It's time for us consumers to have a choice of downloading apps to our iPhones through other means beside the App Store. We already do and have been doing this for years on our Macs and Windows computers. It was great when the App Store was first introduced, but its been over 10 years and times are changing. Stop being greedy Apple!
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
A person that fails will try to blame others for their failings.
I had Spotify around 2012. It was meh. It took them a long time to support “local files”. Then Apple came and knocked it out of the park day one. Take it as a lesson: get complacent and other companies will take your customers.
All Apple needs to do is have a better discovery section. I have very varied tastes in music (indie, electronic, rap, hip hop, rock, alternative, etc) and it doesn’t suggest only rap as others keep memeing about but finding deep cuts is hard.
I had Spotify around 2012. It was meh. It took them a long time to support “local files”. Then Apple came and knocked it out of the park day one. Take it as a lesson: get complacent and other companies will take your customers.
All Apple needs to do is have a better discovery section. I have very varied tastes in music (indie, electronic, rap, hip hop, rock, alternative, etc) and it doesn’t suggest only rap as others keep memeing about but finding deep cuts is hard.
If I’d made a mobile phone, operating system and App Store, I’d make sure my apps had advantages that other apps didn’t have. Spotify could produce their own phone and make sure their app had an advantage over Apple’s.
That comparison doesn't really make any sense.
But Apple is in the business of selling and streaming music, so actually they have a point.
I'm not a Spotify user and I don't care if that 30% goes to Apple or Spotify, but it is clear to me that a company owning a platform and selling music is both a supplier and a competitor for Spotify, so it is obvious Apple has a big advantage over them on iOS.
Same for Netflix, Apple is selling content via iTunes and will soon have its streaming service so it will be in the same position.
Let me tell you what is not good for the users, which I care about. Having to pay more on your iOS device, or be forced to go to the company's site to pay for a subscription is bad user experience.
Apple deserves a cut, and 30% is ok for a small company or an indie developer. I make apps, and I'm ok with paying a fee to Apple or Google to be on their stores. But me and my company, we are "nobody".
Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, and even Spotify don't need Apple to promote themselves, they take advantage of Apple's platform, but on the other end users expect those services to be on their devices. Netflix can't take its app out of the store, and Apple can't ban them either. So that's what is going to happen, they'll reach a deal with those companies and let them pay less than 30 or 15% for subscriptions, and everyone will be happy before a judge or some European Parliament will intervene. It is in their best interests. I'm tired of lawsuits and I think having only one store is better for the users, so I'm ok with the status quo. I live in EU and knowing how the commission thinks about those matters I think Spotify have a case here, maybe not in the US, but I'm sure Spotify have good chances here. Microsoft was fined by the European Commission, and the same could happen to Apple.
While I and most others agree, that has zero relevance to the issue here.
Microsoft didn't own the hardware, so monopolizing IE was in the wrong. You can't force a company to offer third party software on a device they own. It's why google home devices don't support Apple Music, but you can use Spotify. Is it illegal? no. The needs of the consumer will dictate market sales.
Wait, you want to leave spotify, because they want to secure 30% more for the artists and right holders? How does that work in your mind? Those 30% Apple is skimming, is money they don't get.
Another obvious problem with Spotify's current stance is that when Apple Music first came out, Spotify bragged that the only effect it had was to increase awareness of streaming music and that their own app was growing more as a result.
It’s not equivalent exactly but remember what happened in Ireland... the E.U. will affirm its authority over Apple and Spotify is smartly playing that card. Also on Spotify’s side will be Elizabeth Warren and other politicians from the USA who are calling on breaking apart Apple.
I’m not in favor of that by the way. It’s jist my prediction: continued pressure for Apple to tear down its garden walls.
I’m not in favor of that by the way. It’s jist my prediction: continued pressure for Apple to tear down its garden walls.
Spotify are putting up the same response given by religious fundamentalists, flat earthers and children. Just because the writing is on the wall for their failed business model. Increased royalties will put them to the wall.
The royalty rates are the same regardless. Spotify isn't going to pay more OR less based on the cut. That's why they're currently in court trying to fight the recent judgement on royalty increases.
They wouldn’t. Microsoft was accused of tying Internet Explorer to the sale of Windows to OEMs. That’s illegal, and not remotely the same thing.
It is not. They handle payments and many others things. They give you an incredible showroom, without App Store is hard. Apple deserve this for maintaining high quality services, apps quality control (which is non existence on Play Store) and for having created this marketplace. Just pay and shut up as I a seller pay a lot eBay+PayPal and Amazon.
I think it's an interesting problem with the App Store... What was once a tech company's attempt to build a safe marketplace for platform-specific apps has, arguably, become a kind of monopoly. Certainly 30% is a pretty steep price to pay for distribution (even 15% is high, though perhaps justifiable). However, it is also pretty dodgy to release a free app, then sign up paid subscription members, without contributing to the mechanism that makes it all possible (i.e., the App Store)—that's just exploiting a loophole. So, while I honestly haven't read all the details, if Spotify is complaining about not being allowed to distribute their app for free, then charge for subscriptions without paying into the App Store, then they're just being a**holes. Whatever your position on the App Store, it's obvious enough that Apple shouldn't be expected to run it for free. Putting it another way: In the unlikely event that everyone suddenly switched to a freemium model, would you really expect Apple to keep the servers running? That's obviously idiotic. I mean, sure, the App Store clearly supports the sale of Apple hardware, but running such a massive system that generates enormous revenues for the developer community, would clearly be considered beyond reasonable expectation.
You can't give what you don't have. Having 30% more in the register, allows them more room to pay more.
This would be like LG getting upset that BestBuy gets a cut of the profit when they sell one of their TVs. Does LG expect to take all the profit when selling through a third party retailer? Why would Spotify be upset they don’t get the full cut when selling their services through a third party retailer? If they want all the profit, maybe they should build a “Spotify Phone” and sell their services through that.
They should have thought of that when building their business model then.
How would you feel Amazon starting to sell the same stuff as you, while still taking a 30% cut off your sales?
[doublepost=1552754841][/doublepost]
Like Apple with the Modems right? Apple Music didn't exist when they started, something Apple copied off them, their whole business model.
Yes, there is relevance, because they want special treatment, therefore their complaint is invalid.
Apple charges everyone 30 percent for IAPs, and Spotify has no right to be excluded from this rule. Therefore, their complaint is invalid.
Appeal to start paying the artists was on a side note.
Of course, but the fact that they make sure they have an advantage does not mean it is right to do so.
The amount Spotify has to pay in royalties has no connection whatsoever to whether or not Apple gets a cut. And as Apple has pointed out in their response, the vast majority of Spotify users on iOS use the 'Free' version of the app that's advertising supported anyway. Apple makes zero dollars from that version.
Except Apple is not on the business of a lot of apps, but it is competing with Spotify in the music streaming service.
So I would say their complaint is very valid.
Just deleted Spotify from my iPhone. Never was very impressed with it anyway. Enjoying Apple Music subscription.
Spotify on Wednesday announced it filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the European Commission over unfair App Store practices. Apple responded two days later, labeling the complaint as "misleading rhetoric" and arguing that "Spotify wants all the benefits of a free app without being free."
The war of words has since continued. In a statement issued to Variety, Spotify said "every monopolist will suggest they have done nothing wrong" and that, consequently, Apple's response was "entirely in line" with its expectations.
Spotify's statement:See Spotify's Time to Play Fair website and Apple's Addressing Spotify's Claims press release for each company's stance.
Article Link: Spotify on Apple's Response to App Store Dispute: 'Every Monopolist Will Suggest They Have Done Nothing Wrong'
The bundling of it with the Windows “platform” was what made it illegal. By providing a default browser, it passively discouraged people to want to download a competitor browser.
I think there are similarities because if Apple is passively strangling direct competitor apps, then the same is being achieved here. Apple could be perceived to discourage people from using Spotify. Obviously it’d be up to the lawyers on how to spin that.