TheY’re NoT FulFiLLed by Apple.
Last edited by a moderator:
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 on Apple's Response to App Store Dispute: 'Every Monopolist Will Suggest They Have Done Nothing Wrong'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
TheY’re NoT FulFiLLed by Apple.
It was at a cult level years ago. It isn’t reaching it at all! It’s long surpassed it. Look at how all those people mourned when Jobs died, it was proof enough about how Apple fans feel towards the company. Although I have to say if Job’s was still around I doubt Apple would have taken the direction it’s gone in..
But Spotify have a very valid complaint and I believe it will be upheld, because with Apple pushing more and more into services it becomes more and more in their interests to disadvantage as much as possible it’s competition in order to gain the market share, and the more services they enter the more they’ll do this.
The consumer is the only one who loses out in all this.
So the ruling of this case will be very important.
Last edited:
There is no law which states that about digital goods. I'm merely saying, Apple has no control over nor say in physical goods / services not sold though nor provided by their store. In regard to things within their store, they are entitled to charge whatever they want on digital services / goods.
Which in that regard, 15-20% is standard for distribution ... some go as high as 40%.
Is this different from the likes of CDs or Blu-ray.
The Bluray Association or whatever it is called, provide the "platform" for discs to be played. They receive a sum like $4 per drive sold and a few cents for each disc sold. Not 15% to 30% of each disc sold.
Edit: For clarification. The Bluray drive is akin to the Spotify IOS app. The Bluray disc is akin to the Spotify monthly subscription.
The Bluray Association or whatever it is called, provide the "platform" for discs to be played. They receive a sum like $4 per drive sold and a few cents for each disc sold. Not 15% to 30% of each disc sold.
Edit: For clarification. The Bluray drive is akin to the Spotify IOS app. The Bluray disc is akin to the Spotify monthly subscription.
Wait a minute...
What rule says Apple can NOT charge Uber/Lyft a percentage of ride revenue that passes through their iOS app?
The platforms cut doesn't make them a monopolist. But for Game/Apps cut has been pretty much standard at 30% from multiple digital storefronts/platforms for some time(likely including all the Consoles), and Apple didn't start it. Steam takes ~30%. Though policies vary more on subscriptions.
It's just lately that you are getting more pushback from devs on the standard 30% cut that just about every successful digital storefront takes on Apps/Games.
People calling digital storefronts/platforms a monopoly are mistaken. A monopolist is generally considered the sole producer of a product for which there are no close substitutes.
Android phones would obviously be considered a close substitute for iPhones. Just like Xbox would be considered a close substitute for PlayStation.
Now if you have 97% of the market like Microsoft had, then you can start throwing around the monopolist tag, but when you have 20%, is nothing more than disingenuous whining.
That's EXACTLY the point!
Thank you!
Apple is charging Spotify for content that is not within their store!
The music resides outside Apple's servers and is licensed by Spotify and it in no way involves Apple.
I guess you don't understand that public transportation and taxis are heavily regulated. That's why Uber can't make it into certain markets / countries at all.
To be clear I was making absolutely no assertions in what you quoted and responded to.
I was simply asking if Sony takes a cut from Spotify for premium subscriptions and if so, what amount.
Do you happen to know that specifically?
[doublepost=1552775244][/doublepost]
That has exactly nothing to do with Apple charging a cut of revenue for access to physical services that would pass through their iOS apps.
That's literally a completely a different issue.
You are talking about operating regulations and where and how cars can be and rules for drivers and city regulations...etc...etc..
None of that - literally none of it - has anything to do with the angle we are discussing, which is about procuring the riders and whether Apple could take a cut of the revenue for the rides that comes through the iOS app.
Absolutely. You are correct. They are exactly like every other mega billion dollar corporation. Their sole existence is to watch the bottom line, maximize profits and protect their shareholders..
Within the constraints of the law. Its called a Democratic Free Market. I’m arguing that in this case Apple is not executing monopolistic behavior based on the Law of the Land.
Do I think apple has a purely philanthropic agenda to purify the world with silicon?? Hardly. I just think Spotify is wrong.
I've asked you 3 times now.
What rule says Apple can't charge a cut of ride revenue that passes through the iOS apps for Uber/Lyft?
What rule?
Where?
Apple's app store rules don't override the laws of a country.
There are varying laws in each state, and each country, the situation is very complex. In New York for example you can look up: The NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission ... for the rest you'll have to dig deeper. It is not my job nor desire to educate you on the nuances of Taxi regulations, google it and educate yourself.
Ultimately any physical service offered to the public is regulated to prevent things like price gouging to protect citizens. Thus they inherently address things like money.
Because by taking a cut they would be subject to laws like the distance selling act and need to be legally responsible for warranties etc.
You are describing different rules that aren't relevant to what we are discussing.
Those are operational on the ground rules that pertain to Uber/Lyft themselves in the jurisdictions they operate, not anything that pertains to Apple's relationship with those companies as it relates their iOS apps/store.
There are no rules saying that Apple can't charge Uber/Lyft a cut of revenue that passes through their iOS apps.
[doublepost=1552776064][/doublepost]
Warranties?
On an Uber ride?
On listening to a streamed song licensed by a 3rd party?
They want to be able to decide the rules. They talk about ‘certain apps’ when it’s clear the apps that aren’t paying aren’t using Apple’s pay systems. They want to be able to use those systems and not pay.
Oh and it’s full as hell that they call out that Apple Music doesn’t pay the 30%. Cause yeah lets have them pay it right back to themselves.
They mention it because it's a serious business advantage for Apple to be able to force a direct competitor to pay a large revenue split that they don't have to pay themselves, as you mentioned.
This is particularly important in such a razor thin margin business like music streaming.
‘
That’s a totally different issue than whether Apple can charge a commission to use their pay systems.
it's a good thing they warranty their own hardware then.
So because Apple would just be paying money back to itself they should let every other company use their systems for free. Okay got it.
What "system" are they letting people use for free?
Spotify licenses and hosts all the content themselves.
This is why I keep bringing up Uber/Lyft.
Those companies use the same iOS infrastructure as Spotify, yet do not pay a share of ride revenue to Apple, even as the transactions take place within iOS apps on iOS devices for a service that resides outside the store (just as Spotify's does).
A "fee" for transactions would make total sense - but 30% is not reasonable.
I know right, apple spends all the money on R&D to build the hardware and software to make the service deliverable and people think companies are entitled to piggy back it for free.
Why don't they charge Uber/Lyft a cut of ride sharing revenue then?
And what does their R&D on hardware have to do with anything?
The people buying the hardware and you and I
The idea that Apple deserves 30% off someone's subscription price is ridiculous. This is obviously different from normal app sales, and app sales don't compete with Apple.
Spotify should not get it hosted for free, they should negotiate a hosting fee on App Store, and not be charged 30% from each subscription.
In fact, a developer should have the option of either taking a 30% cut, or having to pay a hosting fee, and then not get percentage taken off their subscription. There could probably be several levels of the "hosting fee", depending on how many app downloads an app gets, etc.
Spotify should not get it hosted for free, they should negotiate a hosting fee on App Store, and not be charged 30% from each subscription.
In fact, a developer should have the option of either taking a 30% cut, or having to pay a hosting fee, and then not get percentage taken off their subscription. There could probably be several levels of the "hosting fee", depending on how many app downloads an app gets, etc.