Apple created the market...people should build their own market if they dont want to play...
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
This is not something Apple just pulled out of thin air today.. They've always had rules,, took 30% away..
How would you feel if someone makes rules, then we come along *later* and say it should be changed because we don't like it?
That's what SPotify's trying to do.
How would you feel if someone makes rules, then we come along *later* and say it should be changed because we don't like it?
That's what SPotify's trying to do.
Netflix does not pay the "Apple tax." You cannot subscribe to Netflix in the App; you have to create your account on the Netflix website. Thus the Netflix App is completely free and pays nothing to the Apple Store.
What rules are they excluded from? Unless you know something I don't, I presume they pay the $99/year fee for use of the App Store. Since they choose to process their own payments, Apple doesn't take a 30% cut of what they charge for rides. And since the Uber app is free, Apple doesn't get 30% there either. Others who use Apple as their payment processor need to pay Apple their 30% fee. Since there are real costs associated with processing payments, Apple taking a cut is completely fair. It's that simple. If Apple is handling money for you, they get 30%. If they're not handling money for you, they don't take 30%.
Apple treats Netflix and Spotify the same, and the same as before Apple started a streaming music business, and they will treat Netflix the same if they ever start a video streaming service that competes with Netflix.
Which is exactly as it should be. Spotify is essentially whining for special treatment.
Netflix and Spotify both are skipping the IAP and getting essentially free access to the App store. But apparently free access is not enough for Spotify, they apparently want free access to the IAP as well. Why do you think they should be allowed to use IAP system and the App store for free? IAP is a convenience, not a necessity.
And this "High Apple Taxes" nonsense. 30% is the going rate for all the successful App Stores, gaming consoles, and Steam...
I may have made my sentence wrong. I meant that Netflix has no other choice besides having to make their payment system through their website so they avoid the Apple tax.
If you want a store in a Shopping Mall its NOT FREE! Shopping Malls & The Apple App Store needs constant maintenance maintenance updates, security updates - goes what Spotify? - Thats not free... What frees Spotify build a hardware player and sell it & maintain it yourself. FWIW My steams on Spotify on higher and my royalties are a fraction of what Apple pays me. **** and start paying your artists their fair share......
Why are you able to pay Uber directly from the App and Spotify isn't allowed to include a link from which users can open in their browser to subscribe?
[doublepost=1552861790][/doublepost]
They sure do. 30% is just too much.
Spotify acts like Apple is getting free ride because they own the Apple Store and they have to pay to use their platform. Well Apple spend millions to develop the Appstore and spent 3 billion to acquire Beats so they can a music streaming business. Yeah they’re paying indirectly and Appstore is a free market and the pricing is the same. If Apple decides to price their music less than $9.99 then that’s obviously playing to their advantage. As far as I’m concern Spotify is a music streaming choice by many. So they’re not the underdog here they’re just hoping to have a free ride.
All the time you spent complaining about this and you couldn't actually read the background information, that answers this question:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-claims/
- Apps that sell physical goods — including ride-hailing and food delivery services, to name a few — aren’t charged by Apple.
Same rules for everyone, but of course that doesn't mean same rules for all categories. If you want free access, you have to be in a category that offers free access.
If Spotify wants to start a ride hailing business, or heck sell physical records, they won't be charged either.
Last edited:
I was about to say, you could bill through iTunes... Netfix has the same idea it seems
Uber is delivering a ride in exchange for your money. A good or service Apple can't/doesn't provide. In Spotify's case, they want to use Apple's subscription service, a service Apple does supply. For a 30% fee. If you don't want to use Apple's service for that, you need to handle it yourself. Like the case of Netflix. If Spotify wanted to sell Spotify t-shirts and hoodies, I would presume they would fall under the same rules as Uber. As long as they do the payment processing, Apple wouldn't expect 30% of that. And since Apple doesn't provide a service to sell t-shirts and hoodies, they ought to be able to sell something like that directly from the app.
The thing is that Spotify doesn't want to use Apple's payment system, the point is that if Spotify has no alternative besides using Apple's payment wall, because otherwise they can't even advertise premium subscriptions on their App. I still don't get how Uber has a special treatment while others are obligated to follow the rules. As you say if Spotify would want to sell merchandise, then they would run away from the Apple tax? That's special treatment for me because from what I know, Uber is the only App that does that. Also why is Uber able to record iPhone screens and track users data, and isn't removed from the App Store? That to me seems like special treatment. I'm not totally agains't Apple on this one, the only thing I disagree is their high 30% Tax, and Spotify not being able to add their own IAP system, that leaves Spotify's only alternative to be the Apple's pay wall, and that's where it becomes unfair.
No, its not wrong. If Apple allowed you to do those things without their help you might have a point, but they don't.
If Microsoft broke anti-trust laws simply by including their browser in their OS, then what Apple is doing is worse. Microsoft didn't prevented you from installing Netscape, or make Netscape pay them 30% to run it on their OS.
Apple is abusing the success they have had with the iPhone.
This is funny. While people say spotify is the whinnest company, apple seems to act this way whenever lawsuit doesn’t go their way.
They don't. It's been explained multiple times by multiple people on multiple pages. On this very page Bytor65 even provided a link and was kind enough to bold the important parts. You might just have to accept that there is a difference and you simply can't understand it. Or don't accept it and continue on in your cloud of confusion.
FYI, governments charge taxes, not corporations. Continuing to ignore the fact that it's a "fee" isn't adding to your credibility.
[doublepost=1552864396][/doublepost]
Sadly, that's one of the more intelligent things I've seen posted on this thread.
Don't accept it? I haven't seen any explanation much less any quote notification from that user as you say. I like how you completely overlooked all of my comment and only mentioned what was convenient to you. Your credibility isn't any better than mine. Since you got nothing to add to this conversation, then we should both stop seeing each others notifications. If you get what I mean.
What abuse? You seem to be saying that running an app store and charging 30% cut is somehow abusing anti-trust laws. Though it is hard to tell as you removed all pertinent info from the post you quoted.
The cut for the platform owner goes back at least as far as the Atari VCS in the 1970s. I wonder why the so many complaining about this seem to be perfectly OK with game consoles doing it. Is it because they aren't Apple?
[doublepost=1552864618][/doublepost]
Post 813:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-nothing-wrong.2173562/page-33#post-27189193
~10 posts above this one.
They can. The same way Netflix does not uses Apple's payment wall. Netflix does all the account management outside Apple's payment wall. They just provide services to the users with varies with their service level agreement. Spotify could easily do the same, injecting or not Ads if the account is flagged as paid or not.
30% tax on first year, 15% afterwards. And Uber relies on localization, whereas Spotify doesn't. Not that I agree with the screen recording (and not that they are still doing it), but seems you are lost on your own words.
Last edited by a moderator:
The automakers created the market for gasoline. Perhaps they should charge the gas stations a 30% cut of every fill up. It makes more sense than Apple charging a cut from Spotify, Netflix, etc. Considering there actually was a market for music and movies before Apple and there was no market for automotive fuel before the automakers, Apple has less of leg to stand on than the carmakers would with that idea.