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
Then your post has nothing to do with my posting which was all about whether the monopoly argument holds water.
How much Sony charges is irrelevant to the point I made, and is fairly irrelevant overall, and apparently it's a business secret.
So why did you quote me to begin with?
Would you please remove my quote from your post?
Thank you
So what? EU has no jurisdiction in US or any other sovereign territory. This is getting too funny.
For initial traffic / helping to build a company's customer base, 30% in my opinion is too low.
However, after a company is established (or if they are already established) ... and they are strong enough to ride on pure name / word-of-mouth, then for distributing, payment processing, and payment gateway, I think 20% is fair. Because even one of those tasks is around 20%. I've had to personally deal with payment processors in limited markets charging 15% for each transaction where they were also the gateway. After all was said and done, my access to smaller markets ran me about 40% through the various agreements, so 30% would be fair in comparison. However, despite that, as an Apple Developer I still say
20-15% is reasonable.
Which Spotify pays 15%, despite that they are arguing 30%.
No they can't. For what exactly? Not that it would make a lick of sense to begin with.
That is what Spotify is being charged. They just don't want to pay anything.
Funny how nobody says that when discussing net neutrality.
Competition is not kneecapping one company (forcing Apple to not take a fee from IAP) to make things easier for a competitor.
Spotify can find a better way to market
or perhaps create more compelling features. The largest mobile platform in the world is Android—make deals to pre-install on Android as the default music player for Android handset makers or something.
There are all kinds of things Spotify can do—stop whining!
The one disagreement that I have with this is that Apple's rules have been created and have been somewhat stagnant except for the benefit of the subscription model. All app purchases, full or IAP, are subject to the 30% consignment fee. This fee has been consistent and unchanged, except for beyond year 1 for subscriptions. This argument is about Spotify thinking that the fee is too large. Since they are subject to the same Developer agreements as everyone else, they can
a) Not offer their app on the iOS store. There are many apps that are not available in iOS.
b) No longer offer IAP purchases from their app. Netflix and Kindle have both successfully done this.
c) Continue as is and complain. This seems to be the approach Spotify is taking.
My complaint is that Spotify knew the rules for inclusion in the iOS store and chose to play. The rules only changed to their benefit. And it appears that they are now complaining only because they have competition. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I suspect the EU may be sympathetic to their whining.
On new subscriptions?
I thought their filing with the EU was complaining about 30%?
That's probably not realistic for a company like Spotify.
For many business types and the markets they cater to, iOS is essentially a required space to be in to be successful.
Additionally, Apple shouldn't want that if they are concerned about great options and experiences for their iPhone customers.
[doublepost=1552780114][/doublepost]
We shouldn't want this option just a general principle - it favors large companies and market incumbents dramatically - those who already are established.
Apple shouldn't be barring a company like Spotify from linking from their App to a subscription page with Safari view controller to allow a reasonable way for Apple's own iOS customers to subscribe directly with Spotify.
No they can't EU can't do that. Any EU member can overrule this and continue doing business with Apple. Don't be ridiculous, it's a union, not dictatorship.
Apple's iOS platforms are unique in only allowing applications vetted by the OS/hardware vendor. General purpose home computers have never found such a model to be profitable. Macs running MacOS tend to be more secure than PC's running Windows, as a lot of the most used applications on Macs have been designed specifically for MacOS and its BSD backbone, giving Apple a defacto advantage over PC's running Windows. PC's running Linux are somewhat more comparable from a security perspective to Macs running MacOS. You can get software from third parties outside the Linux platforms, but the most used applications are those offered up through the Linux distributions' package management platforms, where open software applications are run through a natural vetting process engendered by Github and the like. In a sense, MacOS is relatively secure as it only runs on Apple hardware, and isn't as large a target as the more amorphous Windows/PC platform; Linux is relatively secure as it is open source, vetted by the Linux developer community, and also isn't as large a target as the Windows/PC platform. Android devices are more comparable to Windows devices - big, mostly closed source software company geared to run on a huge variety of mobile devices.
What does any of that have to do with this case though?
[doublepost=1552780405][/doublepost]
Nobody is arguing that Apple shouldn't have tight control & enforcement over App review.
That's a pretty different concern than revenue splits for differing business models.
Yeah because that makes sense for the business. Let's pull one of the highest revenue sources of our business to stick it to the man! Then they'll realize how important we are. More like, "Spotify files for bankruptcy 10 months after pulling out of app store". You have to realize that those types of decisions will depend on how much staying power you have. Apple has almost all the staying power (because of it's their platform and they have loads of cash), and Spotify has very little (they are reliant).
Apple will realize this right away and Spotify would cripple themselves, and then come crawling back.