You noticed!
I gave up all hope in this thread.
Pretzel logic that always ends with “Apple is right”
lol
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
You noticed!
I gave up all hope in this thread.
Pretzel logic that always ends with “Apple is right”
lol
Spotify offers a free tier which is a predatory maneuver by the dominant market player, therefore Spotify is guilty of antitrust behavior.
See? You can make any argument and it sounds just as good.
[doublepost=1552842646][/doublepost]
Yes they do.
Why do you keep saying that when the courts have said "it looks like monopoly, let's have a court case to decide". And the court case is later this year.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/...s-pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer
I was operating under the condition that you are guilty after a trial, and not before.
[doublepost=1552842773][/doublepost]
Show me where it says that, because I don't believe that is true.
All those things Nintendo/ms/Sony are doing are not illegal.
What apple is doing (restricting devs and forcing them to use apples store) is possibly illegal and is going to be decided in court (apple vs pepper court case)
That’s ridiculous. You make the claim that it’s in the rules, I say it’s not, so I have to show you where it’s not? I can’t prove a negative.
Nonetheless, here you go: the short answer is that as long as you upload a valid .ipa (that doesn’t violate other rules), apple doesn’t care how you built it. In fact, they can’t even tell if you used Xcode. You can use Xamarin with visual studio on windows, etc.
http://vojtastavik.com/2018/10/15/building-ios-app-without-xcode/
Your definition of a monopoly is simply incorrect. Being the sole distribution system for your products does not make you a monopoly unless you can exert market power to set prices; which Apple cannot do. They are not the single seller of a unique device that allows them to dictate prices for the market, as shown by the proliferation of similar devices at various price points. In addition, Apple devices are only a small fraction of mobile devices in use, further showing they are not a monopoly.
Apple does not control the only way to access user of streaming services, they are merely one way of so doing. Apple is only a one part of the market for streaming audio, and cannot dictate prices in that market. Spotify has plenty of ways to sell into that market, and can even do so on iOS devices via the web if they so chose.
Spotify doesn't like Apple's terms and that's fine. Apple is offering access to the app store on the same terms as it offers anyone; Spotify can either accept them or forgo having an app on the app store.
Your argument is liking saying Porsche has a monopoly because if I want to sell something at a dealership I have to give them a significant discount over retail; even though I can still sell it through an alternate channel.
The big difference is that Microsoft at the time had something like 80-90% of the OS market locked up while iOS has like 25%. If Spotify doesn't like Apple's rates they can leave and still make plenty of money on Android.
Microsoft was in fact a monopoly at the time, and were ruled such by a federal judge.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/judge-rules-microsoft-a-monopoly
People keep using the monopoly term with incorrect understanding of what the term means in applicable law.
In commercial Law, a monopoly is not anyone making a unique product. IOW Ford is not a monopolist in Law, because only they make Ford Cars. There are other cars.
A monopoly is when you are effectively the sole provider of a good/service that has no close substitute.
Microsoft when the owned >95% of the market for all consumer computing devices was a monopoly, and legally determined to be one.
Apple with less than 30% of just mobile is certainly not a monopoly.
You are not a monopolist of your own products, just because only you build/control them. With that mentality nearly every consumer product company is a monopoly. That isn't how it works.
You have to have no close substitutes of significance. Android is certainly a significant close substitute.
I will stick to the security and peace of mind that the Apple App Store provides, even if an alternative does get created. For the same reason I never jailbreak my iOS devices. On my Macs, I very rarely install apps that are not available through the Mac App Store. Very rarely and only when I am as certain as I can be that they are safe and malware free. On my iOS devices there is simply no need for me to go around the App Store. As I posted earlier, I do pay for Spotify, Netflix, 1Password, etc, directly to the developer. But the apps themselves were obtained via App Store.
You seem to have twisted it. I said they don't pay the fee for uploading it, you said they do. Apple doesn't check if you used their software but they know you couldn't have used it if you didn't pay for it.
[doublepost=1552843427][/doublepost]
Everything is possibly illegal until the court decides it.
In addition, Spotify can still reach iOS users via the web and bypass the app store entirely; so Apple isn't even controlling their ability to access iOS users.
Again, Where are the alternate stores where I can get Nintendo/MS/Sony games that Nintendo/MS/Sony don't control and don't get their cut from?
That's twice you have made this claim, and twice I have asked you to back it up.
If you don't provide evidence, I will have to assume you are just making things up to support your argument.
Last edited:
There is a value for being a storefront and handling your payments. 30% is not even close. Would you ok with the bank taking 20%, 25% for holding your money?
FYI there are multiple "legal" terms of the word monopoly. The way you're defining it is just one of the many terms.
If it was as clear cut, you wouldn't have 2 camps here.
So in summary. Spotify wants Apple to host their app for free while paying artists some of the lowest rates of all services. Good luck with that Spotify. Sounds like desperation from a company that doesn’t know how to turn a profit.
P.S. As a cherry on top:
Since they do have a good service they are always in the top 10 music section which is free publicity. And often on the front page “top free” apps. Companies would gladly pay millions for this kind of exposure.....except poor Spotify.
P.S. As a cherry on top:
Since they do have a good service they are always in the top 10 music section which is free publicity. And often on the front page “top free” apps. Companies would gladly pay millions for this kind of exposure.....except poor Spotify.
Last edited:
The existence of two opinions, doesn't mean that it isn't clear cut.
The post I quoted claimed Microsoft did not have a Monopoly. That was clear cut wrong. Microsoft was in fact ruled to have a Monopoly.
Because that's very likely not the arrangement that was agreed to when the two parties started doing business together. You can't just toss all business logic out the window and distill this down to "Apple has their app on someone else's device, therefor they owe them because that's how they treat others". That's a fantastic defense here on MacRumors where you're arguing with strangers about things you don't understand. But out in the real world, you can't toss out the facts that don't suit your position. If I had to guess, I'd bet that Apple is most likely the one receiving the payments, not doing the paying. Apple knows it can make money? In the real world, the only reason two companies would have such an agreement in the first place would be because both parties think they can make money. Apple wouldn't put their stuff on someone else's platform if they expected to loose money and they wouldn't be invited if it wasn't believed that they wouldn't add value to the brand.
Plus, you're still not really understanding this. Apple does NOT take 30% to have your software on their store. That cost is actually $99/year. The 30% thing is Apple's fee to perform financial transactions on your behalf.
Whatever happened to knowing about the subject you're discussing? I'm constantly amazed at the crap people invent inside their own heads, then try to pass off as "facts". You seem to want to find an example of Apple being hypocrites, so you invent this situation and accuse them without any evidence they're actually not paying their dues, or that they owe in the first place. You know, "I bet people named James are genetically inferior when it comes to analytical thinking". See how easy it is to just make something up out of nothing in an effort to prove one's point?
The argument isn't apple should get nothing. If devs use apples store, apple should get paid.
The argument is devs should be able to choose the store to sell in. Console devs can choose walmart, eb games, best buy, etc.
[doublepost=1552844835][/doublepost]
If apple changed the rules (which apple constantly does) to say they take a 50% cut now, Do you think app prices would stay the same or would some devs increase their app price to compensate?
The same applies to Google's Play store. And you don't have to pay to be an Android developer. Nor are you forced to use very specific and expensive hardware (Mac) to develop for Android. Apple is using such an effective CDN for the AppStore, that the cost of app downloads are basically zero for them. Netflix charges $10 a month and consumes about 40% of the entire Internet bandwith. If you want to talk CDN costs, then let's use actual CDN consumption and costs. The App Store basically costs Apple zero by comparison to most "real" CDN usages.
The problem on these forums is that there is a lot of Apple defendants here. And most of the Apple defendants are technically inept or lack the knowledge or experience to actually talk about technical platforms, backbones, CDN networks, edge caching, and the costs of all this.
If you factor in the platform exclusivity that the App Store offers Apple, then the entire App Store itself has ZERO costs for Apple.
Apple doesnt have any creative input into making 3rd party iOS apps. Other companies make them. Apple wants to get a cut of something they have nothing to do with by inserting themselves as the shop keeper and forcing suppliers to use apples store.
It's not a predatory maneuver. Apple has the same option to have an ad-supported tier.
Not really. They want to have the same treatment as Uber who doesn't pay Tax for every App Store transaction.