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

[jole]

That's nearly identical to Apple basically did with the core technology fee in EU; 50cent per app install after a million which is free.

EU just fined Apple $500m for breaking the DMA and will be investigating the core technology fee now.

EU is mad for Apple figuring out a loophole in DMA. They'll eventually patch it, but overall the situation is unreasonable: Law is fluffy as hell and no-one knows what exactly is legal and what is not.

But in any case, this is not EU.

Also, it should be noted that a fragmented, chaotic, evolving mess of pricing models would be Apple's friend: more complex the out of store pricing is, potentially different model in every country, more likely it is for developers to just stick to well understood App Store fees.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Any wait for the ripoffs to happen and the buyer will blame Apple.

 

[xmarcuswildx]

What, you think creators should actually get paid directly with no interference? Think of Spotify’s investor’s children…



I suspect Apple will find other ways to add fees outside of payments, such as hosting, per d/l, etc.

Companies making millions off of the app store shouldn’t expect to get a free ride. Of course, now they can cut prices significantly, oh wait.

It’s not gonna be much longer for when Apple will be forced to allow 3rd party app stores on iOS.

 

[MikhailT]

Unfortunately for Patreon and Spotify I feel their victory would be short lived. The earning call makes it sound like they may have started the process of appealing this to SCOTUS since there is chance there may be criminal contempt proceeding upcoming. The appeals court may not tolerate any delays but Supreme Court might say otherwise.

This case might go ugly and I feel this decision makes the iOS Platform extremely unsafe long term.

SCOTUS already declined to hear the original case. The court ruling is not about the original lawsuit but the Apple's compliance with the original court's ruling.

So, Apple's appeal can only be about the remedy part from the judge but they still cannot appeal the original ruling because they lost all appeals and SCOTUS declined it.

Apple has no leg to stand on with all of the evidence pointing Apple intentionally and willingly went against the compliance.

 

[rehkram]

It's a natural evolution. I remember walking around a chilly East Berlin in the early 1980s. Giant superstores, empty and devoid of any thing I'd ever want to buy, even if I could find someone to sell it to me.

Apple maintaining their App Store monopoly was understandable at the beginning. Naturally, they had to get some kind of return on investment. But to think that cold monolith is what we're supposed to be stuck with until the end of time? That's an Iron Curtain mentality, and it is doomed to fail for the same reasons.

Everything changes over time, trust me, I'm old enough to speak with some experience.

The next killer development app could be an "Improved App Store" generator. Maybe there is one already. Or I could write it myself. Go for it, Spotify.

 

[iBluetooth]

That was fast, but I am still waiting in the watch app

 

[HylianKnight]

How is this going to help customers? Developers will pocket the difference and Apple will raise prices on devices to make up for the lost revenue. Customers lose.

Raising prices on their physical products because of this is incredibly unlikely. Now, I do see a future where they consider charging more for developer accounts, especially enterprise level. I think it’s absurd to think Apple should hose everything and not be compensated, but I also find it equally absurd that Apple, Microsoft, and other large platforms charge 30%. This has been excessive for some time now. Apple made a step in the right direction with the reduced 15% commission for smaller developers. Unfortunately, they stopped there and invited all these legal challenges. Apple failed the shopping cart test.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

And the user should be able to block this

 

[flexwithmarius]

Prices better not go up anytime soon then.

They just gave themselves a 27% pay increase. I can tell you this, prices aren’t going down.

 

[flexwithmarius]

And the user should be able to block this

Oh don’t be silly, this is the consumer choice everyone kicked and screamed for.

Consider in-app purchases obsolete as of today.

 

[surferfb]

SCOTUS already declined to hear the original case. The court ruling is not about the original lawsuit but the Apple's compliance with the original court's ruling.

So, Apple's appeal can only be about the remedy part from the judge but they still cannot appeal the original ruling because they lost all appeals and SCOTUS declined it.

Apple has no leg to stand on with all of the evidence pointing Apple intentionally and willingly went against the compliance.

They can appeal that the judge’s finding that they were not complying with her order is wrong, and/or that the remedy the judge applied was excessive.

I am not arguing they are correct or that they should, but that’s what they can (will?) appeal.

 

[Mrjoedot]

I thought it is already out of app

 

[MikhailT]

They can appeal to argue that the judge’s finding that they were not complying is wrong, and/or that the remedy the judge applied was excessive.

I am not arguing they are correct or that they should, but that’s what they can (will?) appeal.

They can and will appeal the remedy part, yes. The chances of any court finding it excessive to not require a scare screen or a "link out" fee for something that no other platform does, is pretty much slim tho. They lost on court + appeals on link-out part so far, so I doubt that'll change any time.

 

[surferfb]

They can and will appeal the remedy part, yes. The chances of any court finding it excessive for to not require a scare screen or a fee for something that no other platform does, is pretty much slim tho.

To be clear, I agree 100% that I think it’s in Apple’s best interest to drop it and just take the loss. And I’m saying this as someone who thinks Apple should be able to charge a commission and that so-called “scare screens” are absolutely warranted (although I’d ideally like something where users who know what they’re doing (e.g. people like those posting on this thread) could turn them off).

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple, here is your new price list

- $100 / year / developer: Up to 1M users per app installed on user devices
- After that: $1 / additional user / month
- Includes hosting, downloads, store placement, tools, libraries, user backups, iCloud DB, API access, app signing, security, ...
- If you use Apple Store for all payments related to non-physical purchases made by the users of your apps, per app fees are waived

"the Court PERMANENTLY RESTRAINS AND ENJOINS Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them, from:

Imposing any commission or any fee on purchases that consumers make outside an app, and as a consequence thereof, no reason exists to audit, monitor, track or require developers to report purchases or any other activity that consumers make outside an app"

👉 I repeat: No reason to track where users make purchases. And no reason for developers to have to report to Apple.

If you use Apple Store for all payments related to non-physical purchases made by the users of your apps, per app fees are waived

So rather than charging commissions on external purchases...
...you propose creating yet another new junk fee
...and then anticompetitively waiving it?

I see you're trying to be very clever there.

Maybe you should read the judge's most recent ruling and its stance on Apple creating new anticompetitive barriers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Any wait for the ripoffs to happen and the buyer will blame Apple.

They're having enough ripoffs in their own store.

And the user should be able to block this

It's called making a purchase decision.

 

[bcortens]

All you people arguing for apple to add higher annual dev fees and encouraging them to find new ways to extract money from devs realize that eventually apple is going to push to far and we will stop seeing native apps right? It is very much in apples interest to ensure more devs use their tooling and lock themselves into developing native apps for their platform, at some point though if apple pushes to hard they will push people into web apps or just skipping on iOS altogether. That won’t be good for the platform or for the long term success of Apple.
You all keep crowing about IP rights and compensation when yoou forget that before the ecosystem lock in and network effects cemented apples dominance it was well understood that 3rd party app support was considered the life blood of any successful platform.

 

[dumastudetto]

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.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

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.

Apple Music sucks.

 

[DougiePhresh]

If Apple was taking a 30% commish - does this mean by using the external payment method, customers will see a 30% price reduction?

Probably not - because both of these companies don’t actually care about us or our experience, they simply use us as pawns for their own gain.

 

[DougiePhresh]

Apple Music sucks.

I use Apple Music - it’s perfectly fine. What about it sucks?

 

[AppliedMicro]

If Apple was taking a 30% commish - does this mean by using the external payment method, customers will see a 30% price reduction?

Probably not.
Because transaction and payment processing isn't free.

That said, lower transaction costs benefit consumers.
Especially in competitive markets.

When there's competition between similar services (say streaming services), a 20% or so cost advantage is not irrelevant.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

If Apple was taking a 30% commish - does this mean by using the external payment method, customers will see a 30% price reduction?

Probably not - because both of these companies don’t actually care about us or our experience, they simply use us as pawns for their own gain.

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

 

[bcortens]

If Apple was taking a 30% commish - does this mean by using the external payment method, customers will see a 30% price reduction?

Probably not - because both of these companies don’t actually care about us or our experience, they simply use us as pawns for their own gain.

External links mean we can finally get sign up and manage subscription buttons that take us right to the appropriate websites in apps like Spotify and Netflix again. This is costing apple nothing because these apps were already paying them nothing. Not a price change, just a better user experience.

Patron creators can now offer in-app links to the web allowing lower prices or making sure the creators get a higher percentage, so yes a potential lower price here, or just a better more sustainable business for the creator.

 

[Rafagon]

Don't worry, Spotify, I'm not giving you any money. In-app or otherwise.