You can move to another platform, and the same users can get your music. They won’t have to purchase another device to get your music.
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 Sides With Epic Games in Battle Against Apple's App Store Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be a shame as millions of us find the paid Premium Spotify in many ways a better service than Apple Music. You obviously disagree and nothing wrong with that
And this will be the only argument that Apple can use to defend themselves in court. However, this will not hold water. There are anti-competitive laws that say otherwise.
The problem with your argument is that the software distribution platform from which you suggest they move their app is the ONLY distribution platform allowed by Apple to exist on iOS. This makes Apple a monopoly, and so they have to comply with the laws that govern monopolies. Whether or not Apple could use the argument that no one is required to buy an iOS device and could buy an Android instead will be tested in court.
No, the point epic is making is that I have a right to use any platform to sell whatever I want and get 100% of the revenue without incurring any risk or expense.
I bought my iPhone X with the expectation that Apple controls the App Store 100%. Epic, by circumventing spirit of the App Store damages my experience as a customer because I can’t trust that all IAP are protected by Apple.
I could have purchased an android phone but I paid extra for a curated App Store.
The monopoly is on the app distribution system. Also, it must be proven in court that every consumer who buys an iOS device realizes that there is only one place to buy apps from. I would posit that the majority of consumers never even had this thought before they bought an iPhone. Finally, this fight is not between the consumer and Apple. This fight is between a service provider and Apple, so the monopoly argument applies to how the service provider is treated on the Apple platform.
If you were the only customer that Apple had, your argument may have helped Apple in court.
What if those apps are malicious and cause great harm to Apple customers (exposing Apple to great liability), or Apple itself?
30% is the gold standard. Sony, XBox, Nintendo, GameStop, Microsoft PC Store, etc. Apple is not alone.
Tell me, is it possible to buy games digitally through a different store on a PlayStation?
Ther is a middle ground between 30% and nothing. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would demand what you claim they are demanding.
So far I understood the following.
The US president wants to ban transactions with Tencent, because whatever. Now Epic games (owned 40% by Tencent) starts this fight with both Google and Apple, joined by Spotify, which has a deal with Tencent in China and owns shares of it which in turn owns shares of Spotify.
This fight smells to me as retaliation, showing the weight of Tencent (indirectly) and the ability to rally developers to, at the end of the day, eat into the revenues of Apple and Google's App Store cut. Moreover, the ability to own billing address and information, as opposed to receiving payment by Apple but not having said information, surely plays a role as well.
The US president wants to ban transactions with Tencent, because whatever. Now Epic games (owned 40% by Tencent) starts this fight with both Google and Apple, joined by Spotify, which has a deal with Tencent in China and owns shares of it which in turn owns shares of Spotify.
This fight smells to me as retaliation, showing the weight of Tencent (indirectly) and the ability to rally developers to, at the end of the day, eat into the revenues of Apple and Google's App Store cut. Moreover, the ability to own billing address and information, as opposed to receiving payment by Apple but not having said information, surely plays a role as well.
Well... If @4jasontv was the only customer Apple had, they would still hold a monopoly according to your interpretation. Your definition of the market won’t hold water in court.
If a city only allowed one retailer, that retailer would be under a scrutiny for their excessive margins. Because of the competition among retailers, each retailer can set their margins. The argument that residents could move to another town if they didn’t like to have only one unregulated retailer doesn’t hold water. This is undue hardship on the consumer.
Apple was fine with Fortnite ruining kids as long as Fortnite was paying Apple a 30% cut. What a great argument you made!
Here's the catch: the desktop/laptop software distribution system does provide more than one store for purchasing digital goods, but the prices for consumers are generally either the same or higher than for mobile. The App Store doesn't actually have a reputation for software prices that are too high. If anything, the criticism is that it doesn't support high enough prices. If you go to web sites that are run by developers for macOS and look at the prices for software, you're not going to see very many $4.99 or lower apps. They're obviously not expecting millions of customers to find their site.
How do you know Epic really intends to go to court? They have the option of dropping the lawsuit, so it's possible that the whole thing is being done for publicity.