Because Apple have their own Music service too, but want 30% of subscription charge for other services. That's the anticompetitive part. They both provide a music service and police other music services through their App Store and through their rules can make their own service the cheapest one.
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
Because Apple have their own Music service too, but want 30% of subscription charge for other services. That's the anticompetitive part. They both provide a music service and police other music services through their App Store and through their rules can make their own service the cheapest one.
Literally in Apple's response
"
- App business transactions where users sign up or purchase digital goods outside the app aren’t charged by Apple."
Hardware the works seamless with their software. The whole experience of iPhone with iOS.
App store is part of iOS.
It's a team effort, Apple collecting 30 + 15% tax is their valuation on their customers + cost of app store.
If that's possible then Spotify should prevent subscriptions through the App Store and have them managed through their web service. That's what logic should dictate anyway.
Firmly with Spotify on this one. Apple is indeed a monopolist. Much more than any other vendor with Android, because of the very nature of the OS.
Only if they sign up on iOS.
What about when retailers sell rebranded commodities? i.e. if you buy kirkland products from costco or up & up products from Target?
Apple has monopoly over their own App Store and iOS platform. But their 20% cell phone market share can hardly be considered a monopoly.
I agree here - it is a sticky slope.
What's the solution here?
If you ask Apple to remove fees for products that Apple also offers - do you remove fees for calendar apps, calculator apps etc?
Do you simply just allow competitors to advertise ways to pay for app on computer or browser?
Do you move fees to the payment system side?
Make new rule JUST for music streaming apps?
[doublepost=1552899731][/doublepost]
What does capital investment in app store being recovered long ago have to do with anything? Are they not allowed to profit on app store?
Don’t know why in cases like this Apple doesn’t say, you know what Spotify, thank you for your business, we have decided to move in a different direction with music services and no longer can accommodate your app on the iOS platform.
Leave it at that. Then Spotify could see if the 30% was worth it or not.
Leave it at that. Then Spotify could see if the 30% was worth it or not.
I think the answer for Spotify is - don't do subscriptions through the App Store. Do what Amazon do with their Kindle app and only have it for consuming content. Instead Spotify should only allow subscriptions to be managed through their won website. this would avoid any charges to Apple.
[doublepost=1552905234][/doublepost]
The answer is simple then, don't sign up on iOS, use the Spotify website instead.
Don't have an issue with Costco, etc selling rebranded stuff, most supermarkets do this anyway and I can price check and buy from where I like. Kirkland stuff is available from Amazon if I want that.
Apple spent billions developing the hardware and software and hundreds of millions to market it. Over time, they built up a huge user base and gave developers access to all those users.
I’d say 15-30% cut is more than fair. If a developer doesn’t like it, they can always do what Netflix did and force all subscriptions via the web.
The only greedy company in this scenario is Spotify. And as others mentioned, very hypocritical considering they’re unwilling to pay more to artists.
There are alternatives to App Store. Google
So you want Apple to pay themselves 30% for a first year and then 15% after that, then.
Apple pays artist more. If they would pay those 15% to the actual artist, would you sleep better?
If you go, let’s say Costco,
they sell regular brands and their own Kirkland (or what the name was).
Some people buy it, because it is cheaper, other people don’t buy it because it taste like sh;t. But a customer has got a choice this way. It’s on you what do you choose.
And, of course they will not charge themselves extra and cut their own branch under their own feet
Spotify: "You're a monopolist!"
Apple: "Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc."
Spotify: "A Monopolist would say that!"
Apple: "Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc."
Spotify: "A Monopolist would say that!"
Go to any store near where you live and find out what the markup is on products in the store. Does Levi’s expect to sell their jeans in Walmart for free? Why should Apple who have developed the platform not get paid for developing it and keeping it running. It’s absurd.
You should read the terms and conditions you agreed to when buying your phone then. You’d be surprised with what you’re not allowed to do with it. And that’s exactly what windows got in trouble for, read the case. The more you know.
That is really not the same thing. Walmart buys the things it sells, then resells them them at a higher price to profit. Apple isn’t buying the app and reselling it. Apple is just distributing it and charging the developer for that service.
They can charge what they want for the service but it is exorbitant imo. It certainly doesn’t cost them nearly as much to run/maintain.
A mix of both, but at this current point in time, I believe it is Apple which holds all the power in the relationship, because of the sheer number of developers. So the loss of any 1 or 2 apps is really no big loss to Apple because there will easily be tons of other developers rushing to fill that void with variations of the same app.
So it's not like you have any one app that is so influential that its absence would cause iOS users to abandon the platform, and I think Apple is also careful not to let any app reach this stage. It's like how no one seller seems to have any real dominant presence on Amazon, due to the sheer number of sellers on the platform. Apps have effectively been commoditised, and I don't see this status quo changing anytime soon unless there is some sort of massive defection of developers. But I don't see this happening either, since the iOS market continues to be far more lucrative compared to Android, and not selling apps simply means no paycheck.
Yeah, there was a user here that tried to convince me that having a simple toggle in the iOS Battery settings to turn on/off Fact Charge would be a bad user experience and would create a lot of confusion and problems for users. Mind blowing.
[doublepost=1552912299][/doublepost]
Netflix doesn't have any leverage, Spotify does because Spotify competes directly with Apple Music. This will matter immensely for the EU Commission and their final decision.
Apple and Sony do the same exact thing. You are mischaracterizing them as different.
You claim Apple MUST have alternate app stores, when Sony does not.
The reality is that the console business (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony) is locked down and controlled in exactly the same way as Apples App store.
Claiming otherwise is arguing in bad faith.
Also any kind of Ruling that Apple must allow third party App stores, should logically be applied to the gaming console market as well, likely destroying the game console business.
Last edited:
Exactly. Just like McDonald’s is a monopolist. Burger King has been trying for years to get McDonald’s to sell whoppers and McDonald’s refuses.
And what about the customers’ freedom to choose tacos? Why won’t mcdonald’s allow Taco Bell to sell gorditas in mcdonald’s?
It’s ridiculous. Such an obvious monopoly.
Nobody *really* pays the artists .... not what they're worth.
How much of a cut do you expect is yours on each sale of a software app via an online store like Steam or even the Apple store? Why would it be ok for any musician to receive less than that for a song or an album?
How much of a cut do you expect is yours on each sale of a software app via an online store like Steam or even the Apple store? Why would it be ok for any musician to receive less than that for a song or an album?
But also, the Samsung Mobile division buys hardware from the Samsung Semiconductor division, and they pay for it. Full price. They have to do that, so the company as a whole can figure out how much profit or loss each division makes. The same with Apple: You can be sure that Apple Music _pays_ fees to the AppStore.
[doublepost=1552915091][/doublepost]
If you were an antitrust attorney you wouldn't dare posting your opinion on a public forum.
[doublepost=1552915218][/doublepost]
Everyone has to decide for themselves what makes the most money. You can sell through iTunes. You can sell through your website or other means. You can do a combination of both. You can offer different prices on your website and on iTunes. Depending on your situation, you do what's best for you. Netflix does, and they sell mostly through their website. Spotify complains instead.
[doublepost=1552915380][/doublepost]
Apple has this principle that "everyone gets the exact same deal". That started when the iTunes Music store opened. Apple negotiated a deal with the biggest four record companies. And then they offered _everyone_ the exact same deals. No negotiations. The smallest record company got the exact same deal that the best lawyers and negotiators for the biggest record companies had agreed on.
[doublepost=1552915666][/doublepost]
Developers are not required and not allowed to use in-app purchases for physical goods, only for items that are intended to end up on your iPhone. Amazon is not allowed to sell CDs or DVDs through in-app purchases. eBay is not allowed to sell goods through in-app purchases, nor is your grocery store, nor is Uber or a taxi company. You are not required or allowed to sell a subscription for physical magazines (printed on paper) through in-app purchases either.
[doublepost=1552916192][/doublepost]
Uber _doesn't do any App Store transactions_.
I am not giving anyone guidance or advice on any specific law or regulation, so no issues here. This is the along the lines of same thing as “shooting someone in the face will probably get you arrested”. Applies basically equally around the world in general.
What your post, and so many others in this thread fail to realize, is that you, in someone like Apple’s shoes, literally cannot do whatever you want to your customers and competitors/customers when you’re larger than a certain size since choice is so limited.
If Apple is or isn’t in that position I don’t know, but if the powers that be decide that it is, it is probable that it cannot do whatever it wants. That’s it.
Well, that would be what you call a bad business model. So you are saying that Spotify started an unprofitable business? That's not Apple's problem and not Apple's fault.