Spotify Submits iOS App Update With Out-of-App Purchase Options

[surferfb]

As an iPhone owner I buy the phone including its OS and of course the APIs are part of it. So I am allowed to use them. The only purpose of OS APIs are to allow access to the phone that now belongs to me. They are there to be used. Without the APIs I wouldn't have bought the phone. It is my f.....g phone and I have paid already for the API. How can someone besides Apple itself argue that I should pay again indirectly through software licences for the API a second time, or actually basically for each App!

If you don't see a difference between a personal license to use iOS on your device and a developer needing a separate license to use iOS commercially, I don't know what to say, and then yes, I am going to sound crazy to you.

It's like buying a DVD doesn't give you a license to have a movie night and charge people $5 dollars to come see the movie in your theater. Showing the movie commercially requires a different license. I mean you could say "how can someone argue that Disney says I have to pay again, I already bought the movie" all you want, but that's how it works.

 

[HighwaySnowman]

If you don't see a difference between a personal license to use iOS on your device and a developer needing a separate license to use iOS commercially, I don't know what to say, and then yes, I am going to sound crazy to you.

It's like buying a DVD doesn't give you a license to have a movie night and charge people $5 dollars to come see the movie in your theater. Showing the movie commercially requires a different license. I mean you could say "how can someone argue that Disney says I have to pay again, I already bought the movie" all you want, but that's how it works.

The developer is using the API ON THE DEVICE I OWN AND HAVE ALREADY PAID APPLE FOR. Double dipping by charging the developer AGAIN is not ok.

 

[bcortens]

If you don't see a difference between a personal license to use iOS on your device and a developer needing a separate license to use iOS commercially, I don't know what to say, and then yes, I am going to sound crazy to you.

While it may not be clear, the law should be that the developer does not have to pay Apple to sell to a customer that has already paid for the APIs that exist on device.
Apple is double dipping, they sell a device that they advertise as supporting third party apps, that device is then paid for by a customer and includes the APIs and OS that supposedly supports third party apps. They then turn around and say to third party devs, okay, if you want to be able to sell to that person who bought an iPhone you have to go through us and pay more money.

It's like buying a DVD doesn't give you a license to have a movie night and charge people $5 dollars to come see the movie in your theater. Showing the movie commercially requires a different license. I mean you could say "how can someone argue that Disney says I have to pay again, I already bought the movie" all you want, but that's how it works.

The difference here is that third party devs aren't reselling iOS. They are selling to a customer that already paid for iOS.
It's more like buying a Pioneer BlueRay player and then Pioneer requiring a cut of every BlueRay that is sold to you that is played through that player.

 

[knappeduivel]

Apple Music > Spotify

I use Apple for the sound quality, otherwise they are both about as bad as the other. Also this seems unrelated to the subject.

 

[bcortens]

Spotify has betrayed the entire Apple ecosystem. People should cancel Spotify and transition to Apple Music for all the right reasons including superior sound quality and experience.

Given that Apple is cuddling up to someone who has attacked the world economy and is actively threatening annexation of several foreign nations I am quite happy having cancelled Apple Music and moved to Spotify explicitly because of the USAs current leadership and their tech companies attitude towards it.

 

[bcortens]

If that happens and Apple loses the market has chosen and Apple will lose.

After an inventory on my phone I have more apps than I thought. Nine of them paid for, none of them will leave the App Store. All of them make my digital life more convenient. I won’t care.

The problem you're not seeing is that if Apple puts more and more barriers in place for apps it will be the free apps that will be hit too. Stop imagining a world where you only have paid apps, imagine no third party apps.
Apple with zero third party apps will not sell as many phones, their revenue will fall more than they make up in rent App Store services revenue.

People who play games might care. But I suspect there will be additional fees, and call them junk, if you want for those apps using apples IP and collecting IAP outside of the App Store.

I personally think most of these companies (Patreon, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon) should just build PWAs if Apple does this. If Apple drives app makers away you might be fine not having a lot of the more premium apps but what will it do to Apple's ability to sell iPhones if the average person suddenly wonders why they cannot get the Facebook App, or the Netflix app anymore.

They will ask why they should buy an iPhone when it doesn't have any apps anymore.

If iPhone sales fall that means lower economies of scale, it means less money for the high end SoCs apple puts into their phones.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It's like buying a DVD doesn't give you a license to have a movie night and charge people $5 dollars to come see the movie in your theater. Showing the movie commercially requires a different license. I mean you could say "how can someone argue that Disney says I have to pay again, I already bought the movie" but that's how it works.

Buying a DVD implies (as reasonable expectation) a license to screen and watch it in private.
Though not to exploit it commercially.

Buying an iPhone implies a license to use its software and execute apps.
It also implies letting me visit the internet sites I want to.
Or listen to the music I want on it.

Once I’ve downloaded and installed a Spotify or Netflix app, the content they’re allowing me access to is between me and that app’s developer. Same is true when I want to “expand” the content, quality or viewing/listening options by by paid subscription.

Apple has a right to charge for delivery of apps (an option they voluntarily declined, since “free apps” are a great selling point for selling iPhones). But everything elsewhere is between me and said third party.

 

[jole]

But the API access cannot be restricted. Without API access you can't run anything on your device
Just to be clear: you buy a smartphone and not a dumbphone. You pay for the OS including several years of upgrade including APIs. It is not a special service from Apple, this is part of any OS.

Just reframe the narrative: OS is very barebones. Gives one minimal set of APIs for any running apps to allow kernel access (just like Linux). Included is window management, app launcher ands settings.

OS comes with iPhone. Apple also gives users free apps like app store, safari, mail, ... that they are can use if they so choose. Or that they can remove. Bundled app replaceability is even a legal requirement on some markets.

This is not very dissimilar from Android actually.

Frameworks and libraries are then sold to developers as a part of Apple Software Development Kit (SDK). Just like Epic sells Unreal engine to game developers.

With this, all legal requirements should be fulfilled: People can use ANY apps they like on PHONE they BOUGHT. And Apple can continue to run their Service business, selling to developers an awesome (yet expensive) SDK that includes everything you ever dreamed of for iPhone, including APIs, payments, and store.

This is also dangerous for Apple: Maybe someone comes up with an awesome competitor to Apple SDK (toolchain/store/...) Everyone in the world will try to. Apple's moat is (1) vertical integration: They will know the HW capabilities years in the future and thus are always years ahead of the game in making of their "SDK", and (2) scale: they can invest more R&D to their SDK than anyone else and thus support the best UX for apps make with their SDK. OTOH, Apple must ensure that there are at least some competing SDKs to be able to support their narrative of competition.

 

[jole]

these companies (Patreon, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon) should just build PWAs if Apple does this

Apple has dragged their feet with PWA support. It is unfortunately a subpar experience on iOS.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Spoiler alert: No. it’s just a redistribution of money from Apple to other large companies.

Hopefully those companies will spend less of it buying their own stock!

 

[AppliedMicro]

And that yearly fee was priced with the idea that those monetizing their apps would also pay a percentage in addition to the fee. So assuming $99 totally covers the cost is ridiculous.

It also was priced to attract developers to the platform, propelling sales of hardware devices (iPhones).

Which it did. Very successfully.

Charging developers 30% on transactions for a service that Apple do not provide is double-dipping,

 

[macabrumorsab]

If you don't see a difference between a personal license to use iOS on your device and a developer needing a separate license to use iOS commercially, I don't know what to say, and then yes, I am going to sound crazy to you.

It's like buying a DVD doesn't give you a license to have a movie night and charge people $5 dollars to come see the movie in your theater. Showing the movie commercially requires a different license. I mean you could say "how can someone argue that Disney says I have to pay again, I already bought the movie" all you want, but that's how it works.

I am not sure whether you know what APIs of an OS are.

And your DVD analogy just does not match the scenario. bcortens perfectly explained it to you.

 

[jole]

What you suggest would be terrible for Apple. They benefit when devs choose to use their tooling and APIs.
Take away the API lock in by forcing devs to pay for them and you will drive devs to third party APIs that likely work cross platform. This would undermine Apples ability to keep devs on their platform.
Part of why Apple won the smartphone wars was because of the free APIs, throwing that away to chase services revenue is a ridiculous idea.

Yes, it is way worse than the situation "yesterday".

But now Apple is forced to relaxing rules that have safeguarded their business model for App Store. With that the least bad compromise has changed.

App Store has momentum and Apple libraries give a great UX customers are expecting. I bet almost everyone will stay in the store if the alternative is cross platform UX with limitations from lacking API access. Epic likely will build their Unreal engine for Apple, but even they will struggle building great UX when dealing with annually changing GPU capabilities without access to APIs. And customers will get frustrated to see iPhone crashing frequently when playing Fortnight.

 

[bcortens]

Apple has dragged their feet with PWA support. It is unfortunately a subpar experience on iOS.

Yeah I know, I would actually like to build a PWA for an App I'm working on but am instead using the native APIs. If they start adding junk fees I am early enough in development that I'll switch to a PWA even though it won't be as good because the App isn't expected to make all that much money.

 

[akula1488]

My question to Spotify is, can I listen to music on your platform and just pay the artist / publisher of the song and not you?

good idea for class action lawsuit

 

[bcortens]

good idea for class action lawsuit

If I go to an artists website and buy the music from them directly there are a variety of iOS apps that will let me play that song. There is, one could say, a competitive market for apps that play music.

The fact that Spotify doesn't do this is not an indictment of Spotify as they are not bring your own music playback app.

 

[I7guy]

The problem you're not seeing is that if Apple puts more and more barriers in place for apps it will be the free apps that will be hit too.

Free apps with iap. I don’t see why free apps would move from the App Store.

Stop imagining a world where you only have paid apps, imagine no third party apps.
Apple with zero third party apps will not sell as many phones, their revenue will fall more than they make up in rent App Store services revenue.

The iPhone has a strong ecosystem with customers who spend money. I cannot imagine devs who make money would abandon the ecosystem after they have been paying 30% all along.

I personally think most of these companies (Patreon, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon) should just build PWAs if Apple does this.

Sure and that’s the risk Apple faces.

If Apple drives app makers away you might be fine not having a lot of the more premium apps but what will it do to Apple's ability to sell iPhones if the average person suddenly wonders why they cannot get the Facebook App, or the Netflix app anymore.

It really depends, doesn’t it, on how people use their iPhones. It’s too much of a general statement to speculate on.

They will ask why they should buy an iPhone when it doesn't have any apps anymore.

Clearly that is not going to happen.

If iPhone sales fall that means lower economies of scale, it means less money for the high end SoCs apple puts into their phones.

Of course all hypotheticals. We’ll have to see where this goes.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Apple has a right to charge for delivery of apps (an option they voluntarily declined, since “free apps” are a great selling point for selling iPhones). But everything elsewhere is between me and said third party.

What is not between you and the developer are the fees and commissions. You might not like the amount of fees and commissions and you might decide not to purchase said app, but as a customer you either decide to pay or not to pay.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What is not between you and the developer are the fees and commissions.

Well, they would be now, in the U.S.
And they (Apple’s fees/commissions on outside purchases) be at least curtailed in Europe.

This court’s ruling is a blueprint for European regulators to follow with regards to their anticompetitive core technology fee.

👉 The (court if law’s) ruling also clearly found Apple having acted anticompetitively. Something particularly you on this forum long insisted they weren’t and hadn’t been found guilty of. 😉

 

[DougiePhresh]

They weren't getting 30%. Spotify hasn't allowed in-app subscriptions for years. You had to go to their website.

Ahh, I did not know that. Thank you

 

[DougiePhresh]

This only means that the 30% stay with the company which deserves it and can improve the software. The 30% in Apple accounts does not help the software company and its competitiveness which is what I prefer as someone who buys that product.

I was corrected by another forums member - Spotify actually never allowed in-app subscriptions. They forced you to go to their website, circumventing Apple. However, for illustrative purposes, do you really believe that if Spotify, overnight, gained a 30% jump in revenue as a result of this - that you, as the consumer, would ever see a 30% increase in the value of your subscription?

 

[I7guy]

Well, they would be now, in the U.S.

No. The customer is not in the middle of fees an commissions. Only MR readers are.

And they (Apple’s fees/commissions on outside purchases) be at least curtailed in Europe.

Not yet. That's the problem with the DMA. The EU should just say the want indie apps to use apples' platform for $0. But I suspect some significant blowback from a statement such as that. Hence this cat an mouse game with fines.

This court’s ruling is a blueprint for European regulators to follow with regards to their anticompetitive core technology fee.

Not if the appeal wins.

👉 The (court if law’s) ruling also clearly found Apple having acted anticompetitively. Something particularly you on this forum long insisted they weren’t and hadn’t been found guilty of. 😉

👉 Again, this applies only to California law. But we'll see where the appeal goes.

 

[HighwaySnowman]

I was corrected by another forums member - Spotify actually never allowed in-app subscriptions. They forced you to go to their website, circumventing Apple. However, for illustrative purposes, do you really believe that if Spotify, overnight, gained a 30% jump in revenue as a result of this - that you, as the consumer, would ever see a 30% increase in the value of your subscription?

Patreon users see a significant price jump for using in-app payments.

So.... Yes.

 

[Joshuaorange]

The developers are not the freeloaders here. Apple is. They get a MASSIVE collection of apps for the iDevice platforms and aren't paying the developers a thing, and on top of that they're extorting the developers for even more money.

Without apps, the iPhone would never have been anything but a niche platform.

Who do you think created the App Store in the first place? The developers would have never made a penny had it not been for Apple creating the system.

 

[Joshuaorange]

Patreon users see a significant price jump for using in-app payments.

So.... Yes.

Patreon is stealing peoples money too based on your argument.