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

[DevNull0]

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.

It's Apple's store that gives an opportunity to stream music. And it's the carmaker's product that makes gas useful.

What Apple is doing is absolutely anticompetitive. You can't load an app into your customer's phone except Apple's way. It would be the same as the carmaker only allowing gas to be filled their way. And there are plenty of artificial technical ways they can accomplish that, just as Apple's way for apps is an artificial limitation enforced by encryption tech.

 

[MEJHarrison]

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.

Yes, the competition is taking 30%. Google charges you 30%. Microsoft does. Various console platforms do. Amazon, from what I've read in this thread, actually takes 40%. Apple is right in line with the competition.

 

[DevNull0]

"According to Spotify, Apple makes life difficult for any service that tries to get around the 30% fee."

Google allows the dev to put buy links in their App and handle the transaction through their own payment processor and not pay Google a cent. Apple does not.

Google allows you to use alternate App stores, you don't have to use google play at all, I know Amazon has one. And it's easy to sideload apps. Apple does not allow alternate app stores without jailbreaking. Amazon offers some great perks to Android customers who load apps through their app store. These perks are not possible with Apple since the dev has to pay the Apple-tax.

I don't use spotify, but I do use Audible. I can't do anything with the iPhone app except play audio. Based on what I read in the Audible subreddit, the Android users seem to have a great shopping experience. Without Google taking a cut.

Similarly, Amazon does not force apps to use them as a payment processor for a 40% cut. It's up to the app dev.

This is why Apple is anti-competitive while Google and Amazon are not.

 

[navigates]

Read the timeline applefanboys. The link is posted below your convenience. Its clear Apple is violating Fairplay and its gone unchecked for a long time. Spotify is a business and competition brings the price down. You can't charge a 30% tax and then low ball your competition yourself.

https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/

It's like how UAE Airlines get subsidized rates on their flights where other airlines have to pay a full price. Didn't the US Airlines coalition file a case as well?

As my work permits, I have seen apple's rejection routine far too close to understand what Spotify must be facing.
PS: Apple music is good, has the content but the playlists are garbage. Other services do a much better job.

Don't get me wrong. I love the iPhone but it stops there. I do like the iPhone just because I'm used to it.
Remember, Apple does not allow you to downgrade on the device you have paid for. Apple removes features calling it "security" /pptp. They have resisted touch screens on laptops primarily due to the iPad market. It hasn't made it to a trillion dollar for nothing. Its unfair practices that we fall prey to so when a company stands up, we read comments like
"get a room".

 

[fairuz]

It's Apple's store that gives an opportunity to stream music. And it's the carmaker's product that makes gas useful.

I'm not sure if I understand. You're saying that because carmakers make gasoline useful, yet they don't take a cut of the gasoline sales, Apple shouldn't take a cut of something that they've made useful? If so, it's what I said before, Apple owns their store while carmakers don't own the pumps. I'll bet carmakers wanted the gasoline to be generic and standardized too.

What Apple is doing is absolutely anticompetitive. You can't load an app into your customer's phone except Apple's way. It would be the same as the carmaker only allowing gas to be filled their way. And there are plenty of artificial technical ways they can accomplish that, just as Apple's way for apps is an artificial limitation enforced by encryption tech.

Yeah, I think this is possibly true. The only reason I don't mind is they've got such a small minority of the market share, and services and consumers can freely or switch to Android, so the competition is still there at a courser-grained level and IMO doesn't need regulation just yet. Edit: As the guy below mentioned, there are webapps, so it seems fair enough to just enforce that Apple reasonably conforms to the web standards.

 

[mentaluproar]

30% seems high, but $99 plus 15% a sale seems fine to me. They aren't just putting your app on a server hosting for customers. There is a lot of oversight on iOS. malware is rare there and death with very quickly. Apple spends more operating their service, people are willing to pay more to use it, but Spotify isn't willing to play along. Fine. Host a web app instead.

 

[sidewinder3000]

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]
That’s an interesting data point, but I’m not sure it’s proof that alrnate app stores could be safe. There are obviously way more iOS devices than PlayStation, the payoff is bigger for thieves because there is much more of people’s lives in the phones, so it’s a much bigger target for potential hackers. Not sure how much incentive their is to hack PlayStation.

I also don’t know enough about the technical aspects of the PlayStation OS or video game consoles in general, so I don’t know if they have an inherent technical advantage that makes hacking and malware less possible. Something about the closed loop nature of games tells me that game consoles are inherently less susceptible to mischief, but again, that’s beyond my technical ken. Just a hunch.

 

[fairuz]

30% seems high, but $99 plus 15% a sale seems fine to me. They aren't just putting your app on a server hosting for customers. There is a lot of oversight on iOS. malware is rare there and death with very quickly. Apple spends more operating their service, people are willing to pay more to use it, but Spotify isn't willing to play along. Fine. Host a web app instead.

All this, and Apple gives you an SDK and libraries to work with. It's a lot.
[doublepost=1552889179][/doublepost]

That’s an interesting data point, but I’m not sure it’s proof that alrnate app stores could be safe. There are obviously way more iOS devices than PlayStation, the payoff is bigger for thieves because there is much more of people’s lives in the phones, so it’s a much bigger target for potential hackers. Not sure how much incentive their is to hack PlayStation.

I also don’t know enough about the technical aspects of the PlayStation OS or video game consoles in general, so I don’t know if they have an inherent technical advantage that makes hacking and malware less possible. Something about the closed loop nature of games tells me that game consoles are inherently less susceptible to mischief, but again, that’s beyond my technical ken. Just a hunch.

From what I've seen, even the way it is on Android isn't very safe. The fact that people download anti-malware for Android (which are sometimes malware themselves) is insane.

I think PS4 games still require centralized approval if they're anything like the other consoles, but I haven't checked myself.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

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

OR they are a responsible human being that takes responsibility for their actions and doesn't need to be taken care of by a company that thinks they know better than you.

 

[sidewinder3000]

OR they are a responsible human being that takes responsibility for their actions and doesn't need to be taken care of by a company that thinks they know better than you.

Relying on people to be responsible for their own technical success is a terrible idea and an absolute recipe for disaster. Apple does the exact opposite of what you are suggesting, and it has made them the most profitable company on earth.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Relying on people to be responsible for their own technical success is a terrible idea and an absolute recipe for disaster. how old days exact opposite of what you are suggesting, and it has made them the most profitable company on earth.

Oh I see, taking over people's "technical success" has made Apple the most profitable company on earth (not being lucky that it turns out everybody wants a phone and Apple sells expensive phones, mmmmm)

 

[BvizioN]

Everything that Apple said is true.
But 30%? Are you kidding me, even 15%?
I would think services like this would expect 1-5%. Apple is greedy, pure and simple.

Hang on! Is this type of charge exclusive to Spotify, from other hundreds of millions of apps in the Apps store?
I don't think so.
So Spotify can just go and **** themselves if they don't like it. Bunch of whiners.

 

[Romeo_Nightfall]

We can agree that we disagree, lots of comments here.
normally that shows that something is wrong, otherwise people won't argue that intensly - at least wrong for a lot of people.

my easy solution is always - let the customer decide - them who are for the apple tax should pay it - them not wanting it shall be able to NOT pay it!

 

[JCCL]

Apple makes the hardware and software. They can do whatever they want with their platform. Nobody is forcing Spotify to be available on iOS, and can make their own mobile device and operating system if they want to do what their heart desires. Microsoft was fined over IE because they forced the default app on hardware that didn't belong to them. Apple's vertical ecosystem gives them freedom to do whatever they want.

Are you for real? Do you know that us customers are the first ones harmed if companies could actually go like this? And no, once I bought my iPhone from Apple, it is mine and I have the freedom to do whatever I want with it, not Apple.....
[doublepost=1552890834][/doublepost]

Microsoft only supplied the software. Monopolizing third party hardware is against the rules. Controlling your own platform is not.

I'm quite sure that's not how it works.........in Microsoft's case it is their Software platform, and hardware manufacturers were free to use install that or whatever alternative available......problem was there weren't much for the average customer. If iPhone had the same market share Windows had in the 90s then they would probably be the same issue.

 

[Cankoda]

While I and most others agree, that has zero relevance to the issue here.

Yes it does, Spotify is complaining about Apple taking to big of a cut while they themselves don't give a big enough cut themselves

 

[tw1ll]

Seems to be two issues:
- the flat fee which seems unreasonable and at variance with commercial practice in most industries. Apple may have substantial development and administrative costs to recover but for high volume apps I doubt very much the variable cost element amounts to 30% and I imagine most of the capital investment in creating the app store was sunk/recovered long ago.
- the conflict of interest that Apple music represents. Hiding behind a “we treat all app owners the same” does not provide a strong enough defence to accusations of market rigging.

 

[Cankoda]

Except Apple is not on the business of a lot of apps, but it is competing with Spotify in the music streaming service.

So I would say their complaint is very valid.

Still not so valid though. One company can have different divisions with different goals.

Ie. Samsung makes smartphones and is a direct competitor to Apple but also makes the display in the iPhone

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Still not so valid though. One company can have different divisions with different goals.

Ie. Samsung makes smartphones and is a direct competitor to Apple but also makes the display in the iPhone

I always find it funny when people bring up Samsung saying they make smartphones as well as parts for the iPhone; as if those are the only two things in existance. Samsung makes parts for OTHER ANDROID PHONES TOO. No-one ever brings that up.

 

[Cankoda]

I always find it funny when people bring up Samsung saying they make smartphones as well as parts for the iPhone; as if those are the only two things in existance. Samsung makes parts for OTHER ANDROID PHONES TOO. No-one ever brings that up.

Yea other Android phone which are still competitors just wasn't the most relevant thing to mention....

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Yea other Android phone which are still competitors just wasn't the most relevant thing to mention....

Lets say you are a company, you make things. Samsung make a phone (which is made of parts), you sell parts to Apple, you sell parts to every other Android vender out there. You are selling your (Samsung) parts to 100% of the mobile market; but Apple fans can't stomach that.

 

[Cankoda]

Lets say you are a company, you make things. Samsung make a phone (which is made of parts), you sell parts to Apple, you sell parts to every other Android vender out there. You are selling your (Samsung) parts to 100% of the mobile market; but Apple fans can't stomach that.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Samsung isn't the only display maker and other companies do use other displays. Plus this isn't a conversation about Samsung's business practices it's about Apple and Spotify, just used them as an example before you got all "Android phones have screens to"

 

[Mr D]

Everything that Apple said is true.
But 30%? Are you kidding me, even 15%?
I would think services like this would expect 1-5%. Apple is greedy, pure and simple.

What makes you say 30% first year + 15% thereafter isn't fair? Who are you to say it's not fair?

Do you know the costs that it takes to run the app store?

1-5%? Are you kidding me? So Apple should charge what the services like and not what is fair to them?

People always see a mirror of themselves in situations. I don't know if how apple's financials break down for the app store + payment system, but I know damn well if I'm creating as much value as Apple is I'm not just charging 1-5%.
[doublepost=1552898166][/doublepost]

"According to Spotify, Apple makes life difficult for any service that tries to get around the 30% fee."

Google allows the dev to put buy links in their App and handle the transaction through their own payment processor and not pay Google a cent. Apple does not.

Google allows you to use alternate App stores, you don't have to use google play at all, I know Amazon has one. And it's easy to sideload apps. Apple does not allow alternate app stores without jailbreaking. Amazon offers some great perks to Android customers who load apps through their app store. These perks are not possible with Apple since the dev has to pay the Apple-tax.

I don't use spotify, but I do use Audible. I can't do anything with the iPhone app except play audio. Based on what I read in the Audible subreddit, the Android users seem to have a great shopping experience. Without Google taking a cut.

Similarly, Amazon does not force apps to use them as a payment processor for a 40% cut. It's up to the app dev.

This is why Apple is anti-competitive while Google and Amazon are not.

I'm not sure why this anti-competitive when ALL apps are held to the same standard.

People out here asking for Apple to be like inferior app stores.

Are you guys even listening to the logic?

Apple wants to give it's consumers a specific experience. It should have the right to do so. They make the hardware - they make the software. Closed looped.

If Apple's way wasn't the best way for consumers, the market would show it.

 

[shaunp]

This narrative about calling Apple a “monopoly” is just so wrong. The App Store is a platform with millions of apps, and there’s plenty of competition. If Apple made every app, they’d have a point.

I think the argument is Spotify on iPhone an only be installed through the App Store. Which means Apple get's 30% of the subscription price, and in turn Spotify need to up the price of the service making it uncompetitive compared to Apple Music as that is effectively 30% cheaper as Apple own the App, the App Store and the music service.

If Spotify subscriptions on Apple devices can be managed via the Spotify website and the App is only there to connect to the service this could be a way around that problem. I subscribe via the web, but I use an Android app to connect to Spotify. Don't know if this works the same way as Apple.

 

[Mr D]

It is absolutely insane how people want to try and say the way google or amazon does it is the right way - yet they're inferior products/services.

You're not a king until they come for your head.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

but I know damn well if I'm creating as much value as Apple is I'm not just charging 1-5%.

Are Apple creating value (how?) or is the app-store valuable because of apps by third parties?