Not at all. I am not tied to Apple Music. I took a 3 month break from Apple Music when I was using 3 month Amazon music trial. I may use AM for few months a year, and not worry about my music in cloud with iTunes Match. It’s cheaper and I am not going through pain of uploading again or lose music when I cancel AM subscription.
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 iOS to Bring Back In-App Purchases, Beta Code Suggests [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple provides platform not dumb payment processing. If it was as simple as payment processing Spotify should easily make their own devices, OS, API and their own store. It’s no different than Xbox, PS and others.
Last edited:
iTunes Match matches songs based on acoustic fingerprinting, not metadata AFAIK and has bern reported:
https://www.cultofmac.com/383971/apple-music-metadata/
https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/218969/apple-music-vs-itunes-match
You can use dozens of hotel booking platforms from your iOS device, without being forced or locked into a specific platform or payment provider.
They provide a platform that Spotify neither needs nor requires to conduct subscription transactions with users (from a technical or business point). It’s just that Apple can force usage of their own in-app purchasing mechanism (and commissions) on Spotifyhen they want to offer such transactions in-app, where it’d be most convenient for users. Just because they could banish Spotify’s app from the App Store at any time.
Last edited:
Yet, I have a perfectly unmatched music uploaded in cloud from 2011. I am 100% sure it is not just iTunes acoustic match. iTunes would never match my tracks ripped from CDs with out metadata and had title track 1,2 and so on. Heck if iTunes was smart enough to match and tag tracks with out meta data, It would have saved me time from manually tagging. May be they can match tracks bought on iTunes easily, but not ripped from my CD collection.
If Apple isn’t needed by Spotify, then pull out the app store. It’s not a big deal if it is not important for them.
Last edited:
No it is very different. You miss the big key part. Apple requires you to use their payment system for subscriptions and what not. Those others do not but I dont expect you to understand that or get it as any one spitting off that long strings list like make your own XYZ and so on proves they dont understand how monopolies work. Follow then complaining when regulators are starting to question apple and push them on this monopoliy behavior. The very same regulators that are the ONLY reason Apple is not a foot note in history. They are the same ones that saved Apple from being squashed like a bug by MS. Now Apple is becoming in some ways worse than MS.
Also it is pretty clear you dont understand what I was trying to explain. You just saw I called Apple out on requiring to pay the massive tax and being nothing more than a payment processor for subscriptions.
I am able to purchase games for my Nintendo switch online using credit cards, and I am pretty sure Nintendo still gets their cut.
In countries like South Korea, Apple still charges developers a fee (27%) even if they are allowed to use their own payment processor. So even if Spotify were allowed to bypass iTunes, the implication is that they still wouldn’t be allowed to keep 100% of the revenue (minus payment processing fees).
I feel the argument here isn’t whether Spotify (or any other company) should be allowed to use their own payment processing system or not, but whether Apple is within their rights to charge developers a cut of their earnings simply by virtue of Apple owning the platform and controlling the means of distribution.
Apple could let Spotify use stripe, and still charge them an extra 26%. It would just be more troublesome for everyone, because Apple needs to invest in the added time and manpower to audit Spotify’s books (which is what Apple is doing with their small developer programme; they charge 15% for devs earning under $1 million).
We can argue until the cows come home as to what a reasonable cut for Apple is. It could be 5%, 10%, 12%, 26%, anything. The idea is that Apple does deserve something for the role they play in maintaining the App Store and facilitating transactions between the developers and the customers. iTunes is simply more convenient for Apple in terms of bookkeeping.
What you are suggesting here is that every company should be allowed to publish their apps in the App Store, make use of Apple’s APIs and not need to pay Apple a single cent beyond that annual $99 developer fee. Effectively making the App Store a loss leader because Apple still invests in people to screen apps and police the App Store.
I fail to see the logic in that.
Here is rhe part of your argument where things fall apart. Provide another way to put apps on the iPhone not threw the strore. Apple chooses to block side loading and 3rd party App stores. That is Apple's choice. As such their Apple tax is rightfully question. Yes should they get some money yes. Should they be getting 15% for being a credit card processor for subscription no. The fee is way to high. The next questionable part is Apple offers a direct competing product to Spotify which Apple released much later. Now that tax has other things that should be questioned and Apple abusing their position squeezing out competition. It is not a level playing field. Again Apple choose to do it so question.
Allow side loading and apple argument is different. Allow 3rd party app store again different case.
Apple choose neither so rightfully question and should be look closely at for doing some of the same things MS did in the past. Remember with out heavy regulation Apple would be a foot notes of history of a failed computer manufacturer who tries their own OS and failed. The iPhone would not exist.
My point (which perhaps wasn't so clear above) is that Apple does a lot more than simply being a mere credit card processor.
They hire people to screen through apps, they develop APIs for developers to incorporate into their apps to make them better, the absence of sideloading means a lower incidence of app piracy, resulting in more sales for developers (and consequently, more revenue). Apple has also created a thriving marketplace, both by aggregating the best customers in the world (iPhone users tend to have more disposable income and a higher propensity to spend) and fostering a trusted environment for users to locate and purchase apps (for example, biometric authentication and iTunes means businesses never get my payment information, while Sign in with Apple streamlines the process of creating a new account while still protecting my user data).
The result of all this is that Apple has grown the pie for developers and resulted in more apps being purchased than if the developers had gone at it alone. The implication is that 70% of a larger pie still results in more money being made than 100% of a way smaller pie. In contrast, look at the state of the Google Play Store, which is riddled with scams and malware and brings in way less revenue than the iOS App Store, despite having way more users.
Maybe you have a few household brands who are popular enough that users will jump through any hoop to acquire them (god knows Epic tried to get Android users to sideload Fortnite onto their phones and failed miserably), but for most, there is no denying that it's simply easier transact via the App Store than to host your app on a third party website and hope users will visit it. Apple's value-add is how they have made it virtually frictionless for the purchase of apps.
This is more than what Visa or Mastercard has ever done (they simply provide the backend, everything else is handled by banks). Again, it's debatable how much Apple is entitled to collect for their efforts here, but I can at least make the argument that it ought to be more than whatever the credit card companies are charging.
Again, even if users were allowed to sideload apps, would Apple remain justified in charging developers a fee for apps downloaded outside of the App Store? Even if I were to buy a game cartridge for my Switch, Nintendo still gets a cut at the end of the day.
The problem isn't Apple being in direct competition with Spotify, but that the business of streaming music was never a sustainable one in the first place and at the end of the day, these companies are all serving the same filling.
Even if Apple bears some of the blame for charging Spotify 30% of their users' monthly subscription, why then did Spotify choose to go into this market in the first place, knowing full well that after giving their cut to both Apple and the record labels, they wouldn't be left with anything? This goes back to the problematic Silicon Valley mindset of prioritising market share over profits, thinking that once you have the user base, money will follow. Not seemingly realising that if you are losing money per customer, having more users on your platform just means your costs and your losses balloon accordingly as well.
Spotify also bears the brunt of the blame for conditioning users to expect a free flow of music content at just $10 a month (you can even get it free with ads, or $1 a month via countless promos). If the success of your business hinges on there being zero competition, then you never had a viable business model to begin with, and it was all a house of cards just waiting to fall. If Apple really wanted to drive a stake through Spotify, they could easily have undercut Spotify's monthly pricing, or even offered it free of charge.
The second problem is that what Spotify is offering isn't really differentiated, because it's the music labels who own the back catalogues and new music. Contrast this with video streaming, where each service at least has the option of deciding what shows they want to make, and are therefore able to differentiate their offerings based on content (eg: Disney focus on Marvel and Star Wars, HBO has DC and Game of Thrones, Netflix has Squid Games etc).
Third, another money pit is Spotify's free tier, which is probably costing them more money than they bring in in terms of ad revenue, and Spotify clearly hasn't had much success in converting them over to the paid tier. Notice how Apple doesn't offer a free, ad-supported tier? Maybe Apple is on to something.
Fourth, it's not like Spotify is available only on iPhones. Spotify has well over 500 million subscribers, many of whom are on Android and Windows, but somehow, Apple is singlehandedly to blame for all of Spotify's financial woes, because of their 30% cut which by Spotify's own admission, virtually nobody is even paying anymore?
Apple is nothing more than a convenient punching bag for Spotify to distract investors from the inconvenient truth their business model was never a financially sustainable one to begin with. It deserves to fail.
And fail it just might come 2026 when its $1.3 billion dollar debt matures and if Spotify is unable to service that amount.
A competitive music streaming services needs a native a for user experience (user controls, background streaming etc.).
Fully agree.
A reasonable cut is 0%.
Because
1. Apple doesn’t host the streaming service or its media
2. Apple have chosen to offer developers to publish their apps for free, once the yearly developer fee has been paid
3. Other store-type apps (Amazon, AliExpress, Robinhood, train and flight ticketing apps, etc.) do not pay commissions either, despite making millions or billions in sales through in-app purchases
I fully support that. Because they do allow almost every company to do that today: Amazon, Google, Meta/Facebook, Uber, etc. They all make use Apple‘s APIs. Heck, even Spotify does - given that they aren‘t offering in-App subscription at the moment.
There is a narrow subset of goods / services that is prohibited to be sold through in-app purchases without going through Apple‘s in-app purchasing system and Apple charging commissions: digital media content and in-app functionality (primarily gaming).
There is an obvious and notable overlap in these goods to Apple’s own competing business: their Gaming subscription, their TV subscription, their Music subscription and store, and their ebook store.
In other words: Apple is using their leverage of the iOS platform (and it’s signing certificates needed for apps to run) to selectively enforce use of their own (from a user perspective convenient) in-app purchasing system especially in markets where they’re competing themselves. That is anticompetitive.
It’s time for legislators and regulators to put an end to this anticompetitive discriminatory practice.
I don’t think the overlap is that obvious. Apple appears to be making a distinction between digital goods that are consumed on the device itself, vs physical goods and services you access using the phone as an intermediary (eg: groceries and ride hailing).
Otherwise, by your logic, Apple would be justified in charging Netflix and Spotify 30% if Apple didn’t have their own video and music streaming services. And Apple has been charging them long before Apple entered those markets.
Whether it’s a valid one is certainly up for debate, but I don’t really see it as anticompetitive or discriminatory. I still feel it’s all one giant misdirect. As if Spotify would suddenly be profitable enough overnight if Apple stopped charging them 15/30%. Their problems go way deeper than what a simple app store tax can resolve.
…and they’ve chosen to do all that for a flat 99$ developer membership. And there’s good reason for that: because having an attractive app ecosystem is essential in selling all those iOS devices at a premium price.
Again, they’ve chosen not to charge developers a per-download or per-app.
It would indeed be a much more equitable and fair pricing if they charged ever developer a small cut or flat download fee - regardless of how they’re making money or what they’re selling. Instead of discriminating developers of apps that contain or show digital goods.
I can’t tell you how often and obnoxious Apple have tried to push their “Free for 6 months” music subscriptio to me. They’re even still doing it today in the (system) settings of my iPad that I purchased in 2022.
[QUOTE="AppliedMicro, post: 32778327, member: 217228]
It would indeed be a much more equitable and fair pricing if they charged ever developer a small cut or flat download fee - regardless of how they’re making money or what they’re selling. Instead of discriminating developers of apps that contain or show digital goods.
[/QUOTE]
Equitable and fair for whom?
If I were a developer working on a free app for the fun of it, wouldn’t it be to my disadvantage to be charged a small fee every time someone downloaded my app when I am not making any money off it? Or if someone paid once for my app, but then proceeded to install and delete it multiple times. Would I be on the hook for multiple payments?
It seems reasonable to me that those who can pay more should pay more. Especially when stuff like IAPs have zero marginal cost and are basically free profit.
Maybe that’s a reason why physical goods aren’t taxed, because those do incur a marginal cost of production. Software typically doesn’t.
It would indeed be a much more equitable and fair pricing if they charged ever developer a small cut or flat download fee - regardless of how they’re making money or what they’re selling. Instead of discriminating developers of apps that contain or show digital goods.
[/QUOTE]
Equitable and fair for whom?
If I were a developer working on a free app for the fun of it, wouldn’t it be to my disadvantage to be charged a small fee every time someone downloaded my app when I am not making any money off it? Or if someone paid once for my app, but then proceeded to install and delete it multiple times. Would I be on the hook for multiple payments?
It seems reasonable to me that those who can pay more should pay more. Especially when stuff like IAPs have zero marginal cost and are basically free profit.
Maybe that’s a reason why physical goods aren’t taxed, because those do incur a marginal cost of production. Software typically doesn’t.
They have. They obviously anticipated the shift from physical media to streaming content consumption in customer behaviour. But whatever may have come first, they are now engaging in exactly all these markets where they’re able to leverage not having to pay 30%/15% commissions:
Does Apple mediate the rental of hotel rooms? No.
Train tickets? No.
Grocery sales? No.
Why not, when they have their own Maps application?
On the other hand:
Movies/TV series? Check.
Music? Check.
eBooks? Check.
Games? Check.
Fitness? Yeah, even digital fitness content.
Could Amazon or Expedia or Hotels.com pay more?
How much sales are they making through their apps - and how much of it goes to Apple as commission?
👉 There is no correlation between developers’ sales or being able to pay more - and Apple’s fees or commissions.
So they are for Apple.
Last edited:
That is an absolutely horrible take and skewed logic. If Spotify plays songs 2x that of Apple Music, they should be paying the artist 2x the amount that Apple does. Spotify flat out takes advantage of the artists. (as does Youtube Music)
You might want to check that. Youtube music payout is higher than Apple's.
If YouTube music is taking advantage of artist then so is Apple. Both pay about the same which is nearly double Spotify
Soundcharts | Market Intelligence for the Music Industry
That was 2019. Here is a more current listYou might want to check that. Youtube music payout is higher than Apple's.
If YouTube music is taking advantage of artist then so is Apple. Both pay about the same which is nearly double Spotify
Soundcharts | Market Intelligence for the Music Industry
soundcharts.com
Napster
$0.019 per stream
Tidal
$0.01284 per stream
Apple Music
$0.00783 per stream
Deezer
$0.0064 per stream
Spotify
$0.00437 per stream
Amazon
$0.00402 per stream
Pandora
$0.00133 per stream
YouTube
$0.0.00069 per view
Spotify is a parasite company.That was 2019. Here is a more current list
Napster
$0.019 per stream
Tidal
$0.01284 per stream
Apple Music
$0.00783 per stream
Deezer
$0.0064 per stream
Spotify
$0.00437 per stream
Amazon
$0.00402 per stream
Pandora
$0.00133 per stream
YouTube
$0.0.00069 per view
That was 2019. Here is a more current list
Napster
$0.019 per stream
Tidal
$0.01284 per stream
YouTube music is 0.008 per stream. Not the same thing as youtube. You are pulling the payout for music used on a video differrent source.
Basically YouTube music pays the same as Apple.
Apple Music
$0.00783 per stream
Deezer
$0.0064 per stream
Spotify
$0.00437 per stream
Amazon
$0.00402 per stream
Pandora
$0.00133 per stream
YouTube
$0.0.00069 per view
Umm youtube one is not the same.
That is for a video which is historically lower for other reasons. That is not music.
How much music streaming services pay per stream in 2023 - RouteNote Blog
It's incredibly hard to gauge exactly how much each music streaming service pays out and there's no definitive rate as it can vary widely from stream to stream depending on context, where the music was streamed, and more. But here are the most accurate rates for all of the top streaming services.
routenote.com
Sort of reminds me of how Apple takes advantage of developers with 30% take on in app purchases. But the Apple defenders always respond with the "don't like it, go play elsewhere" answer, so I guess the same defense works with Spotify, yet the artists are still there.
No it isn't, it is an accurate representation of how streaming royalties are paid.
The x amount per stream numbers are nonsense because streaming royalties are not paid like that.
Apple likes to quote that number because it makes them look good and because they are sore that Spotify reported their anticompetive business practices.
I thought they did when they did their PR hit piece on Spotify?
EDIT: Yes they did
Apple Music Claims It Pays Twice as Much Per Stream as Spotify
Apple Music claims it pays a penny per stream, a higher rate than Spotify, in a letter posted Friday on its artist dashboard.
variety.com
Well they weren't lying. Apple does pay more for every listen to the Label/Artist.I thought they did when they did their PR hit piece on Spotify?
EDIT: Yes they did
Apple Music Claims It Pays Twice as Much Per Stream as Spotify
Apple Music claims it pays a penny per stream, a higher rate than Spotify, in a letter posted Friday on its artist dashboard.
Down vote me all you want.I thought they did when they did their PR hit piece on Spotify?
EDIT: Yes they did
Apple Music Claims It Pays Twice as Much Per Stream as Spotify
Apple Music claims it pays a penny per stream, a higher rate than Spotify, in a letter posted Friday on its artist dashboard.
Read this more current article.
The payout for each stream on Spotify can range from $0.003 to $0.005.
Compared to Spotify, Apple Music pays a higher rate per stream. The exact amount varies from $0.006 to $0.008 per stream. This means you can earn $600-$800 for every 100,000 streams.
Tidal pays the most per stream.
How Much Music Streaming Services Pay Artists in 2023
Find out which streaming service pays musicians the most. See the payout rates of all major music streaming platforms, including Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal.
www.lalal.ai
Down vote me all you want.
Read this more current article.
The payout for each stream on Spotify can range from $0.003 to $0.005.
Compared to Spotify, Apple Music pays a higher rate per stream. The exact amount varies from $0.006 to $0.008 per stream. This means you can earn $600-$800 for every 100,000 streams.
Tidal pays the most per stream.
How Much Music Streaming Services Pay Artists in 2023
Find out which streaming service pays musicians the most. See the payout rates of all major music streaming platforms, including Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal.
Yeah would be very interesting if streaming royalties were paid on a per stream basis.
royalties from streaming services are calculated on a stream share basis (i.e. a song’s percentage of the service’s total number of streams)