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
I outlined a way that this could be settled, if a developer does not want 30% on their subscription, Apple could offer a hosting fee, something more reasonable, because all they do is act as a payment processor and display your app on the store. When was the last time a payment processor charged 30% on top of your purchase in a store? Right.
In the case of Spotify, they are not hosting their music on the App store. It is streamed to the customer from Spotify's hardware over Spotify's internet connection. All Apple handles is the payment processing and they certainly do deserve to be paid for that service.. But a 30% cut for processing a payment is beyond obscene.
Why should Apple change their business model/rates to suit Spotify? You do understand that nearly every successful digital platform charges about 30% for access, why is it suddenly bad that Apple does this? Spotify whining or just because it is Apple?
Apple is far from greedy. When video game system makers create a “platform” they do little to promote your game but allow you to create it with the logo of their game system on it and the game system manufacturer (e.g.: Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony) would make like 60% to 70% cut of the game’s sale price. That’s why console games are so pricey. Those percentages might have come down since Apple’s model made 30% and 15% a sort of standard, but pre-iPhone the platform vendor cut for console games was obscenely high.
Apple’s 15% to 30% for creating the platform and only charging for paid apps is nothing by comparison. And Apple does not even require it as Spotify could launch to a login screen and give ZERO to Apple as a free app.
The same went for eBooks — Amazon’s cut from independent authors was phenomenally high and then Apple came along and asked 30% and so Amazon lowered their own cut.
Last edited:
App prices would largely stay the same, unless all the developers came together and agreed to raise prices unilaterally across the board.
The App Store has effectively commoditised apps, so prices are determined by the consumer, because there are so many alternatives available for any one app. Unless you are this one very popular and indispensable app, if you tried to raise your prices, customers would just flock to the next cheaper alternative.
So developers would typically just opt to absorb the loss, or maybe switch to subscription.
And wow, this thread sure exploded after I went to bed.
So you mean the people that Apple hires to vet apps and field support for the App Store work for free? Or the people who curate apps and write articles promoting them?
I browse the android forums on reddit and one common complaint about the google play store is about how google mostly relies on automated algorithms to scan apps, which is why we see so many problematic ones slip through into the play store. By the time google finally does get round to removing them, the damage has already been done.
Compare this with the iOS App Store where Apple actually provides proper support where you speak to real living beings.
Of course the App Store is profitable, but just dismissing its success as “because it’s the only place you can sell apps on” greatly downplays the effort that Apple puts in to tend to their garden and make it all work. Or do you think developers favour iOS entirely by chance?
That’s the thing with these self-styled “tech-savvy users”. They think they know everything just because they have a little bit more technical background than the rest here, and completely overlook (or choose to ignore) the non-tech aspect of many a discussion here. There is more to running an App Store than just the servers and the electricity bill, just as there is more to the user experience afforded by a smartphone than just raw specs on a piece of paper.
Gee - I think I’m talking about everything BUT on Apple hardware duh. The marketing of Apple Music IME has been null to dull. Hardly the massive promotion that the great iPod received. And I get it. The Ad team clearly has been seriously conservative promoting Apple Music.
I think the recent Verizon tie-in promotion is good but I’d like to see some hard hitting ads on A M akin to the iPod days..
Does that let the air out of your balloon? Or, am I wrong wrong wrong...
If the automakers handled taking your money and getting it to the station instead of you paying the station directly, they absolutely should get cut of every fill up where they were involved. No one would expect them to provide that service for free. And if the competition is taking a 30% cut, and the station owners are willing to pay a 30% fee, then 30% is a fair deal for all involved. But automakers aren't involved in your transaction, so they don't get a cut.
Just like Apple doesn't get a cut for Netflix subscriptions because they decided not to use Apple's services for their business. Spotify wishes to use Apple's services, they just don't want to pay the going rate for those services.
Isn't it absurd how all of a sudden, many here think charging 30% to access a platform (fee that funds maintenance a development of said platform) is somehow criminal abuse despite it being the going rate on just about every digital platform.
BTW the only one I use, is GOG, and they recently had layoffs and were reportedly close to operating in the Red.
https://kotaku.com/facing-financial-pressures-gog-quietly-lays-off-at-lea-1832879826
In reality 30% is a reasonable cut, to cover the cost of maintaining and developing the platform and a small profit margin. Profit isn't a dirty word. The profit motivation is why these businesses exist. Personally I like to see the cut stay at 30% so platforms like GOG can stay in business. It's not an unreasonable cut at all, and is historically MUCH better than it has been in the past for developers.
This exactly. Microsoft doesn’t have to put PlayStation Apps on its XBox One hardware either. Some people seem to forget that Microsoft was controlling how I used my HP or Dell computer and blocking competing software back then.
Don’t you know? Everything Apple does is wrong and it’s always just one step away from doom!
The fact that Spotify exists shows that Apple isn't an monopoly, and the fact that Apple allows such competition on their App Store only shows that Apple isn't behaving in a monopolistic way.
Beyond that, Spotify is ignoring the fact that Apple also provides a rich web-app API. They could develop and deliver their services though that instead and completely bypass the restrictions of the App Store.
https://medium.com/@firt/progressive-web-apps-on-ios-are-here-d00430dee3a7
Spotify wants the benefits of the platform that Apple has built without paying for it. Software has never worked that, and never will.
Beyond that, Spotify is ignoring the fact that Apple also provides a rich web-app API. They could develop and deliver their services though that instead and completely bypass the restrictions of the App Store.
https://medium.com/@firt/progressive-web-apps-on-ios-are-here-d00430dee3a7
Spotify wants the benefits of the platform that Apple has built without paying for it. Software has never worked that, and never will.
Good point. If Spotify weren’t hypocrites they’d allow artists to have 100% of all the revenue that came in from song plays and keep nothing for themselves.
[doublepost=1552871467][/doublepost]
You think a supermarket only makes 1-5% when they sell Oreos? Retailers need to make a living.
This is not how the economy works or how it should work.
[doublepost=1552871716][/doublepost]
This does seem like discrimination against competitors. I forgot about Uber. Wonder if Apple has a statement on this.
And when someone downloads an app from some disreputable developer in an alt marketplace that makes their phone wonky, the consumer will blame Apple.
I payed through Apple today for a subscription service (around $100), that I will primarily consume on an Apple device. Guess what, Apple does not get 30% of that as it cost the same as on the organizations webpage.
Of course it's something that's not competing with Apple so they wave the ridiculous fee.
This arbitrary interpretation is the problem, coupled with the basic ban on every other payment solution other than Apple's. You have to be blind to not realize that they do use this against their competitors.
Microsoft has been fined for less than that...
Apples days of charging competitors 30% and banning them from pointing their customers in the direction of its own sign up page in their iOS app is numbered, particularly in Europe.
Spotifys complaint definitely has legs.
If you were logged in on Safari when you posted that you owe Apple a 30% commission.
If you don't like it build your own computing platform, with its own browser and post it from that.
Spotifys complaint definitely has legs.
If you were logged in on Safari when you posted that you owe Apple a 30% commission.
If you don't like it build your own computing platform, with its own browser and post it from that.
Spotify is burning investor money and it is not profitable inspite of many registered users. Another Hipster company trying to harvest its own customer data whining why Apple isnt letting it do that.
And here is the crux of the issue that half of this thread is wilfully ignoring. Apple ban any mention of alternative subscription method to in app purchase. Its blatantly anti competitive.
Their complaint has nothing to do with that at all.
Of course that is nonsense. It has nothing to do with competing or not competing with Apple. They don't just waive fees, they have the same rules for everyone. Why not be clear which service this is so you we can show you how you are misunderstanding the rules. Or are you just BS'ing with vague made up claims?
There is nothing arbitrary about it. The rules are clear, and have been very stable over time, and have nothing to do with competing with Apple or not.
Less than what, imaginary complaints based on your mistaken assumptions?
Whether it was intended when the App Store rules were implemented the 30% becomes anti competitive the moment Apple starts offering its own services that compete with the likes of Netflix and Spotify whilst charging them the 30%.
Even more so when you ban them from directing their customers to a payment method from which Apple doesn't take a cut from their iOS app.
Allowing companies to use their own payment methods would defeat the point of Apple having a 30% cut on App Store transactions.
That’s the whole issue. Who in their right mind would ever go through iTunes billing if they could get around it?