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

[Rob_2811]

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?

They don't have to allow developers to use their own in app payment processing. If Spotify include text along the lines of "to upgrade to Spotify premium visit www.spotify.com/premium" in their next update, their update will not pass app review.

Any mention of any payment or subscription method other that Apples in app purchase is banned.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

Antitrust laws prevent you from doing whatever the hell you like WHEN YOU’RE A MONOPOLIST, which is the case here.

I’m with Spotify.

 

[DevNull0]

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.

But the competition is not taking a 30% cut. And the companies are not willing to pay the 30% fee which is the entire reason we are having this discussion.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Antitrust laws prevent you from doing whatever the hell you like WHEN YOU’RE A MONOPOLIST, which is the case here.

I’m with Spotify.

ACTUAL ATTORNEYS DISAGREE WITH YOU that Apple is a monopolist.

 

[DevNull0]

This is not how the economy works or how it should work.

That is exactly what I said. Yet apple thinks that is how it should work.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

ACTUAL ATTORNEYS DISAGREE WITH YOU that Apple is a monopolist.

I’m an actual antitrust attorney and this is my opinion.

 

[notabadname]

When you sell a product you make at a Bestbuy, Bestbuy gets a significant cut as well. You are not required to sell your widget at a Bestbuy. But if you do, you certainly aren’t going to see Bestbuy reimburse you 100% of the pre-tax price the consumer paid. If you use any point-of-sale that is not your own, the creator of that retail infrastructure is going to take a cut of the sale price. Simple. This is business 101. And if you gon’t like what that does to your final price point presented to the consumer, than don’t sell it there. But anyone who thinks Apple’s cut/percent to get access to their 1.3 billion active device user base is too high, simply does not understand the economies of scale. If you want access to that percent of the world’s population, its a very fair price to pay. That Apple gives the same App price structure to Spotify as it does other developers that don’t even directly compete with Apple, speaks volumes about the fairness of Apple’s fee. And shows the frivolous nature of this suit.

 

[mejsric]

Android Fans be like:
Haha iOS has little market share, android is winning.

You monopolist!

 

[AppleHaterLover]

When you sell a product you make at a Bestbuy, Bestbuy gets a significant cut as well. You are not required to sell your widget at a Bestbuy. But if you do, you certainly aren’t going to see Bestbuy reimburse you 100% of the pre-tax price the consumer paid. If you use any point-of-sale that is not your own, the creator of that retail infrastructure is going to take a cut of the sale price. Simple. This is business 101. And if you gon’t like what that does to your final price point presented to the consumer, than don’t sell it there. But anyone who thinks Apple’s cut/percent to get access to their 1.3 billion active device user base is too high, simply does not understand the economies of scale. If you want access to that percent of the world’s population, its a very fair price to pay. That Apple gives the same App price structure to Spotify as it does other developers that don’t even directly compete with Apple, speaks volumes about the fairness of Apple’s fee. And shows the frivolous nature of this suit.

You see, the problem is not only Apple’s cut (if it were only that, it’d probably be OK).

The problem is that Apple is actually crippling access to their platform for Spotify.

Apple watch app took ages and is crippled. Apple won’t allow Siri. No HomePod either.

They’re using their position in the smartphone platform market to leverage their position in the music platform market, which would be fair enough if it wasn’t disrupting access to 50%+ of the smartphone landscape.

 

[macfacts]

And when someone downloads an app from some disreputable developer in an alt marketplace that makes their phone wonky, the consumer will blame Apple.

You can buy PS4 games from any store yet there hasn't been any malware on PS4. Perhaps it is possible to keep malware out and have alternative app/game stores.
[doublepost=1552878147][/doublepost]

Android Fans be like:
Haha iOS has little market share, android is winning.

You monopolist!

It is actually iOS users that are calling apple a monopoly. It is a iOS user that has a lawsuit against apple (apple vs pepper).

 

[notabadname]

They don't have to allow developers to use their own in app payment processing. If Spotify include text along the lines of "to upgrade to Spotify premium visit www.spotify.com/premium" in their next update, their update will not pass app review.

Any mention of any payment or subscription method other that Apples in app purchase is banned.

As it should be. Apple should not be compelled to market against itself. If Apple is to be required to allow Spotify free access onto the App Store to simply tell people to leave the Apple eco system and subscribe to our product elsewhere, it would be against Apple’s business rights. Nothing stops Spotify from spending ad dollars in any open media avenue to advertise for consumers to come to Spotify.com and get a music subscription. But Apple should in no way be compelled to allow Spotify to advertise for free in Apple’s own curated ecosystem, to simple direct people out of that system to Spotify. Apple’s rules are completely fair. Again, Spotify is held to the same standard as every other App. They are not entitled to free “Ad airtime on the Apple Network” if I may make the TV analogy.

 

[Bytor65]

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.

That isn't the way business/law/world works. There multiple platforms out there all charging 30% and many compete with the customers of their platform. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo all offer 1st party games, and it doesn't transform into some kind of illegal anti-competitive move because they compete with their customers while saving 30%, and thus have an "unfair" advantage over other companies selling games on the platform.

This is a nonsensical argument that only finds fault with Apple for common industry practice.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I’m an actual antitrust attorney and this is my opinion.

Awesome! But I don’t know if you’re a good attorney or a bad attorney—or an attorney at all, since this is the Internet; every once in a while you can’t believe everything you read. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m sure if you post your analysis of why you believe Apple is a monopolist, it could be that one of the excellent attorneys here will chime in.

ETA:

They’re using their position in the smartphone platform market to leverage their position in the music platform market, which would be fair enough if it wasn’t disrupting access to 50%+ of the smartphone landscape.

Oh dear, did you base your opinion that Apple is a monopolist on your belief that Apple is disrupting access to 50+% of the smartphone landscape?

 

[waqas]

We need to break up these tech giants, and the ways they stifle competition. Spotify or Apple. We need to have more competition. How? I don’t know. But allowing special access features to some first party apps and not to others definitely makes the playing field not so level.

On the other hand, I can also see that there is a potential for misuse by third party. In that case then Apple/Google/Spotify should reach a compromise to make the field level.

 

[Bytor65]

You can buy PS4 games from any store yet there hasn't been any malware on PS4. Perhaps it is possible to keep malware out and have alternative app/game stores.

Now I see you really are arguing in bad faith, when you repeat the disingenuous argument I already shot down in this post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-nothing-wrong.2173562/page-30#post-27188675

PS4 games on physical media are not an alternative to Sony distribution, they are the end result of Sony distribution and really no different than the control Apple exerts over the App store apps.

Sony controls which games are allowed to be sold, and takes a large cut before any of the games can be sold on physical media. Sony has full control here, developer has NONE. Developers can't bypass Sony and sell PS4 games to directly to Walmart, you need both Sony's approval to make games for their platform and to pay Sony to access their platform.

Sony is the gateway, just like Apple is the gateway, there is no real difference in terms of control or the cut Sony gets. Just much less cut for the developer because now Sony gets its cut AND the distribution channel gets its cut.

Developer -> Apple Gateway and cut -> App Store
Developer -> Sony Gateway and cut -> Physical media (and distribution cut)

This has all the negatives you argue exist in the App store, plus the additional cost of physical distribution on top.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

Awesome! But I don’t know if you’re a good attorney or a bad attorney—or an attorney at all, since this is the Internet; every once in a while you can’t believe everything you read. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m sure if you post your analysis of why you believe Apple is a monopolist, it could be that one of the excellent attorneys here will chime in.

There are many better things I could brag about being on the Internet.

I’m a fighter pilot! I’m an elite sniper.

But in all honesty: think about how Apple owns a significant chunk of the smartphone platform landscape (iOS) and how they could be using their position to block access to audio streaming platforms to favor Apple Music. You could say “fair enough, it’s their platform”, but since their share is so high,
many laws around the world would prohibit you from doing such a thing.

But that’s just my fighter pilot opinion.

 

[PickUrPoison]

There are many better things I could brag about being on the Internet.

I’m a fighter pilot! I’m an elite sniper.

But in all honesty: think about how Apple owns a significant chunk of the smartphone platform landscape (iOS) and how they could be using their position to block access to audio streaming platforms to favor Apple Music. You could say “fair enough, it’s their platform”, but since their share is so high,
many laws around the world would prohibit you from doing such a thing.

But that’s just my fighter pilot opinion.

Apple owns a “significant chunk” or “50+%”, and is that relevant to Spotify’s lawsuit?

 

[0947347]

They don't have to allow developers to use their own in app payment processing. If Spotify include text along the lines of "to upgrade to Spotify premium visit www.spotify.com/premium" in their next update, their update will not pass app review.

Any mention of any payment or subscription method other that Apples in app purchase is banned.

So they do it in a form of ads right in the app.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

Apple owns a “significant chunk” or “50+%”, and is that relevant to Spotify’s lawsuit?

Sorry for attemtping to bring actual arguments into the discussion.

With such “did you????” and “difference between significant chunk vs. 50%” level stuff, I guess my efforts have been fruitless.

Have a nice week.

 

[macfacts]

Now I see you really are arguing in bad faith, when you repeat the disingenuous argument I already shot down in this post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...e-nothing-wrong.2173562/page-30#post-27188675

PS4 games on physical media are not an alternative to Sony distribution, they are the end result of Sony distribution and really no different than the control Apple exerts over the App store apps.

Sony controls which games are allowed to be sold, and takes a large cut before any of the games can be sold on physical media. Sony has full control here, developer has NONE. Developers can't bypass Sony and sell PS4 games to directly to Walmart, you need both Sony's approval to make games for their platform and to pay Sony to access their platform.

Sony is the gateway, just like Apple is the gateway, there is no real difference in terms of control or the cut Sony gets. Just much less cut for the developer because now Sony gets its cut AND the distribution channel gets its cut.

Developer -> Apple Gateway and cut -> App Store
Developer -> Sony Gateway and cut -> Physical media (and distribution cut)

This has all the negatives you argue exist in the App store, plus the additional cost of physical distribution on top.

Everything you listed that Sony does is not illegal and no one is saying apple can't do those same things.

 

[Mendota]

What Microsoft did to get sued was include an internet browser that they made to accompany the operating system that they made that was installed on the computers that people willingly bought that they knew %100 had Windows and Internet Explorer installed. They could have bought a computer that had a different operating system. Just as Microsoft included a music player called Windows Media Player and a photo viewer called Microsoft Paint and text editor called Notepad, those "horrible people" included a simple basic program to view the internet as part of their OS to do the basic things that people expected, just exactly as Apple has. If the didn't make Internet Explorer then they would have included Netscape and Netscape would have been sued for the "audacity" of being popular. That is it. There is nothing any bit what so ever wrong with what they did. Apple includes Text Edit, Safari, iTunes, Preview and its ok. Absolutely every single person back then could have downloaded their preferred internet browser, they could have installed Netscape or Mosaic or Opera or Lynx or they could have installed their preferred music player or photo viewer or text editor. It's not any different then Apple including Safari with macOS and iOS along with Apple Music and Text Edit or iTunes or Preview. Literally no different any bit what so ever aside from the FACT that Apple won't even let you change the default internet browser or camera app on iOS from Safari or the camera app. So what I'm saying is, if you google facts, why wouldn't you defend Microsoft in the 90's? They didn't do anything wrong.

You are right, but the non tech people in the Justice department didn't understand that. They actually thought of Windows as a utility that everyone should have access too. Their actions were the primary reason Microsoft had to wait as long as they did to include their own utilities such as built in virus scanner, and system tools. Now we have a different view of business in this country that has gone to the other extreme and companies such as Comcast, Google, and even Apple, etc are taking full advantage.

 

[fairuz]

That is exactly what I said. Yet apple thinks that is how it should work.

No, I mean the "Apple has less of leg to stand on than the carmakers would with that idea" part. It's Apple's store, they do what they want with it, and they charge 10% because people are willing to pay it. Carmakers don't own the refueling stations, except for Tesla in some cases. There can be intervention for anticompetitive practices like discriminating against competitors, but no central authority decides things like transaction fee percentages.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Sorry for attemtping to bring actual arguments into the discussion.

With such “did you????” and “difference between significant chunk vs. 50%” level stuff, I guess my efforts have been fruitless.

Have a nice week.

Well, whether you realize it or not, you did change your characterization of Apple’s degree of platform ownership. “Significant chunk” is much less precise than 50+%, wouldn’t you agree?

That’s why I asked whether, as an “antitrust attorney”, you could clarify/comment as to whether it is even germane to Spotify’s case.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to scare you away from our discussion; it might have been informative if you’d only deigned to offer your analysis. #sorrynotsorry

 

[Abazigal]

We need to break up these tech giants, and the ways they stifle competition. Spotify or Apple. We need to have more competition. How? I don’t know. But allowing special access features to some first party apps and not to others definitely makes the playing field not so level.

On the other hand, I can also see that there is a potential for misuse by third party. In that case then Apple/Google/Spotify should reach a compromise to make the field level.

The solution to me is simple.

Have your own first party offering like what Apple has done. If I am using Apple Music, I don't have to worry about third party abuse because I trust Apple to police themselves better than any other third party developer out there, nor do I find myself beholden to a third party developer. At the same time, Apple is in a better position to integrate their own offerings into their ecosystem than third party developers. I also expect Apple Music to be around a lot longer than Spotify, at any rate.

For every one person claiming how competition benefits them, I can also argue how Apple's stance has benefited me as a consumer, and how doing what Spotify claims would actually be to my own disadvantage. I am an Apple user because of its unique user experience which stems from Apple doing the very exact thing that they are now being criticised for - making their own hardware, software and services which they integrate together on a system level. I respect and value Apple's heavy-handed control over every aspect of their platform, because that is what has allowed for a safe, secure and seamless experience for me.

The safest hands are still your own.

 

[ipponrg]

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?

Small shops and indie devs that don’t have the resources to manage the payments themselves.