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
because it isn't a subscription based service. all subscription revenues fall under the developer 30/70 split.
I can see what you're saying, but I didn't just state that. I gave him a direct source to address it. You'll see by my next reply:
I quote, "The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (NYC TLC) is an agency of the New York City government that licenses and regulates the medallion taxis and for-hire vehicle industries, including app-based companies."
Which means they have a direct say in and ultimate authority in all for-hire vehicle apps offering services in New York. It is beyond Apple's control.
If you think Spotify started music streaming subscriptions you need to do a LOT more research.
the thing is, you don't have to pay apple a penny. just don't host your app with them.
That would certainly explain the defenders of removal of the phone jack - more money to Apple for their wireless headphones and speakers. Sorry, that digresses from the current topic a bit. I guess its parallel would be to opine that Spotify has an outdated business model, so Apple is again being courageous. Fortunately, I have no vested interest in either company in regard to streaming. I use Amazon and Netflix for streaming services, neither of which work with my wired headphones and speakers through Apple's current iOS offerings.
That's a subjective ruled defined by Apple - not a law or something.
That's the whole point of this discussion.
[doublepost=1552776732][/doublepost]
That does not say that Apple can't charge Uber/Lyft type services a cut of their revenue that passes through their iOS Apps.
What you quoted talks about how Uber/Lyft operate out in the real world, on the streets, with their employees & customers, etc.
Nothing there restricts Apple (or Google for that matter) from pulling a cut from revenue from App transactions for rides.
Apple gets to define the rules on their own platform. Those against the rules can simply not use the platform. Its not like being in the App Store is a law or something.
Totally agree!
What we're going to find out is if the rules they've laid out and their position is now one that needs to be regulated.
[doublepost=1552776990][/doublepost]
Shouldn't even matter.
The recurring nature of a Spotify subscription vs a ride based nature of an Uber/Lyft ride doesn't impact the economics on the cost side for Apple one single bit.
Spotify hosts the content, not Apple.
Spotify licenses the content, not Apple.
To me the real quote is:
"If Apple were in ride sharing, you can bet (a cut of revenue) would happen."
I don't think there's ground to stand on. Apple is the only company to exclusively pair their hardware and software together. Every antitrust monopoly ruling against tech companies like Microsoft and Google was for forcing their software on third party hardware. I.e windows and internet explorer, and android on non google phones. We don't see that with iOS.
Hard to predict - I'm glad it's being brought up
This is a differently nuanced issue than those past rulings, so it should be interesting to see what jurisdictions like the EU decide.
This is becoming tedious.. are you a baby boomer?
Download Spotify app, download Uber. One offers in app purchases (Spotify). If you don’t want to download, you can easily see this from the App Store. Through the Spotify app which is downloaded through Apples iOS software distribution platform known as the App Store, one can subscribe to a variety of different subscriptions which are processed though apples own payment processors. Your money goes from your bank to Apple to Spotify (dumbed that down a little). Apple takes a 30% cut for the privilege of getting a new subscriber through an app you downloaded on their platform on their device which they have spent well over a decade developing.
In the case of Uber, you download there app for free. You are able to set up transportation from one location to another. This is not a subscript service. Therefore 30% service charge is not applicable as per apple’s terms of service... an agreement developers agree to when submitting an app to the Apple for distribution on their platform.
It’s not a mystery. It’s all been spelled out in legal documents long before today.
You're mistaken. The fact that app transactions don't go through the app store actually restricts Apple and Google for that matter from pulling a cut from revenue. If they want to go outside of the app store, they need to have an agreement with the various for-hire vehicle commissions, which would make the process very complicated and daunting as there is not a single entity, nor a single set of laws.
Yeah, Apple Pay is the only way they can take a cut out of the things which transact outside of the app store. But that depends on people actually using it. Ultimately Apple has no say in matters outside of its store, and would be subject to the same rules and regulations set.
I think the uptake is probably pretty good for many countries...
In any case it would be a step in the right direction and to be actually charging fee level that is commensurate with what is really provided by Apple in this case - a financial transaction for a service hosted elsewhere but accessed through a free iOS app.
That's all Spotify is really arguing for - fees that make more sense for the type of business we are discussing and for what Apple is actually providing in such a case.
True true. By the way apple bitches non stop about Google and Facebook, I have never seen Apple banning them or pulling them off the app store. I guess at the end money matters, huh?
Spotify is an EU-based company. It makes sense for them to file in the EU.
EU has no legal power outside it. Most Spotify customers are probably outside of EU.
I understand where you're coming from and can see the validity of that perspective. I just perceive Apple as a distributor role, and know the percentages distributors take. It doesn't make it "right" or anything, it merely justifies it for me.
But in regard to Spotify, I imagine they'd complain about any charge. They are even making their 15% out to be 30% when it's actually not (exaggerating). Any percentage Spotify has to pay Apple is a percentage Apple doesn't have to pay itself, and would put Spotify in a losing position in comparison. When they don't even want to pay artists their fair share. I imagine Spotify would still complain.
So it’s OK to go after Amazon but not Apple? We get to pick our favorites?