with a GTX 980. Need to install High Sierra as i'm still on Yosemite but I haven't had any issues or a major need to update still (that'll change soon). I do wang a GTX 1080 though.. which I'll need High Sierra for.

Love the Hackintosh though, so much value for the cash I spent on it. Apple's not getting another dime from me for a long time.

 

[ipedro]

This deserves to be quoted and repeated throughout this thread:

That is not at all what “monopoly” means. That’s like saying McDonald’s has a monopoly on Big Macs, Porsche has a monopoly on 911’s, and Ben and Jerry’s has a monopoly on cherry garcia.

A monopoly is when you have sufficient control over a market segment that you can set prices regardless of demand, for example. And a monopoly is not necessarily illegal unless it is leveraged in some way to hurt consumers.

Apple isn't barring Spotify from its platform. Heck, Apple's not even charging them anything to be there. Spotify is on the App Store, accessible to iOS users and using Apple's servers entirely for free.

However, Apple has every right to take a cut of revenue Spotify generates using Apple's own iOS resources. If they're not happy with that, they're welcome to generate that revenue outside of the App Store. Nobody is stopping them.

 

[Heineken]

Be proud.

I will stick with being right.

 

[Jomppa]

Dont see the issue here as you can get premium direct from spotifys homepage without apple being the middle man. Just do a netflix move and exclude the sub option from the app.

 

[turbineseaplane]

However, Apple has every right to take a cut of revenue Spotify generates using Apple's own iOS resources

What resources to do you mean?
[doublepost=1552771863][/doublepost]

Just do a netflix move and exclude the sub option from the app.

We shouldn't be encouraging that if we care about smaller businesses.
If linking to the outside (and even mentioning a website) are prohibited, it tremendously favors large well known incumbents.

It's a bad policy on Apple's part.
They should be working to solve this is in a way that's great for their users.

 

[FrancoRumors]

I think Spotify has a case that has merit.

1 - when does a competitor get to take 30% of your revenue. What business would be ok to give a competitor 30% cut unless they are forced due to a monopoly.

2 - there is no other way to install apps and your iOS like on Mac and windows where u can just go to the publisher site and download/install. Apple has a monopoly on all app distribution which is abnormal for a operating system.

3 - apple is controlling the client base for all Spotify’s customers who buy through iTunes. I don’t think Spotify has access to that customer Data. Apple does - and apple is a Spotify competitor. Sounds bad.

Here is a question to think about.
What if Microsoft disallows apps to be installed on windows unless it goes through their windows app store. - and would it be ok to have all iTunes purchases for music/movies get taxed 30%. Would that be ok?

I think not.

I vote everyone stops mentioning Microsoft. Their practices or hypothetical business practices are irrelevant.

1. A competitor gets 30% when Spotify chooses to distribute their app on apples platform on the devices they design and manufacture... footing the bill the entire way. SPOTIFY DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ON IOS OR IPHONE. They are paying a price for access to apples customer base.

2. Abnormal is not equivalent to bad or illegal. Like it or not iOS is a sandbox. You want to play in the sandbox you have to play by the rules... or go play with google, develop a web app, etc etc.

3. Apple is not controlling anything as you “think”. The are facilitating access to their customers.

It’s not a tax. It’s a service fee. Apple has a right to make a profit off of their devices and services. Customers and developers have other options and can walk away.

 

[symphony]

What resources to do you mean?

Apple built development tools to help developers make apps for Apple devices. Apple created a safe marketplace for apps to be discovEred and purchaSed. Apple created a secured payment system for apps to use for transactions.

 

[turbineseaplane]

1. A competitor gets 30% when Spotify chooses to distribute their app on apples platform on the devices they design and manufacture... footing the bill the entire way. SPOTIFY DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ON IOS OR IPHONE. They are paying a price for access to apples customer base.

Incorrect.

Uber/Lyft type apps do not share 30% of ride revenue generated from Apple's customer base using their iOS apps.

The inconsistency here on Apple's part is a huge part of the problem.
Apple are picking and choosing where to interject themselves and to what degree.

 

[Roger67]

Who are they gimping? They have had the same rules forever, long before they competed in these spaces. They don’t want iOS to be the toxic cesspool that is the google play store. They have a tiny tiny percentage of the smartphone and PC markets. What market power?

Take away the spin about what apple wants and everything else you wrote is flat out incorrect.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Exactly... Apple didn't build that platform by themselves. If other companies didn't contribute anything then the iOS and the App Store would have been a failure.

Isn't that true of every consignment store. . . which is what the iOS store basically is. (getting paid after the sale is made). And thus Apple did build the platform by themselves. When the iPhone was released, there were very few apps available. And, if you recall, iOS developers were limited when the App Store was opening. You had to apply and get approved. It was not until later that it was opened up to all developers

 

[budafied]

sometimes i real wish that big developers pull their app from appstore - especially after comments like this.

Yea seriously. I wonder how much would be too much of a percentage? If Apple took 60%, would people defend them because “it’s their platform, they can do what they want”?

It’s a monopoly, and there are laws against similar things. I’m happy someone stands up to Apple regarding this. I guess we’ll see what the courts say.

 

[Roger67]

Don't hide behind google. Google is guilty too.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yea seriously. I wonder how much would be too much of a percentage? If Apple took 60%, would people defend them because “it’s their platform, they can do what they want”?

It’s a monopoly, and there are laws against similar things. I’m happy someone stands up to Apple regarding this. I guess we’ll see what the courts say.

Sadly we are finding out that some seem to be ok defending literally anything Apple does.
It's bordering on cult like behavior here.

 

[silver25u]

What Apple does for these developers ain’t for free. They let developers build third-party apps for their platform regardless.

From https://www.digitaltrends.com/business/apple-vs-qualcomm-news/

As we all know Apple is in legal war with Qualcomm over fees for iPhone chips... with a lot of similarities to this, except their arguments in that case are more akin to Spotifys when it suits them.

"Apple’s documents also mentioned that Qualcomm required Apple pay a percentage of the selling price of the iPhone in return for the use of Qualcomm patents, and demanded that Apple use Qualcomm chips exclusively between 2011 and 2016". [seems similar to apples 30% of revenue requirement vs flat cut or other revenue split formula]

“We are extremely disappointed in the way Qualcomm is conducting its business with us and, unfortunately, after years of disagreement over what constitutes a fair and reasonable royalty, we have no choice left but to turn to the courts,” Apple said in a statement

 

[Khedron]

Apple thinks handling some payments and providing some top 10 lists is worth 30% of other people's revenue

The same Apple refused to bring its offshore cash back to the USA until the tax code was changed to drastically lower its bill, because things like a society, law and order, and a reliable currency aren't worth anywhere near as much as the benefits of the App Store