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
That is not the point. If Apple pushes enough of them away that will change, and more and more of them will. Its like Apple's Pro Mac users... a significant chunk of them are gone. It didn't happen over night, but it did happen. Apple is going to piss off more companies as it tries to become a services company. And Apple's services have quite frankly always been confusing and sucked. How many times did they re-brand what is now iCloud? And don't get me started on PhotoStream/Photo Sharing/iCloud Photo Library.
No one is saying get rid of the App Store. It’s giving consumers the option to use the App Store as well as the own app developer/publisher website to download apps. What’s wrong with that? I hope you have the same concern of curation and security concerns when it comes to Mac apps from the App Store and from apps downloaded from developers websites. There’s always going to be security concerns downloading apps from websites, let consumers make their own decisions. As well as giving developers options and flexibility to host their own apps on their own websites. Download apps from developers you trust.
I think there’s something to be said for the criticism. I have a problem when a company that controls a platform leverages that control to offer up its own apps and services to compete with existing apps and services that beat them to market by making their own apps and services the default on their platform.
Microsoft did it with Internet Explorer and Edge and I view that behavior as dirty. Not as dirty as the “Windows isn’t done until Lotus Won’t Run” era but still pretty dirty.
I much prefer when a company that controls a platform rewards those they wish to compete with by either buying the company in question or coming to some kind of licensing agreement.
With that being said Apple didn’t create Apple Music to compete with Spotify. They bought an existing Spotify competitor and retooled the product. They did make Apple Music the de-facto streaming music app on their platform but at the time they did it Spotify had, and still has, millions more subscribers than Apple Music.
Spotify will always lead Apple in terms of the number of subscribers. Especially if they maintain their free, ad-supported tier. In that sense Apple Music really isn’t an all out competitor to Spotify. They compete in the add-free subscription music streaming market but they don’t compete in the free, ad-supported space.
Further Apple has zero advantage over Spotify on the Android platform and that platform remains the dominant platform globally. Plus it’s not like Spotify is the only streaming music service out there. Google has one, Amazon has one, etc.
So when you take all the facts together Apple is playing a little dirty on the platform it controls but I don’t think you can argue that they have a monopoly on anything other than their own platform, which again, isn’t the dominate platform on the market and never will be due to the cost of Apple made devices.
Microsoft did it with Internet Explorer and Edge and I view that behavior as dirty. Not as dirty as the “Windows isn’t done until Lotus Won’t Run” era but still pretty dirty.
I much prefer when a company that controls a platform rewards those they wish to compete with by either buying the company in question or coming to some kind of licensing agreement.
With that being said Apple didn’t create Apple Music to compete with Spotify. They bought an existing Spotify competitor and retooled the product. They did make Apple Music the de-facto streaming music app on their platform but at the time they did it Spotify had, and still has, millions more subscribers than Apple Music.
Spotify will always lead Apple in terms of the number of subscribers. Especially if they maintain their free, ad-supported tier. In that sense Apple Music really isn’t an all out competitor to Spotify. They compete in the add-free subscription music streaming market but they don’t compete in the free, ad-supported space.
Further Apple has zero advantage over Spotify on the Android platform and that platform remains the dominant platform globally. Plus it’s not like Spotify is the only streaming music service out there. Google has one, Amazon has one, etc.
So when you take all the facts together Apple is playing a little dirty on the platform it controls but I don’t think you can argue that they have a monopoly on anything other than their own platform, which again, isn’t the dominate platform on the market and never will be due to the cost of Apple made devices.
No, because monopolies are perfectly legal. (I don't think Apple has one, but even so!) What's not is engaging in predatory behaviour based on them.
I here you... you may be correct. I’m not a developer so you have more knowledge than me.
My question is this. If you compare Apple Music to Spotify side by side on a cost incurred basis... doesn’t Apple incur more costs to provide their streaming service than Spotify because the are providing their own infrastructure for distribution.? What would be a fair practice? This seems like it should be simple math problem. What is a fair “cut” of Spotify’s subscriptions to offset Apple distribution,development, ongoing support costs etc.
It would do more harm to Apple without Spotify. Apple may not realize it yet but one day they will regret throwing their partners that made them successful under the bus. When it comes down to it people care more about apps and services than the OS.
Sales tax alone is 8+% in the states. What planet are you on when a company pays for all the infrastructure to distribute your content, globally to over 1 billion users and you whine?
As an author I have 52 markets with exchange rates Apple manages all for me. I'm not about to whine.
I think people are missing the point. Apple is well within its rights to 15% or 30% or w/e it is from the app store. However, preventing apps from telling users that you can go on the site to purchase it cheaper or including a web browser in the app that allows them to do the purchase external from the app store is likely the issue.
I certainly used MS Windows software… but I also used Apple's offerings.
So… your point is… what?
Could be be more specific? Less snarky?
Income tax? Property tax? Liquor tax? Excise tax? Estate tax? Most taxes exceed 5%.
Considering Spotify has a terrible track record of development on Linux the only viable platform for them w/o creating an entire OS--they haven't the technical expertise or investment potential--their IPO is becoming very suspect at this point.
Siri has been offered if you read Apple's response and Spotify hasn't gotten around to implementing it.
The only cost Spotify doesn't pay for directly is distribution of the app itself. The music and content within the app is all loaded from Spotify's servers.
They're a Swedish company, headquartered in Sweden with their legal offices in Luxembourg.
Well, legal issues aside, I can think of one at least.
I would move to Android.
*shrug*
Small, I know, and not going to make the teeny weeniest dent in Apple's bottom line.
OTOH, would I be alone?
Amazon already does that. Then Spotify should just release their software on other stores if they don't want to pay for the exposure. Sorry that is life. You pay for being marketed and exposed to 1 Billion + users.
Apple started the pay-for-music scenario. They started the Apple Music store and stopped all the pirating. Streaming is just something that it morphed into.
Stopped? err… no… not at all.
Lessened? Sure… somewhat, and then only in some areas of the world.
You can't have a monopoly with 10% market share. Go away, Spotify.
[doublepost=1552764408][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1552764408][/doublepost]
Microsoft in the 90s had nearly everyone using Windows, Office, etc. You're complaining about what is a boutique brand in comparison.
I agree mostly.
I think that Apple picked 30% for distribution of paid apps so that the people who sell $5 games would help subsidize the distribution costs of the free apps that generate zero revenue themselves.
If you want to play the game (or sell the game), the only way to get it is to buy it via the app store or jailbreak your phone. But books and music can be easily bought outside of the app store, and those paid apps subsidize the distrubiton of the free book readers and music players.
When Spotify and Tidal, or Kindle and Nook only sell their books or music subscriptions outside of the App store, because the 30% cut is too steep to allow in-app purchases, I think that it hurts both parties. They might sell more books or subscriptions if they also allowed in-app purchases, but a lower fee would be needed entice them to do so - Then maybe Apple get's their 10%, rather than NONE of the 30%.
I would really like to buy my eBooks directly within the Kindle or Nook app, because I do it quite often. I only subscribe to Spotify or Tidal streaming service once, and so it's not that hard to go to the internet and purchase it there, one time.
I'm sure lots of people would just switch to Apple Music. And it'd be quite an illegal move on Apple's part.
[doublepost=1552764555][/doublepost]
Also, you can sign up for Spotify outside the app, and Apple doesn't take the 30% cut.
Anyway, this regulation talk is annoying. It's like they want all the brands to be the same Android-like crap. Apple controls 10% of the market and sells phones to relatively few people who are willing to pay a lot more. Just leave them be. Go after Amazon instead. They've taken over most of retail and probably made an illegal deal with the USPS.
Last edited: