Spotify on Apple's Response to App Store Dispute: 'Every Monopolist Will Suggest They Have Done Nothing Wrong'

[jameslmoser]

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?

You think very highly of yourself don't you? I know businesses generally make agreements with other when doing business. It was a rhetorical question.

But honestly it doesn't sound like you understand whats going on here. The $99 is something you pay even if you don't ever submit an App to Apple. I know, I paid it for years so I could work on other companies apps as a contractor. The 30% IS for apple to host your app on their store, because you don't have a choice if they want their customers who also happen to be Apple's customers to have access to your app. Apple wants companies that do not need Apple's help at all to promote their apps. For example, Netflix... I've been a customer of Netflix since before Apple had a single device that could be used with the App Store. Good for them to stop paying Apple $853 million dollars a year for the privilege of helping to make iOS successful. And now Apple is probably going to be directly competing with them!!!

The more I read your reply.. the more... wow. What FACT was I trying to pass off?

 

[Bytor65]

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.

No console developers can Not choose where physical console games are sold.

You want alternate Apple stores to bypass Apples control/percentage cut.

But there is no real difference versus console physical media sales. You either don't understand that the physical channel is still completely in Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo control, or you are arguing in bad faith.

The physical channel is not in the Developers control, it doesn't bypass Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony control, nor their financial cut.

Not one game copy is sold without the cut/control of Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony, it is effectively exactly the same as Apples App store, from a developer perspective, except with the addition of an expensive physical distribution chain tacked onto the end, that they don't control, and expenses almost certainly come out of the developer portion of the cut.

 

[1050792]

Apple is right!
They took away my house but that's because I probably didn't need the house anyway, so they actually have a point and are helping me!

This is what most of the comments here sound like.

 

[Bornee35]

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.

Nothing to do with beside building the entire platform that makes it possible. They built the infrastructure and earn the toll. Nobody is forced to develop for iOS, they choose to do so. Everyone agrees to the terms when they check the terms and conditions box.

 

[mi7chy]

Don't hide behind google. Google is guilty too.

Guilty of what? Google doesn't have a monopoly on the app store as there are Amazon, F-Droid, ApkPure and numerous others. Also, Google allows side loading apps. So, Apple clearly has a monopoly that's anti-competition and anti-consumer.

 

[ipponrg]

The existence of two opinions, doesn't mean that it isn't clear cut.

That court case took 3+ years to arrive at a decision. I would say that was anything but clear cut.

I guess we will see if your understanding of the courts works swiftly for Apple in court.

If you factor in the platform exclusivity that the App Store offers Apple, then the entire App Store itself has ZERO costs for Apple.

I wouldn’t say it’s zero costs. I’d say it’s negligible at the greater picture of things. Apple imo would def easily offset storage and CDN costs charging 30 pct off transactions. If they had the store for free, it would still be negligible (covered by other subsidizing) due to how cheap CDN costs are for static content.
[doublepost=1552845776][/doublepost]

terms and conditions box.

The terms and conditions are constantly changing in favor of anti competitive practices. That is one of the points I think Spotify will attempt to address in court

 

[Bornee35]

That court case took 3+ years to arrive at a decision. I would say that was anything but clear cut.

I guess we will see if your understanding of the courts works swiftly for Apple in court.



I wouldn’t say it’s zero costs. I’d say it’s negligible at the greater picture of things. Apple imo would def easily offset storage and CDN costs charging 30 pct off transactions. If they had the store for free, it would still be negligible (covered by other subsidizing) due to how cheap CDN costs are for static content.
[doublepost=1552845776][/doublepost]

The terms and conditions are constantly changing in favor of anti competitive practices. That is one of the points I think Spotify will attempt to address in court

Argue that they accepted a legally binding contract that they didn’t have to, and want it changed in their favour. Right.

 

[jlc1978]

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?

That is irrelevant to whether or not Apple can dictate prices. Apple cannot force them to raise prices or to sell at some minimum price; they all will act on their own to decide if they want to raise prices, keep them the same for less revenue, or even forgo the app store. That is what happens in a competitive market.
[doublepost=1552846241][/doublepost]

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.

SO? Apple does not force anyone to develop an app; they simply offer a service at a price they set if someone wants access to the app store. Apple charges a fee for using their services; just as any company does.

 

[1050792]

That is irrelevant to whether or not Apple can dictate prices. Apple cannot force them to raise prices or to sell at some minimum price; they all will act on their own to decide if they want to raise prices, keep them the same for less revenue, or even forgo the app store. That is what happens in a competitive market.
[doublepost=1552846241][/doublepost]

SO? Apple does not force anyone to develop an app; they simply offer a service at a price they set if someone wants access to the app store. Apple charges a fee for using their services; just as any company does.

They didn't force anyone, but what would be the App Store without Apps?

 

[bushman4]

It’s all about the Green $$$$$$$$$
Apple is hurting Spotify in the pocket

 

[Bornee35]

They didn't force anyone, but what would be the App Store without Apps?

Where would Spotify be without the ability to sell their service? It’s a two way street. The App Store is the platform that makes it possible.

 

[1050792]

Where would Spotify be without the ability to sell their service? It’s a two way street. The App Store is the platform that makes it possible.

Providing a free tier which they do already? They can sell their service on other platforms, the point is that they haven't been able to sell their service on the App Store for ages, because of the Apple's ridiculous 30% tax for every transaction.

 

[Bornee35]

Providing a free tier which they do already? They can sell their service on other platforms, the point is that they haven't been able to sell their service on the App Store for ages, because of the Apple's ridiculous 30% tax for every transaction.

There’s nothing stopping them from selling their service besides their own imposed profit margins.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Hey, Spotify - Here's fun idea. Repurpose all the energy spent whining about the ecosystem Apple created that allowed you to exist and go build your own. Make your own rules. Cheers.

 

[1050792]

There’s nothing stopping them from selling their service besides their own imposed profit margins.

Profit margins? Spotify has no such thing as profit margins, every profit they get is to either pay for the servers, taxes and labels.

 

[Bornee35]

Profit margins? Spotify has no such thing as profit margins, every profit they get is to either pay for the servers, taxes and labels.

That sounds an awful lot like their problem and not apples.

 

[1050792]

Hey, Spotify - Here's fun idea. Repurpose all the energy spent whining about the ecosystem Apple created that allowed you to exist and go build your own. Make your own rules. Cheers.

What about Apple reducing the transaction taxes from 30% to say 5% for all Apps and stop sending notifications about "Gift your friend Apple music for free!" while it's agains't their own App Store rules for other Apps to do that? That seems more fair to me.
[doublepost=1552847474][/doublepost]

That sounds an awful lot like their problem and not apples.

Yeah... but you're the one coming with that point. You're the one who said Spotify cared about their profit margins lol.

 

[Bornee35]

What about Apple reducing the transaction taxes from 30% to say 5% for all Apps and stop sending notifications about "Gift your friend Apple music for free!" while it's agains't their own App Store rules for other Apps to do that? That seems more fair to me.
[doublepost=1552847474][/doublepost]
Yeah... but you're the one coming with that point. You're the one who said Spotify cared about their profit margins lol.

So the whole argument isn’t about money. Right.

 

[MikeVarney]

The way around this would seem to be for Apple to pay itself (one unit to another) 30% / 15%. Making it perfectly reasonable for Apple to say it actually charges $7.69 per month for Apple Music, plus the 30% makes it $9.99.

All it would require is an internal accounting entry, making the whole situation Spotify's complaining about irrelevant.

 

[1050792]

So the whole argument isn’t about money. Right.

It is about Apple taxing a lot of it for App Store transactions. They won't tax themselves for Apple Music subscriptions since it's their own System, but that's what creates an unfair advantage. This is how law works.

 

[Bornee35]

It is about Apple taxing a lot of it for App Store transactions. They won't tax themselves for Apple Music subscriptions since it's their own System, but that's what creates an unfair advantage. This is how law works.

The same law allows them to do whatever they want with their property. Being in the App Store is a privilege and not a right. If you own a toll road you don’t pay to use it.

 

[MikeVarney]

Someone square this circle for me; when a retailer offers iTunes gift cards at a 15-20% discount, which is often the case in the US at least during many holidays, who is actually eating the discount?

While gift cards may be sold to the retailers slightly off-marked price, what you're referring to is a "loss leader". Something the retailers sell at a loss in order to get you into the store and buy other stuff to make up the lost profit.

 

[1050792]

The same law allows them to do whatever they want with their property. Being in the App Store is a privilege and not a right. If you own a toll road you don’t pay to use it.

That's not how law works, atleast in Europe. You can't have use of your own property to harm other developers. It's like saying Apple could tax Spotify with 90% while other devs with 30% and it would be alright, because after all it's their system and they can do whatever they want with it.

 

[jlc1978]

They didn't force anyone, but what would be the App Store without Apps?

Nothing, and that reinforces the point that the app store does not constitute a monopoly.

 

[1050792]

Nothing, and that reinforces the point that the app store does not constitute a monopoly.

Nobody is saying the App Store constitutes a monopoly, but the way Apple is doing business in different ways to different developers. While Uber is able to have in-app transactions free of Apple Tax, Spotify can't because it's a direct competitor to Apple Music, in which Apple doesn't follow their own rules to force their music streaming app into people's throats. That's monopoly.