Spotify has no obligation to be in the App Store, Apple, google or otherwise. If your business solely revolves around the infrastructure of others then don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Here in Canada, Ontario we have a liquor control board that takes a 70% cut for the privilege of selling wine in the province. That’s 70% just to be able to sell your product outside your winery. 0% cut if it’s sold at the winery. There’s nothing stopping Spotify from copying Netflix and providing transactions outside the App Store. If you don’t like the game don’t play it. The whole counter argument reeks of dirty socialism.
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
Spotify isn't able to even provide a link within their App for users to subscribe, if they refuse to pay Apple tax.
The game playing thing is nonsense in this day and age, because users rely on these Apps, and they make part for the majority of media consumed in iPhones. This can hurt users and possibly future sales of iPhones if Spotify would leave the store. We can't compare wine to the smartphone industry since there's only two big players in the field. Apple doesn't feed them, Apple takes Spotify's food, from the developer tax to the 30% app transaction which is a lot of greed. If Uber is able to escape the tax, why isn't Spotify and Netflix allowed too? Play by the rules or get the heck out? That's monopoly, and that's where law comes in place.
Uber’s transactions are not processed within the App Store. At most Apple nicks them with a 4% Apple Pay cut. That’s it. Netflix is rolling along fine without App Store transactions, Spotify can be big boys too.
That's the point. They aren't processed at the App Store. Spotify isn't even able to do that. Apple won't allow it. That's where the "Time to play fair" thing comes from. The rules for some should be the rules for everyone.
Apple also refuses to allow users to use Siri for Spotify while keeping it exclusive for Apple Music.
Google and Amazon allows all music streaming services into their virtual assistants.
That's monopoly.
Also Apple takes Uber 4% tax why they must take 30% from Spotify? The same rules are required for every player in the field. Again... that's where law comes in.
Because without the Government oversight that can lead to predatory pricing which while not illegal in and of itself, creates a de facto or actual monopoly which is illegal. At the very least it runs up against anti trust concerns
You, and many others, keep using the word Monopoly, where it clearly doesn't apply.
What you have described is inconsistency, not monopoly.
That and your description of what is going on is also incorrect. Apple doesn't levy fees on physical goods/services, which includes ride sharing and food delivery services.
The terms also have nothing to do with Spotify beiing an Apple competitor, they were the same terms long before Apple had any kind of streaming service to compete with spotify.
So in short, everything in your post was wrong, but hey don't let that interfere with your outrage.
Spotify is able to do it and currently does. You can go to their website and set up a subscription. Just like Netflix, who doesn’t offer in app processing.
I believe they'll either reduce by a good margin the Apple transaction Tax or eliminate it at all.
They are speaking and fighting against abusive policies/fees just like Apple is doing against Qualcomm. Same exact thing.
They can't do it within the App, not even a "Click here to upgrade". You must go to their website to subscribe. Spotify isn't even allowed to put on their App that you can upgrade from free to premium if they choose not to use the App Store payments.
And what did Apple do? Ditched Qualcomm, sued them for it and lost.
[doublepost=1552849515][/doublepost]
You keep on ignoring the whole Netflix manages just fine that way.
His point is that Apple is playing the victim here while they did the same people claim Spotify is doing to Qualcomm.
Well, I thought that’s what the poster I was quoting was saying. He later clarified that wasn’t the case. My bad if it was clear enough in his/her first post.
Total nonsense. Governments don't control pricing on assumptions of internet rambling, about what might happen.
Some actual illegal action actually have to take place for government to step in.
So far, none has.
I will repeat what I said before. If the Government does nothing when predatory Pharma companies raise prices on life saving drugs over 1000% overnight just because they want more money, it's absurd to think they should make Apple change their business model, that has been the same for a decade, to suit Spotify, because Spotify has shake business model that makes it harder to compete on Apples home turf.
Because Apple doesn't have a direct competitor to Netflix. Wait until they do and you'll see for yourself.
And they lost, in America where capitalism runs free. Qualcomm was found to be in the right. Apple, while hypocritical is not in the wrong with Spotify just like Qualcomm wasn’t in the wrong with Apple.
But thats your point of the coin. Apple is wrong by having high taxes for App transactions and giving some devs special treatment within the App Store. They are also wrong by using their iOS for marketing purposes in which is not allowed by their own rules.
Spotify or any other App isn't allowed to send you a notification saying "Upgrade to premium for 0.99" or something similar. Yet Apple can, you'll now say that it's Apple's system they can do whatever they want. And I'll repeat again, that's exactly what makes it like a monopoly and unfair for other Apps, and that's where Apple is wrong.
Alright so we’re going full minority report then, implicating them on future charges.
I'm not ignoring anything, "Because Apple doesn't have a direct competitor to Netflix." it's the answer to your question above.
monopoly’s require a lack of sufficient alternative, with android there’s an alternative. iOS is not a majority of the mobile OS pie chart.
Right. People who see this as Apple throwing in the towel on HomePod are thinking far too superficially.
Putting Apple Music on all speakers is only bad news for Spotify who has up until now enjoyed an effective monopoly on third party speakers. This weakens Spotify’s position substantially, which inversely strengthens Apple Music and grows the service’s membership base, which itself then strengthens the proposition of HomePod as a first party Apple Music pure experience, coming full circle and selling more HomePods.
It’s a smart plan. Tim Cook might not be a visionary like Steve Jobs was but the man is a very talented business strategist and CEO. Spotify should be terrified, and this lawsuit shows exactly that they are.
Spotify or any other dev has no other alternative to publish their App for iOS users besides the App Store. They also have no other alternative to offer payments within App besides being taxed with high Apple taxes.
Hope it answers your question.
the alternative is android exclusivity, where either their subscribers follow them to another platform, or realize they don’t need Spotify. The consumer dictates the outcome.
There's no exclusivity in a third party App that works in various systems and gadgets, and that's where Spotify wants to be.