Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

"We filed our complaint because Apple's actions hurt competition and consumers" And every corporate behemoth wishing to make more money will say that they are helping the "Consumer"
 
farewelwilliams said:
Windows had 97% marketshare.
iPhone has about 20% global marketshare. Not the same.

Embarrassing for you to compare the two.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define market. Apple is by far market leader in the upper price segment. I guess only more affluent users buy a 100$ per year subscription for music. So Sportfy will argue that is the relevant market. And Apple had a mich higher martet share here.
 
prasand said:
Physical services are exempt.
Click to expand...

Why are they exempt though?
Because Apple isn't doing any providing of the service.

The iOS App for such services is simply a portal to the product - just like in Spotify's case.

Nobody launches the Spotify app to use the App, they launch it and pay to subscribe to the music that is being licensed & hosted by Spotify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
The monopolist argument is absurd. That makes anyone with a platform, a monopolist.

Sony - PlayStation monopolist.
Microsoft - Xbox and Windows monopolist.
Nintendo - Switch monopolist.
Apple - iPhone/iPad and Mac Monopolist.
Google - Android monopolist.

Note that only one of those was really every considered a monopolist, and it was Microsoft for Windows, back when Windows had about 97% of the entire consumer computing market.

The rest of them aren't even close, and today Microsoft could likely argue against a monopolist tag, because Windows is no longer the dominant consumer computing market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: symphony
silver25u said:
Apple DOES profit from physical goods sold in the Apple Store, just not 30% of revenue. Perhaps that's the reason no one is up in arms over Apple's Apple Store profit. They also don't prohibit companies with products in the Apple Store from mentioning other non-Apple places they can buy said products.
Click to expand...

I’m going to stop you right there. I should’ve been more specific and just quoted the damn statement. Ya’ll should’ve understood what I meant if you’ve read the statement.

  • Apps that are free to you aren’t charged by Apple.
  • Apps that earn revenue exclusively through advertising — like some of your favorite free games — aren’t charged by Apple.
  • App business transactions where users sign up or purchase digital goods outside the app aren’t charged by Apple.
  • Apps that sell physical goods — including ride-hailing and food delivery services, to name a few — aren’t charged by Apple.
This is what I was referring to. And it’s Apple own Apple Store. Just like the App Store, they can do whatever the figgity fudge they want.
 
turbineseaplane said:
Why are they exempt though? Because Apple isn't doing any providing of the service - the App for such services is simply a portal to the product - just like in Spotify's case.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken. You're warping things to fit your narrative, the truth is physical goods / services have regulations and rules that go much more in depth, and are beyond Apple's say-so.
 
prasand said:
You're mistaken. You're warping things to fit your narrative, the truth is physical goods / services have regulations and rules that go much more in depth, and are beyond Apple's say-so.
Click to expand...

What does "rules and regulations" have to do with whether Apple would take a cut of revenue for access to their customer base on iOS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
melancholy said:
it’s Apple own Apple Store. Just like the App Store, they can do whatever the figgity fudge they want.
Click to expand...

Except they can't. This has obviously split the Apple customer/fan base which has financial implications. They also have to follow the law. Zero chance of successful legal action in the U.S., but the EU is dramatically different. they have significantly more legal liability there and may not get to do "fidgety fudge they want" if they want to stay in the EU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
And every failing company will whine and complain that it’s not fair.

Spotify is a rounding error for Apple and I wouldn’t poke the bear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heineken
turbineseaplane said:
What does rules and regulations have to do with whether Apple would take a cut of revenue for access to their customer base on iOS?
Click to expand...

I'm lost on how you don't understand that rules and regulations also include things like payments. Ultimately it is very difficult to deal with systems that already have processes. I wouldn't want to bother either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heineken and symphony
prasand said:
Their business models exclude them from the limitations of the App Store
Click to expand...

This is the best thing you highlighted..

The point here, folks, is that any distinction about physical products vs digital products is purely a subjective call made by Apple.

They happen to have a business interest in this sort of distinction.

It would be pretty interesting if they made some self driving cars and had their own Uber competitor and what they would try to do with rules/revenue split all of the sudden. (we all know the answer...)
 
turbineseaplane said:
Why are they exempt though?
Because Apple isn't doing any providing of the service.

The iOS App for such services is simply a portal to the product - just like in Spotify's case.

Nobody launches the Spotify app to use the App, they launch it and pay to subscribe to the music that is being licensed & hosted by Spotify.
Click to expand...

Spotify is using Apple’s payment service.

Physical goods don’t get a 30% cut, because these things are not fulfilled by Apple. You get the things physically by the company or the service.

Apple charges 30% for Spotify’s subscription that uses Apple’s subscription and payment service. Spotify doesn’t provide anything physical but digital access to their music.
 
prasand said:
I'm lost on how you don't understand that rules and regulations also include things like payments.
Click to expand...

What are the rules in the world that dictate what Apple can/can't do in terms of iOS revenue split for access to their customer base for delivery of physical or digital products?

Which rules are you talking about that govern how much Uber/Lyft would or wouldn't have to pay to someone like Apple or anyone else?
 
turbineseaplane said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realize Uber/Lyft were subscription based services.

I surrender, I’m embarrassed, you really got me there.

Is Spotify sharing 30% of their ad revenue? Get back to me.. I’m listening.
 
FrancoRumors said:
Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realize Uber/Lyft were subscription based services.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter that it's a subscription?

Is Apple doing something every month to support the licensing and hosting costs for Spotify music?

That's the ongoing thing a Spotify user pays for.

The same iOS dev tools are provided to Uber/Lyft as Spotify, so that can't be the value provided by Apple that justifies 30% of ongoing revenue from Spotify users.
 
turbineseaplane said:
Some of you people are simply SHOCKING in your incessant defense of the largest and most profitable corporation in the world (at many given moments).
Click to expand...

Your delusions are invalid. The truth is, there are laws that Apple has no say in the matter. The law dictates that there is a difference between physical services / goods, and digital ones. This is evidenced in the fact that additional laws must be created to then apply to digital media. Reflected in things like the DMCA and so on.

It seems you do not have enough understanding to actually validate your perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MEJHarrison and Heineken
prasand said:
That is your subjection, the truth is, there is a legal difference between physical services and digital ones.
Click to expand...

None of which applies to what Apple charges or doesn't charge a developer in the iOS App Store for transactions.
[doublepost=1552774561][/doublepost]
prasand said:
The law dictates that there is a difference between physical services / goods, and digital ones.
Click to expand...

Those laws do not have any impact on what Apple charges or doesn't charge a developer in the iOS App Store for iAP transactions.
 
turbineseaplane back at it again with these senseless arguments. Now that he realizes the difference between physical and digital goods, now he needs to start arguing about how these two are ‘subjective’. Sounds almost like a straw man argument !!¡

Physical goods are not fulfilled by Apple. Digital goods are, Apple is still providing an extension to these apps.
 
@prasand

What law anywhere in the world says that digital goods sold through the iOS App Store must pay Apple 30% but physical goods accessed through that same App Store are exempt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back