Labor, food, utilities, gasoline and healthcare to some extent, and – oddly – music royalties. Even in the US. I'm not saying I agree/disagree with those, just answering your question.
Last edited:
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
Indeed, but personally I think it's previous / old data. I think it's probable that Spotify hasn't offered in-app subscriptions / upgrades for over a year. So Apple's awareness would be based on previous growth, unless they can detect how many current apps have the premium code indicators unlocked. Regardless, no new Spotify users pay through the App Store at all.
Last edited:
Which just illustrates an issue with their pricing model, has nothing to do with developers making millions. They could choose to have fixed hosting and advertising costs (per download for example) which would likely be okay, legally. Restricting the applications themselves only when the app developers stand to make money from it (normal web browsers are allowed on the app store which people can use to buy Spotify for example), is where they will face legal issues regarding anti-competitive practices.
Again, it's their service. The amount they charge, doesn't change the basic principle of free market capitalism. The exact amount is irrelevant to the principles involved. It's their service, they set the rate, but market forces will have them setting a viable rate. So your 100% silliness is just nonsense.
Generally vendors charge what the market will bear.
Consumer either will pay what the vendor charges, or buy a competing product/service if they find the price to high.
Again that is how it works. Pricing gets sorted out when Vendors and consumers interact, not through whining to the Government.
Spotify, wants to take advantage of the service, but doesn't want to pay the going rate, so instead of the viable options (opting out, paying the going rate, signing up on alternate platforms, etc) they are whining.
Whining is not an argument to short circuit the free market.
It’s all fine. If they want to tank their business then it’s up to them. People will move to android.
As an App Store user my main concern is downloading an iOS app thinking I will have access to a service and suddenly I linked to another site where I actually sign up. The App Store could become filled with apps that are essentially adverts.I didn't have Spotify installed, but I do have an account..
Downloaded it - logged in..
Got the following screens.
None of the boxes that you'd think would be clickable and take you to learn more/subscribe do anything.
It's totally ridiculous that Apple won't allow someone like this to simply have a link to click to subscribe through Safari (either in app in a Safari VC or in normal Safari).
This is perhaps the most outrageous thing they are doing here...that they should change.
Google allows apps to use a webview to use their own payment method thus bypassing the 30% charge.
I personally think it should be 130%
Sorry I know I said I was done but I’m in the back of a car with nothing to do
Lol
Sorry I know I said I was done but I’m in the back of a car with nothing to do
Lol
Yeah, this is the reason people complain. The only way Apple lets you get around it is by enticing the consumers with lower pricing totally outside of your app.
IMO it's not too bad for Spotify. You charge the customers extra if they pay through the app. If they think it's too much, they'll look online and find the cheaper price within 10 seconds.
Citations needed on just about all of those.
Because Gas prices are driven by Oil prices which are driven by world markets/cartels interacting. This is how we get worldwide pricing shocks on gas prices periodically.
Likewise Food pricing is driven by the commodity markets and harvest booms/busts.
Labor is again a competitive market outside of minimum wage regulations, which limit how little someone can be paid but there are no caps on salary.
Health care is largely drug costs and as we have seen with predatory drug companies doing 1000% price increase there are no controls there either.
What's left? Music Royalties. Again pretty sure, not everyone gets the exact same rate from their music company, that will depend on their agent, their power in the relationship, etc...
The reality is that we do have a largely free market economy outside of some utility type regulation of some essential services.
I have not seen any reasonable argument why the Appstore should be regulated like an essential utility service.
I included in the "to some extent" part gasoline because they variably tax it unlike other things and healthcare because they have a huge market force (public health insurance).
Labor, I meant minimum wage, which has a huge effect. Music royalties, you'd be surprised: MacRumors. Food is not driven by the market; there are tons of wacky subsidies and taxes on that (sugar for example, I'll let you Google it), plus the USDA's food stockpile programs that you could argue are part of the market but IMO don't count.
If you wanna look at EU instead of US, it's clear-cut that they control prices in these areas and more. Here's France with food: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...um-food-prices-limit-promotions-idUSKBN1EF26T For the record, I find the EU a very backwards place.
Last edited:
You would have to ask the developers, not the consumers.
The point which would make them indifferent between releasing an app on the App Store and not supporting iOS at all would be the breaking point.
On my end, it doesn’t really affect the user because the App Store is supply driven, not demand driven. Meaning that most developers have little say over their prices and they will just absorb the loss rather than pass it on to their customers.
So there are wacky subsidies and health insurance.
That is still nothing like the government stepping in and saying you are charging too much.
If they don't do it for drugs that people need to stay alive, why in heck would/should they do it for Apple App store rates?
The problem is that there is a point to be made. But Spotify is being so disingenuous that it's hard to be sympathetic. I totally understand Apple's argument, and I remember when the App Store first was created, almost everybody who actually wrote & sold software knew that Apple's 30% take was a really good deal for developers. The developer gets secure transactions and a lot more for that price, and if you're free, Apple doesn't charge at all. The App Store has been around so long (and it's been copied verbatim so much) that everybody now just sees it as status quo without thinking about what a great deal it was.
And Spotify's sneering "We knew you'd say that" reply isn't rebuttal. When your adversary makes a perfectly rational argument, sometimes the only thing left is to sneer.
But there is a problem when Apple is offering the same kind of service as you are. You're definitely at a disadvantage. Your service loses 30% of its revenue and Apple's doesn't. I don't know what the solution is. I definitely don't think it's right to let apps get a free ride on Apple's services, which cost a ton of money to develop and maintain.
Now that I know, that Spotify isn't actually paying 30% ... I think you might actually be right. Arguing 30% when they don't actually pay 30%, could probably be because they are attempting to force negotiations, so they can do 15% for new users ... so that they can offer in-app purchases again. They probably are aware that the lack of in-app purchases poorly affects their user experience, and they aren't getting as many new subscribers as they would've otherwise gotten due to that. So to be able to capture the people turned off by the lack of in-app purchases, they are probably willing to re-enable them, if Apple forgoes the 30%. There is no real point to arguing 30% when they don't actually pay 30% at all, unless they are speaking about future payments.
If that is true, then I think Spotify is entitled to a lower percentage. Because although Apple did help them grow to begin with, right now Spotify has put a lot of work into advertising and growing their brand, the extent of Apple's involvement in that has expired, imo. I don't think they're entitled to anything lower than 15%, but the situation isn't the same as when Spotify needed Apple's influence to grow. However, it's been my experience that many people who "helped us get there" think they're entitled to a certain percentage for the rest of the company's existence. I don't think they're wrong for that perspective, I just never agree to it. But if I were them, I'd probably try it too, lmfao.
Yeah, back in the boxed SW, B&M days, developers were probably lucky to get 30% after the publisher, distributors, retailers all took their cut. The App stores seemed like a gold mine, hence the initial gold rush to the App store. Now Spotify is calling them criminals for their cut.
You only said controlling prices, not specifically price ceilings. I don't know what they set ceilings on, if anything.
Also, with Apple, the accusation is anticompetitive practices / monopoly power. It's not just about the prices. I don't agree with the accusations.
[doublepost=1552786579][/doublepost]
I think it's fine as long as they're allowed to charge customers more for paying through the app.
Agreed
We shouldn't forget that Apple gets upside from having Spotify on their platform also.
Their ecosystem and hardware are more valuable and enticing the more vibrant the App ecosystem is.
It's a tough situation overall.
The one thing Apple has got to do is start allowing a web view to pop up within the Spotify App so people can subscribe directly right there.
It's good for nobody to have the current situation of "you can hint at it, but can't have instructions or even a link"
It's good for Apple, and that's what Apple wants on their end of the deal.
I see no reason why Apple should be forced to let them bypass the app payment system while in an app.
It's enough that users can go anywhere else, anytime and upgrade and Apple doesn't get a cut.
But force Apple to allow them to do it from Apps, just opens pandoras box. Then every App becomes a subscription App, and sends you to a link to bypass Apples cut.
This is just extracting the value of the App store without paying for it.
This is only about one app, Apple Music which is the default music app on all iPhones. I don't agree with Spotify either but we don't think like an EU court which is what Apple is up against here.