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
It’s 15% after the first year, right?
What do you mean by “not even close”. Close to what?
Compare banks and chose the one that offers you the best deal. But the bank comparison isn’t good.
Well due to cultural and political differences I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye or sway each other’s opinions. It’s up to the courts to decide, and I hope macrumours links this thread to the decision.
Take a look at the "TimeLine". The rules that Spotify is complaining about were in place in 2011. If these rules were new or recently updated, I would agree. Further, Apple made the deal for Spotify by lowering the 2nd year and beyond to 15%.
I've paid it as well.
That's just wrong. If you have a free app, no in-app options, no subscriptions, etc., Apple gets 30% of $0. If you don't want to pay 30% to Apple, you actually do have a choice in that and can still host your app on their store. The $99 is the one where you don't have a choice if you want your app in the store. You could have an app with millions of downloads and only pay Apple $99/year. The 30% only comes into play when Apple starts being the middle-man in financial transactions. That could be selling your app, handling in-app purchases, subscriptions. If the 30% was to cover the costs of hosting the app on their store, why would Apple allow free apps? That would be a pretty big loophole.
To be fair to you, I totally get that's kind of splitting hairs in the bigger picture since it's all just money going into Apple's pockets. If you're not Netflix or some banking app and are actually trying to make money on the App Store, they're getting their $99 AND 30%. As a developer myself, I certainly have my complaints with the App Store. I've seen fun and useful apps disappear because it was costing them more than they were making. Normally I wouldn't even bother pointing out the differences between the $99 and 30%. But in this thread, I think the distinction actually matters. If people are to understand the story, they need to know how it all works.
Ummm . . . they have. They lend my money to borrowers, using a credit card, at 20+%. My savings rate return is 1%. The bank keeps the 19% difference.
Last edited:
Exactly. Who is really the monopoly here? Being a music industry veteran here in L A I actually think Apple has been incredibly shy about pushing Apple Music - in fact too shy. And yet Spotify seems like a monopoly that’s angry that Apples platform is gaining steam through new means. And....let’s face it Spotify is on wayyyyy more platforms via voice assistants etc than A M. And this charge comes after Apple said no to joining Spotify in reducing fees to artists.
Sour grapes indeed.
There are lots of successful paid/subscription apps that compete against free Apple native apps (notes, reminders, calendar, podcast, word processing). Why is Spotify the only direct competitor that Apple is supposedly picking on?
What are you talking about, all iPhones ship with Music app frontmost and in the homescreen, and first thing it does when you open it is nagging you about a trial subscription. It’s pretty much like IE.
Why don’t you see it this way?
Apple created the store from scratch and is now maintaining the store. True/false?
Spotify doesn’t need to create and maintain the store. True/false?
That creates an unfair advantage for Spotify. See you logical flow above to answe this.
The app store is overrrated, I go to spotify.com and get the app on Macs, we don’t need a store. Stop acting like the store has that much value to Spotify or Netflix, it doesn’t.
And it is likely that this whining allows to choose. Don't forget that competition is beneficial for you: better quality and services and lower prices.
If there was no whining, Apple (and maybe even Spotify) would be a monopoly, which I don't think you will like.
I have seen this argument several times. What’s so bad about this? You see it all the time where competitors of a product have a lower price.
When those terms are abusive or unfair, it is good exercise to actually challenge them however it is possible.
I am actually happy for this door to be opened by Spotify. It is time for the EU to look at this monopoly that Apple has on the Apple iOS ecosystem. In the US, the rules are much more relaxed because the consumer is not on the top of the interests of the government, but in the EU, the consumer is the main interest of the government, and that means that business must comply with the best interest of the consumer in terms of competitiveness and quality of service.
We'll see what happens. But Spotify is not complaining in the EU randomly... there is a reason for that, and it is precisely the part of the consumer
Are you predicting when Apple has a streaming service Netflix is going to be a cry baby like Spotify? Because right now Netflix is fine with people signing up for their service out of app. Or is that the point you aren’t acknowledging?
[doublepost=1552855503][/doublepost]
When those terms are abusive or unfair, it is good exercise to actually challenge them however it is possible.
I am actually happy for this door to be opened by Spotify. It is time for the EU to look at this monopoly that Apple has on the Apple iOS ecosystem. In the US, the rules are much more relaxed because the consumer is not on the top of the interests of the government, but in the EU, the consumer is the main interest of the government, and that means that business must comply with the best interest of the consumer in terms of competitiveness and quality of service.
We'll see what happens. But Spotify is not complaining in the EU randomly... there is a reason for that, and it is precisely the part of the consumer
The consumer has a choice. It can buy an android. Now for those of us who like and want to support IOS keep your greed out of it.
He prefers Spotify gone so he can pay $50/month for his AM subscription.
How isn't it unfair when apps like Uber are excluded from some of the Apple's rules?
[doublepost=1552857107][/doublepost]
Apple Music - Spotify.
[doublepost=1552857211][/doublepost]
Netflix has no other choice besides paying the Apple tax. I'm predicting that if Apple has a service to compete with Netflix, the story is going to be different. Since you're bringing the Netflix argument over which is a completely different scenario from Spotify being the n1 music streaming service competing with Apple Music.
Possible new business plan for apple:
1. Pick a city and use their cash hoard to buy all the commercial property.
2. Lease them out with rules like you must use apple trucks and drivers for deliveries. You must use apple pay for accepting payments from customers.
3. Charge the tenants a 30% tax
Apple are the ones that build and maintain those buildings so they can do this. Not a monopoly cause people can pick a different city.
1. Pick a city and use their cash hoard to buy all the commercial property.
2. Lease them out with rules like you must use apple trucks and drivers for deliveries. You must use apple pay for accepting payments from customers.
3. Charge the tenants a 30% tax
Apple are the ones that build and maintain those buildings so they can do this. Not a monopoly cause people can pick a different city.
Spotify users on iOS are, in fact, Apple customers first. I realize Spotify doesn’t like the situation they’re in, and I’m sure Apple could probably share more of the spoils, but Spotify has a fundamentally exploitative business model. They’re crying foul and paying Artists nothing without a shred of irony? Really?
[doublepost=1552859614][/doublepost]Seriously..Apple created the app world.. Go build your own sandbox!
Apple is stealing 30% from artists on iOS and 0% on macOS, why? Lets start there if you wanna mention what artists are or aren’t getting.
Last edited: