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
Read this timeline and say again you see nothing wrong with how Apple acts - https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
A monopoly is being the sole provide of a good/service without close substitute.
Apple is the sole provide of iPhones/services, but Android Phones/services would be considered a close substitute.
Anyone trying to claim Android Phones aren't a close substitute for iPhones is mistaken.
Every controlled platform (iOS, Android, Nintendo Switch, Xbox, Playstation) is NOT a monopoly.
They would only be monopolies if they had no competitors offering close substitutes, or if they utterly dominated the market (as Windows did in the 1990s).
The closest today would be Google Android.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are quite confused. Microsoft were a monopoly. Apple don’t sell more phones than Android and more apps are downloaded through the Google play store than the iOS App Store. Always try and use facts.
Yeah sure, but then you lose the entire iOS userbase. It's not smart business.
Apple will have to be nudged by regulators to force this change, because it is unfair.
Why does Apple bend the developers over for 30%. Long before the App Store there were online stores to buy applications from, I don't know what the profit sharing was as this was before Android and iOS but it existed and you got updates. So Apple did not create the concept of an App Store it already existed. Back then you could actually search and find apps, today with apps you can't find anything unless you know the apps name.
Before Apple revamped the App Store you could d/l the files on you computer, re-arrange them on your computer and backup the files on your computer, now you have to d/l and if Apple pulls an App you can't get it ever again as you don't have a backup.
Spotify is on the App platform for Free. They just have a free app without the upgrade option, so the pay Apple nothing. Is that fair? They get many of the App Store benefits and pay nothing for it. They no doubt cost Apple money. Is that fair? Spotify just wants to push it further,they also wan't to use the App store payment option and not pay for that either. Is that fair?
If you want to be on a controlled platform, you pay the toll.
It was like this long before Apple started the App store, with game consoles for decades, then with Steam, then with Apple, and it will be like this for decades to come.
Microsoft were (are) a monopoly, nothing wrong with that; now if you abuse your position as a monoply that's different (I think that's spotify's position on iOS is)
Originally there was Brick and Motar: Developer cut was Less than 30%. I remember a dev saying they got $8 from a $50 game (that is 16% for the Dev).
Then there were consoles: Cut is secret but widely expected to be ~30% or more, 70% to Developer (for modern digital, likely much less on boxed Games).
Then there was Steam: 30% cut to Store, 70% to Dev.
Then there was App Store: 30% cut to Store, 70% to Dev.
Clearly 70% cut to developer was a huge step forward for developers, and is NOT bending them over, and this cut was not started by Apple. Initially it was seen as a gold rush for developers and most developers are NOT complaining over the cut.
But of course this isn't about the exact numbers, it's about the right for a company to set the price for it's goods and services. I have yet to see a good reason why the government should interfere in private enterprise pricing.
I agree with your premise. My observation is that the situation is developers pulling or abandoning the app more than Apple getting rid of it.
Completely agree. And Apple is not setting the price for the goods and services. They are just establishing their consignment fee. The developer can charge $1000 or $0 . Apple will just keep 30% of whatever the developer charges.
What’s unfair is to try to dictate how a business runs their platform. The market always decides. If it’s really that horrendous of Apple, Spotify can go the Netflix route and only offer transactions through their own webpage.
Based on the timeline posted, most of the changes occurred in 2011; 4 years before Apple Music was launched.
And it sounds like most of the rejections occurred because the App did not meet the current guidelines (landing page et al.)
I’ve always enjoyed that the App Store made it easy to purchase.
Seems to be one of the most secure places to have your ID, $ online.
Content is remembered if u drown your device.
When Netflix decided to not be on the App Store, glad they left existing customers alone.
Or I would be gone.
No system is the best, seems that anything online nowadays is subject to fraud, scrutiny.
I think the model should stick, if you want your stuff on on the App Store, here is the criteria you must follow to protect users, artists and Apple yada. If you don’t want to follow the criteria, that is your choice to not do that and you aren’t on the App Store.
Crazy that companies can go to court over the terms of agreement that they accepted.
There’s only one reason they do that, it’s for $$, nothing else.
Seems to be one of the most secure places to have your ID, $ online.
Content is remembered if u drown your device.
When Netflix decided to not be on the App Store, glad they left existing customers alone.
Or I would be gone.
No system is the best, seems that anything online nowadays is subject to fraud, scrutiny.
I think the model should stick, if you want your stuff on on the App Store, here is the criteria you must follow to protect users, artists and Apple yada. If you don’t want to follow the criteria, that is your choice to not do that and you aren’t on the App Store.
Crazy that companies can go to court over the terms of agreement that they accepted.
There’s only one reason they do that, it’s for $$, nothing else.
Note that Netflix did not leave the App Store. They disabled the option to pay for it through the App Store, which is the same thing that Spotify has already done. This means they have free apps and Apple gets nothing.
Of course it's all about money.
Spotify currently doesn't allow users to subscribe to premium in their app (no IAP), thus bypassing Apple payments.
Spotify is launching a Hail Mary attack on Apples business model, because they would like to have the convenience of in app purchase (IAP) without having to pay for it.
It's really absurd argument from Spotify, but they have nothing to lose, and while a long shot, attacks on the free market businesses are more likely to succeed in the EU than in the USA.
Walmart gets to make price and inventory demands if you want them to stock your product.
Lebron James gets to set the set the conditions if you want him to talk about your product.
Nintendo can tell you how many games you can make for their consoles.
Patent holders can decide to not let you use a patent, even if you are willing to pay a royalty for it.
Target can prevent Walmart and Amazon from selling gift cards through their store because they compete.
No one is disputing that there is only one way get your product on the Apple App store. The issue is that Apple has every right to decide what they sell in their store, and it doesn't matter if they sell competing products. You seem to be confusing an industry monopoly with a popular brand. If Apple said "you can't sell your app on other app stores, if you want us to sell it" than that would be abusing their position in the market. If they said, if your app directly competes with our apps we will charge you a fee, that others don't pay, to cover our lost revenue than that would be abusing their position. They aren't doing anything like that.
But here are few things to keep in mind:
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on app stores.
Having a monopoly isn't illegal.
You can't force a business to do business with you.
All that said, they are correct. When I get an app from Apple I am Apple's customer. The app developer has no rights to me, to my information, or how I use my device. It is no different than how Nintendo doesn't have rights to what games I buy just because I purchased their product from Walmart. If Spotify gets access I may blame them for doing something they don't have a right to do, but I also blame Apple for not protecting me. If Spotify wants me to be their customer than they need to advertise and convince me to do business through them. Because if my Nintendo product doesn't work, I take it back to Walmart, not Nintendo; if my app doesn't work I take it back to Apple.
[doublepost=1552838086][/doublepost]
You are 100% correct, but it would be humorous to see an annoyed judge understand this and award Apple 30% of revenue Spotify withheld by not offering customers an option to use an IAP. I realize this wouldn't happen, and if it did it would be overturned, but none the less it would really make me smile.
Last edited:
Completely off topic, but there are good reasons for governments to interfere in pricings.
Imagine several companies decide to set the price of, say, corn, in a way that they will maximize benefits. And doing so millions of people are at risk of dying from starvation. Don’t you think that would be a scenario where interference is justified?
Again apologies for the off-topic.
How much of a margin do you think retail stores require? Costco is at 16% while many others are 40-50%. 30% to reach hundreds of millions is nothing.
Bottom line: Spotify believes, that you are guilty because you said you are not guilty. Very soviet like.