Let me fix that for you ‘because you had free will to choose any phone in the world and you chose that one’
Fixed
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
Let me fix that for you ‘because you had free will to choose any phone in the world and you chose that one’
Fixed
I would disagree - it's not good for their customers and that's long term bad for Apple.
Well, they at least think it's good. You can disagree with Apple's strategy, but it's Apple's decision to make, not the government's.
[doublepost=1552787732][/doublepost]
They're technically right. All monopolists will probably think this is ok. But so will some non-monopolists
Last edited:
Spotify just went public and their shareholders are demanding real profits from a traditionally unprofitable business. If Apple is fined, they pay the EU, not Spotify. And if Apple is forced to open up their ecosystem, they might just kick Spotify out completely so Spotify is trying their own form of propaganda for the U.S. customers. The problem is that no one is really hurt by Apple's practices except for Spotify alone. U.S. monopolies are currently bad on consumer choice and prices, not the marketplace of companies and ideas. Customers have plenty of choices and pay next to nothing for 40 million songs every month no matter what service they use. Spotify might be overplaying their hand here.
Well if Apple wasn't robbing them, they could pay the artist more.
Well then, maybe the way the EU courts think is wrong.
You speak as though iOS was their sole source of revenue.
There is also android, plus not every iOS user subscribes via the iTunes Store.
The reality is that Spotify’s business model was flawed right from the very start. It’s not sustainable, their free, ad-driven tier is actually costing them money, and they haven’t been able to leverage on their huge subscriber counts (because their costs is proportionate to their revenue).
Even if Apple opted not to take a cut tomorrow, spotify still wouldn’t be earning enough to make a profit, much less pay artistes more. The real problem is that Apple Music is eating to their share in western countries like the US which is also their most lucrative markets.
That’s Spotify’s real play here. They have realised that they are unable to compete with a company like Apple who owns its own hardware and platform. So the only real option left is to litigate and let the courts fight their battles for them.
Spotify is getting desperate, and it shows. Like I said, just another day in business.
It would be the EC who decides Apple is in the wrong.
Then the ECJ can decide the EC is wrong.
One company doesn’t pay artists and the other keeps a hundred billion offshore...both are not saints to me.
Last edited:
You are in error and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. Microsoft was sued because it was considered that they were taking advantage of their dominate position in the operating system world. And this is exactly what Apple is doing.
Finding it very hard to see anything from Spotify's point of view. They knew the rules when they submitted an app, and now after joining the party, they want the rules changed to benefit them.
They are free to leave their app in the App Store, or take it away.
For those saying some thing to the effect "why would they take the app away, that is how they make money", Spotify can't have it both ways, which is what they are wanting.
Finally, Spotify has tried this just a few years ago. Remember?
https://www.macworld.com/article/30...-apple-for-rejecting-its-updated-ios-app.html
"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor," Sewell explains. "Ironically, it is now Spotify that wants things to be different by asking for preferential treatment from Apple."
They are free to leave their app in the App Store, or take it away.
For those saying some thing to the effect "why would they take the app away, that is how they make money", Spotify can't have it both ways, which is what they are wanting.
Finally, Spotify has tried this just a few years ago. Remember?
https://www.macworld.com/article/30...-apple-for-rejecting-its-updated-ios-app.html
"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor," Sewell explains. "Ironically, it is now Spotify that wants things to be different by asking for preferential treatment from Apple."
How is Apple robbing them. AFAIK they stopped paying Apple anything, since they stopped offering the in app upgrade.
The Microsoft store is free. Microsoft doesn't charge developers anything to put their software onto their store. Why can't Apple the so called trillion dollar company do the same? After all the third party developers are what make the platform. The company wouldn't be where it is today without third party support.
The word is “dominant”.
And what Microsoft did was offer a product for free against one that cost $50 and required a trip to the store to get it. Free killed cost - and Netscape was forced to shutter their Navigator development and then give it away to Mozilla - who turned it into Firefox and is doing quite well, and making a lot of money... which, looking back over history, ultimately proves the courts were wrong in the case against Microsoft.
Netscape has a terrible business model, Spotify has a terrible business model. The problem isn’t their competition. It’s them.
Wrong on both fronts.
Apple does not have a dominant position. Microsoft had something like 97% of the consumer computing market.
Apple has less than 20% of mobile, and even less than that in desktop.
Microsoft was found guilty of abuse of it's monopoly position.
That abuse included things like writing contracts that made HW Vendors pay for Windows for each PC, even if the customer chose another OS. Basically this was an abusive anti-competitive tactic that made it impossible to sell another OS on PCs.
Not only is Apple not in a monopoly or even a dominant position, it really hasn't done anything like the shady stuff Microsoft used to pull, when it got into trouble.
It seems to me this thread has turned into Spotify sucks, Apple can do no harm.
Pivoting around to the default here on the forum - ha
Nope. Applications for PS4 and Xbox can only be on those platforms with the approal of Sony/MS.
So, what is wrong with monopoly?! It is a capitalistic country... oh, wait we are full of liberals and socialists now.
Go ahead yup how monopoly is evil LOL
Good for Apple, if they can monopolize it why the heck not! I would do exactly the same to make as much money as possible. BUT they are not a monopoly in that market.
Go ahead yup how monopoly is evil LOL
Good for Apple, if they can monopolize it why the heck not! I would do exactly the same to make as much money as possible. BUT they are not a monopoly in that market.
Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone and asking Apple to alter their platform.. that they spent billions developing... is whiny and ridiculous
It seems to me this thread has turned into Spotify sucks, Apple can do no harm.
You mean one side is sticking to facts, the other spouting absolutely incorrect statement about Apple being a monopoly, or irrelevant complaints about the size of Apples cut on it's app store.
The arguments here shouldn't be about exact numbers, they should be about actual laws/merits/principles.
In reality Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and government really has no place interfering with Apples pricing. That is for Apple and the market to sort out, like it is for just about every other product and service, from every other vendor.
Spotify may be in a tough spot, and we can sympathize with them over that, but that doesn't translate into a merit based argument against Apple setting it's app store fees the same way they have done since inception.
The counter argument seems to amount to: "Apples a big meanie and they charge too much".
Then Spotify can spend billions developing their own smartphone like Apple did. It’s not unfair. Forcing Apple to host their app for free while others pay would be unfair
and yet Adobe and Microsoft have agreed to or released their apps recently...
just have to work out the price point and how much people want it.
I currently use Spotify but would I stay if they price went up? depends on ease of use and value for money.
It's like Netflix... they keep raising the price. At some point the value won't be there. At the moment it is.
The more competition, the better for customers.
You might have a point if Apple were charging less, but they are about the same, except Apple doesn't have the 30% cut. (And yes I know the word is dominant, but I am a terrible speller and let the spell check to the work, every now and then that backfires.) Now getting back to the point at hand, Apple also offers much for free, and it was allowed or okay back in the day when they were a small struggling company, but that is not the case today. What applied to Microsoft should also apply to Apple.
In fact what Apple is doing is worse because Microsoft never charged anyone to use the Windows operating system for the apps, but in reality that is exactly what Apple is doing.
[doublepost=1552792499][/doublepost]
There is more to being anticompetive (as you pointed out in your example) than size. And Apple is not a small company, certainly in comparison to Spotify.