Spotify Sides With Epic Games in Battle Against Apple's App Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Christian 5G
macrumors 65816
We might start seeing other game and apps companies joining in the next few days. Fortnite is pretty big if you don't keep up with the games.
The Spotify CEO is a scumbag who rips off music artists, Apple pas artists higher than spotify
On Xbox you have to use Microsoft’s store
On PlayStation you have to use Sony’s store
On Nintendo you have to use Nintendo’s store, see a pattern here?
Epic made 1.8 billion, BILLION without Apple that would not have happened.
Apple isn’t perfect but they do treat everyone the same
Also google pulled it down too
On Xbox you have to use Microsoft’s store
On PlayStation you have to use Sony’s store
On Nintendo you have to use Nintendo’s store, see a pattern here?
Epic made 1.8 billion, BILLION without Apple that would not have happened.
Apple isn’t perfect but they do treat everyone the same
Also google pulled it down too
falainber
macrumors 68040
There is this thing called Internet. Software developers have direct access to all people who own iOS devices. They do not need Apple for that. Also, if Apple business practices prevail, what's to stop internet providers from charging 30% fee for everything you buy on the Internet including digital goods from App Store?
Yamcha
macrumors 68000
The issue doesn't seem to be with the 30% fees. It's more to do with the fact that Apple is not allowing purchases outside of the App Store. Epic added an option for users to purchase outside of the App Store at discounted rates, and I guess that will affect Apple's bottom line for some in-app purchases.
I feel like Apple and Google should allow options for outside in-app purchases, but that's just my opinion. While it's true that these platforms have allowed developers to make money, these companies should also understand that without developers their stores don't mean anything. Had it not been for development teams investing time, money and effort to develop apps for their platforms, Apple and Google would not have been in the position they are in today.
So yeah, not sure who to side with on this one. I feel like if you're taking 30%, then you should allow outside in-app purchases. It's not like Apple created these games, all they've done is provided developers with a platform to submit these apps/games. I get that there are fees involved with servers and things of that nature, but I'm pretty sure Apple makes a lot of profit even when you put those fees into consideration.
I feel like Apple and Google should allow options for outside in-app purchases, but that's just my opinion. While it's true that these platforms have allowed developers to make money, these companies should also understand that without developers their stores don't mean anything. Had it not been for development teams investing time, money and effort to develop apps for their platforms, Apple and Google would not have been in the position they are in today.
So yeah, not sure who to side with on this one. I feel like if you're taking 30%, then you should allow outside in-app purchases. It's not like Apple created these games, all they've done is provided developers with a platform to submit these apps/games. I get that there are fees involved with servers and things of that nature, but I'm pretty sure Apple makes a lot of profit even when you put those fees into consideration.
i-John
macrumors 6502a
They do have the resources to provide financial and legal assitance though. When in court, they can file legal briefs on their behalf as well, which is actually just more than an opinion and is listened to in legal cases.
"Not forcing people to buy" worked in 2008. With market share and their might in the market, it's not the same anymore.
If they are forcing people to use their payment system, charge the fees that competing services do. Average processing charge 1.3%-1.5% to process a credit card. Apple charges 30% and you have no option to use someone else. If you can't see a problem with that, then God help you.
In 2008 that would be a defense. In 2020, not so much simply due to market share and the fact that billions have invested into the platform (both developers and conmsumers). Remember, Microsoft were found guilty and fined because they only installed Internet Explorer and didn't openly offer a competing browser, even though they could freely go get another one.
This effects consumers and all I see is people defending a trillion dollar company. When developers win, Apple wins, the consumer wins.
They should as the average processing fee for credit cards is less than 1.5%. All they are doing is processing a credit card charge on a service they don't host.
If they competed with other credit card processors on a level playing field, most likely most developers would keep them out of convenience. I don't even think they have an issue with being forced to use them, it's the fees that is charged that they have an issue with. What Epic wants is if Apple wants to charge 30%, then they want competition.
If you're forced to buy from that store, and they only accept Visa, then yes. If you can go down the street and get the same stuff with your Amex, then you have a choice.
Sedulous
macrumors 68030
They do take a piece of every transaction. It is called a lease and covers the cost providing the venue (the mall) in which the store operates.
Spotify does not get a day being that the are the dominant music streaming service. Spotify cry poor then brag about him much bigger than Apple Music they are. Would also like Epic to disclose how much money they made being the iOS App Store and how much they paid out to Apple. I bet Apples figure is way smaller.
This has probably been said, but the equivalent would be that a manufacturer puts a second price tag on its product, cutting out the retailer’s percentage, but still expecting the retailer to put the product into their store, maintain the store and pay all its employers from money made elsewhere.
mit would be irrelevant if there are additional App Stores. Each would take its own cut. Even if epic would make their own store they would take a cut to maintain that store and not sell at production cost.
mit would be irrelevant if there are additional App Stores. Each would take its own cut. Even if epic would make their own store they would take a cut to maintain that store and not sell at production cost.
Rogifan
macrumors Penryn
So how come not everyone has to pay this fee? If you’re Netflix you pay Apple nothing. If you’re Uber you pay Apple nothing. Tim Cook says 84% of the apps in the App Store are “free”. Do they not also have access to these 1.4 billion customers? And I would respectfully disagree that Apple acquired these customers for developers. I can’t remember the last app I downloaded because of Apple. Look at the top free apps in the App Store charts. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok, Zoom. I think it would be hard to argue those apps are popular because of Apple. Would Apple execs seriously argue those apps wouldn’t exist if not for Apple?
Sedulous
macrumors 68030
Not sure you really get it. Businesses pay dearly for AAA premium retail locations. It allows that business more opportunity to present themselves in a professional way to more customers. The more premium the space, the higher the lease. The Apple App Store is probably the most premium digital store front there is but some occupants do not want to pay to be there.
jonblatho
macrumors 68030
Yes, and then by pricing an individual subscription at, say, $12.99/mo they’d be priced out of competition with Apple Music, which has an individual subscription available at $9.99/mo.
I’ve said this multiple times: If IAP is so much better, users will gladly pay the extra $2 or $3 or whatever by choice. There are serious UX and privacy reasons to do so. Current App Store policies don’t allow for that, though; developers must pretend that IAP is the only way to pay for their service or in some cases they may be allowed to go sign-in-only.
The key phrase there, though, is “by choice.” Why is it “scummy” for a developer to list their own cheaper, competing option next to Apple’s option? What’s the option that’s not “scummy,” lying about the price they’d like to charge their customers?
jonblatho
macrumors 68030
Some occupants would seemingly rather not be there at all, but Apple doesn’t allow that.
Also, unless you get featured by Apple, the App Store generally won’t net you much in the way of organic purchases. Other than the lucky few apps that get featured, actually acquiring customers is left almost solely to the developers, and the boost from being featured is typically short-lived. (This is also neglecting the users like me who don’t even check the curated tabs in the App Store except by accident.)
Sedulous
macrumors 68030
The App Store is the premium property. Retailers lease space in that property to sell their wares (eg Fortnite). Customers take their purchases with them if the retailer allows it (IAP usually travels with the app, not tied to the OS). Not sure why you are saying customers have to destroy their “home”. If you buy the Superman skin in Fadnite on iOS, it will show up on your account if you loaded fadnite in android. Not all vendors offer this but that is not Apple’s problem.
Sedulous
macrumors 68030
It costs nothing to list an app on the store. It all gets subsidized by the big boys and their 30% cut to Apple. That is why Apple is trying to protect the status quo; it gives everyone an opportunity.
Maybe if Apple too have to pay an additional tax equivalent to what they charge competitors to have apps on the iPhone, they won’t be so quick to extort other cross-platform companies for being able to serve iOS device users.
Wanna charge Spotify 30% of revenue? Fine. Apple too needs to pay 30% more tax from Apple Music revenue as tax to the Government, above all the other taxes Spotify and Apple both pay. That will reflect how fair Apple really think their rent seeking behaviour is.
Wanna charge Spotify 30% of revenue? Fine. Apple too needs to pay 30% more tax from Apple Music revenue as tax to the Government, above all the other taxes Spotify and Apple both pay. That will reflect how fair Apple really think their rent seeking behaviour is.
Abazigal
Contributor
I don't see the logic. You can think of it as Apple paying 30% to itself, but it's really just changing numbers on a spreadsheet at the end of the day, and doesn't affect Apple's bottom line.
Not to mention that not every iOS spotify user is paying Apple that 30% cut (or 15% or whatever). Some may well have subscribed through the website and spotify gets to keep every last cent (after deducting processing fees and all).
At the end of the day, it's less about the money, and more about wanting to wrest control of the App Store away from Apple. Remember when Apple was able to dictate carrier terms to AT&T like not bundling any additional apps on their iPhone? These companies now want the same benefit as well - to be able to treat the App Store as just a dumb pipe and offer their apps the way they want to, while keeping every last cent.
Apple is no angel, but these companies like Epic and Spotify are not the martyrs you think are they are either.
Definitely it would've been more colorful if Jobs was still around. We would have an emergency keynote with Jobs lambasting Epic and the other "bad" developers, showing how the market works, how Apple approves tons of other apps, and etc etc.
And maybe Apple will give a free case for current iPhone owners.
derekamoss
macrumors 65816
On my xbox I can sign up for netflix in app without Microsoft forcing 30% on Netflix so you know, there is that..... When it comes to android, app developers can have their app downloaded from the play store and if they don't they can still allow it to be downloaded from there servers. Epic in Android could literally put an app on the Playstore that when you search fortnight and download it all it does is bring up a page with instructions to download Fortnight from epics website. The problem is apple wont let anyone say anywhere in an app that they can go here to signup/download/buy and its all because they want that 30% and they care about that more than they do you as a consumer being told instructions in an APP