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 Submits iOS App Update With Out-of-App Purchase Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I mean, sure. But that's just because streaming sucks.
Spotify, from what I've seen of it (because I refuse to 'subscribe' to music), sucks a LOT less than Apple Music.
Judge: And here's your new contempt order and another referral for criminal contempt. Want to try another way to ignore my order? We can do this all day.
You left out what to do with free apps? You expect Firefox to pay that?
That is 1) a loser of a formula and 2) directly against what the court has ordered as it states there can be no tracking, auditing, or reporting, or financial penalties if a user pays outside the app store. From the court order: "This is an injunction, not a negotiation".
You should read the court order.
Short snippit:
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;
- Restricting or conditioning developers’ style, language, formatting, quantity, flow or placement of links for purchases outside an app;
- Prohibiting or limiting the use of buttons or other calls to action, or otherwise conditioning the content, style, language, formatting, flow or placement of these devices for purchases outside an app;
- Excluding certain categories of apps and developers from obtaining link access;
- Interfering with consumers’ choice to proceed in or out of an app by using anything other than a neutral message apprising users that they are going to a third-party site; and
- Restricting a developer’s use of dynamic links that bring consumers to a specific product page in a logged-in state rather than to a statically defined page, including restricting apps from passing on product details, user details or other information that refers to the user intending to make a purchase.
Last edited:
Meanwhile, I'd actually be a lot more comfortable downloading my banking apps directly from the bank websites rather than some third party app store like Apple's.
I think that's what a lot of us who disagree with this are worried about. While I agree with you that what the post you're responding to proposed will not happen, It's entirely possible free apps become much less economically viable, which hurts all users and developers.
Yeah the gaming analogy really doesn't work.
The markets are much smaller, it's one specific industry and Sony/MS/Nintendo or whoever may well have egregious policies but consoles are niche, single purpose platforms made specifically for gaming.
iOS is a general-purpose computing platform with billions of users. Apple has far more power over access to the mobile internet than Sony does with PlayStation.
Exactly this. Artist should be able to put songs on their platform with a pay button that goes directly to the artist.
You now have the ability to open your own store! So, it's on you if you'd like to provide this for free or charge an arbitrary fee.
Amazing, right? Just the other day this option didn't exist.
I'm not, because doing what was posted is willfully violating the courts order, and the court is already very very very pissed. Secondly, if they (Apple) does this, I'm gone, permanently. I won't support a company pulls such bull***t, and I'll start advising people to avoid Apple and the iPhone.
They have a (previous) exec being sent to another federal court for felony perjury, I think Apple is getting the idea that they need to stop doing what they are doing, immediately.
I can't control the market, but I can control my wallet.
Last edited:
What is interesting is that they complain about Apple and Google taking cuts of their revenue when if it weren’t for Apple and Google creating the modern smartphones, they never would have existed. This goes for Uber, Lyft, and thousands of other apps. All simply created as a result of Apple and Googles efforts. Why they think they shouldn’t give back to Apple is absurd
The question is, when does a company have a dominant position in a market that justifies state/legal intervention to protect the consumer... which, of course, is a difficult question.
Did Sony have a dominant position in the games console market? Does that market include gaming PCs, or all PCs? Does Apple have a dominant position in the phone market, given that Android has significantly more active users? Or should it go on App Store revenue (which may be higher for Apple - dunno)? I use an Android phone and haven't felt "discriminated against" - I was also around in the late 80s and 90s when it was getting harder and harder to get anything done without MS Windows, or at least MS Internet Explorer, and MS Office - which is what monopoly abuse really looks like, and has vastly improved since then, so whether you get a green bubble or a blue bubble in your chat seems a bit irrelevant. US courts are trying to apply laws designed to stop cartels price-fixing bags of sugar to a complex miasma of hardware, software, services and IP licensing. It doesn't work.
The EU has actually designated a list of "gatekeeper" companies that - they have ruled - have controlling positions in the digital market and require stricter regulation. That takes out some of the guesswork and inconsistency.
Gotta start somewhere.
I agree that Sony's behavior is no more acceptable than Apple's, and that the courts also need to give Sony a serious smackdown.
I'd seriously doubt that Epic doesn't care. And hopefully now that this ruling is in place, they'll also sue Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
Why?
The Apps will be written by third parties, you risk getting MITM's or cybersquatted/typosquatted and downloading a fake app. You have to grant permission to your web browser to mess with they system. The banks would outsource their apps to overseas programmers and distribute them via the cheapest third party cloud infrastucture services anyway - you're not going to get something hand-crafted by wise goblins just because you download it from Gringotts.com (hosted by CloudFlare) rather than the Apple Store. The App Store is no guarantee of security, but Apple are better at software than most banks I've encountered.
Now, if you know a bank that offers a .tgz file accompanied by a checksum & includes the source code for the world to inspect and verify, that's different.
Anyway, I'm supportive of Apple allowing sideloading (with a reasonable warning of the risks) - its the stupid "Shop in Walmart and pay Target" theory that I'm objecting to.
Well, without "Uber, Lyft, and thousands of other apps" there won't be any reason for paylng almost 1500 € for the base model of a Pro Max.
And most probably other systems would be available instead.
If you read the proposed price list again, there is no price paid for purchase or reselling outside store, but a fee for services and tools Apple offers.
Apple still might be forced allow non-notarized apps on iPhone. Users should be warned on the security implications and opt-in — just as they do on Mac. Furthermore, Apple should only provide frameworks and services for notarized apps. Likely there would all kinds of open source frameworks built on top of Darwin kernel calls, but the effective outcome would be that apps would always feel dated and low quality compared to ones utilizing Apple licensed frameworks. A notable exception would be games — people are used to them feeling different. And cross platform frameworks that do not even try to look and behave native on iPhone.
Not optimal for anyone — lose-lose-lose. But if this is what we courts set as the restricting for doing _business_ on a platform you own, so be it.
(And actually, as a developer, I would be excited by the possibility of running non-notarized apps)
Which is why Apple gets 30% and the app developers get 70%. They make a ton of money off of Apple users. They feel Apple deserves 0%. That is not fair. Software developers have always had to pay a percentage of their profits to those helping them distribute going way back to brick-n-mortar stores. Should be no different. One could argue 30% is too high but that is pretty standard across the industry so not just Apple.
I've never quite understood why a Dev can't shoot an IPA to folks and they can install it and use it on their device if they'd like to.
"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"
If an app does not have any payments or the payments only are related to physical goods (Amazon), they are good to go.
Apple likely would want to extend other exclusions they already have in place.
Again, Apple is not allowed to control, audit, or track if there are outside payments, according to the court's order. Simply put, the court is absolutely not going to allow what you suggest.
They have no way to appeal this order either, as they already tried appealing to the Supreme Court, and got a "naa, the ruling stands" response.
Sounds like there is no restriction for Apple to sell the following product:
"hosting, downloads, store placement, tools, libraries, user backups, iCloud DB, API access, app signing, security, ..."
But that requires permitting to install non-notarized apps on iPhone. I think Apple should just allow that in the same way as they for Mac. But with a twist that all APIs (libraries, kits, frameworks) are only licensed to notarized apps. It should be still lawful to create products and sell them for $ — as long as you do not block people from using your HW in any way they want.
Thus Spotify and others can just advertise their app on billboards or wherever, users can download and install it, and it can do absolutely whatever Spotify wants. Apple should not block users from using that, BUT Apple should not be forced to give any of their products (Xcode, ...) or services (App Store, ...) to Spotify for free either.
Apple has never offered it for free. Spotify, and every other app producer, pays a yearly fee for Xcode, signing and App Store access.
No question about paying something to Apple for hosting my App. But why should I give up 30% of my revenues from the App? If Apple insisted (what they do) on this, then I should be able to host it somewhere else, or on my own homepage. It will never cost 30% of my revenue. But Apple does not want any of it. They just want to have full control although smartphones are general-purpose devices and people need them.
That is not true. While you are correct that they can't appeal the finding that the anti-steering language is anticompetitive, they can absolutely appeal this order, both the finding that they're not in compliance and the remedies declared in the order are unconstitutional/overly burdensome/whatever.
Not saying that is a good idea or Apple should, but they can absolutely appeal the order. (I'll add Ben Thompson made a pretty compelling case that the judge may have made an error that leaves it open to getting thrown out/significantly changed).
Apple would not need to do any of that. If a developer wants to build and distribute their app for iPhone, let them do it. And have they charge as much as they want; any way they want.
If a developer wants to purchase an app developer tools/frameworks/service/distribution package from Apple, let Apple put a any price tag they want on.