Spotify Subscribers No Longer Allowed to Pay Through App Store

[obviouslogic]

All developers pay rent in the form of annual developer fees.


Apple needs to charge more then, otherwise Amazon, Starbucks, Bank of America, Uber, Netflix, Instagram, etc. are all freeloading since Apple doesn't get a cut from them for any transactions. Apple knows this yet they're perfectly fine with it.

Those companies don’t make anything directly from Apple’s platform. Digital goods/services/content benefit directly from Apple’s platform which acts as a middleman… user buys Apple’s device, Apple provides a platform for the developer. Apple is in the middle of that relationship and feels they deserve something for that transaction that happens on their platform.

Most developers get around that by making money indirectly from pushing ads.

 

[bsolar]

Bull crap. The biggest and most popular apps and services on iOS also have a web presence, including Spotify.

I'm not sure what the point is. Many users wants to use the app, not using Spotify through the web.

1% of Spotify’s subscription revenue comes from iOS… so by not paying Apple anything they’ll save 0.3% to 0.15% a month.

That's because they blocked subscriptions from iOS long ago and basically grandfathered those who kept the subscription until now. It's the reason killing those last subscriptions it's ultimately a change which impacts a very small minority of Spotify users.

Still not sure what the point is in relation to what I wrote though.

Furthermore, people don’t buy hardware based on apps. Spotify is on Android and every other platform. They don’t need to buy an Apple device.

People definitely do. Spotify is on every platform, so it's not a variable in the decision now, but the question is whether the Spotify app being available on Apple brings value to Apple, so the hypotetical scenario is what would happen if Spotify were to discontinue the app on Apple devices? The answer is that likely some users interested in using Spotify would be pushed to purchase other devices where Spotify would still be available, ultimately buying less Apple devices.

 

[bsolar]

Why is it wrong for Apple to have an advantage over competitors, who offer their services on competing platforms?

It is not wrong until it crosses the line into anticompetitive practices.

E.g. in the EU it is illegal to abuse a dominant position in the market to gain an unfair advantage in another market. It is of course a question whether Apple can be considered to have a dominant position and whether it gains an unfair advantage in the music streaming market.

Said that, the EU already complained with Apple exactly about these topics:

The European Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying its concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers.

The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple's anti-steering obligations are unfair trading conditions in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU').

 

[laptech]

So you’re saying it is unfair that Apple can take advantage of a platform they created, developed, maintain and invest billions and billions of dollars in every year? Not to mention the cost of designing and manufacturing the hardware that platform runs on?

And it’s fair for a company like Spotify, who has their service on every single platform available, to not pay Apple anything?

Is it fair for Microsoft to make computers when they don’t have to shell out for Windows licenses?

Spotify like every other app dev on the app store pay a yearly fee just to use the platform so no, they are not paying Apple 'nothing'. Apple have set the rules so they can be downright greedy. Apple only allows it's own pay system to be used when dev's want their app to have in app purchases and Apple puts a 15% or 30% fee on EVERY in-app transaction for something dev's are forced to use and I say forced because Apple does not allow any other pay system to be used except their own and dev's have to pay to use it. And that is why Apple makes billions and billions off the app store because of it.

Interesting how when car manufacturers used 'Our cars, our rules' the car industry was taken to court and was told they cannot do that but when Apple is taken to court with the same 'Our app, our rules', they are told everything is fine. Whilst there are a number of cases that have gone against Apple, the US justice system is more than happy to favor Apple in some things.

 

[Ubuntu]

you mean you could just get people to sign up via web instead of doing IAP? who knew.

developers who cry about Apple's 30% cut are being stupidly unreasonable.

Can't speak for the general developer community but for me it's always been about control. Imagine you have a great app idea, you get to the point of shipping it and either Apple rejects it there and then (without any infringement of the rules) or you ship it, make a living off of it until they decide that it goes against one of their upcoming products. That's the real issue to me.

 

[tripsync]

Can't speak for the general developer community but for me it's always been about control. Imagine you have a great app idea, you get to the point of shipping it and either Apple rejects it there and then (without any infringement of the rules) or you ship it, make a living off of it until they decide that it goes against one of their upcoming products. That's the real issue to me.

Rare occurrence. Closest thing to that is the keyboard for watch which arguably was infringing on rules.

Competition is always a risk.

 

[tripsync]

it does feel weird that spotify can't compete with apple music on fair grounds. like should the solution really be, spotify has to create a smartphone?

apple took a multi billion dollar risk with the smartphone. spotify didn't risk multi billions. so why should spotify be on the same level as Apple?

sidenote: Spotify made "Car Thing" which is exclusively used with Spotify service. why can't i use my own music service on Spotify's hardware?

like noone else..can sell audiobooks or e-books even, within the app. are we just condemned to all these vertical companies for eternity

they can sell it via web. it's open.

 

[LeeW]

No. Can you sideload apps on your smart TV?

Irrelevant arguments, if you don't know why that is you really don't understand why Apple's position is untenable.

 

[bsolar]

apple took a multi billion dollar risk with the smartphone. spotify didn't risk multi billions. so why should spotify be on the same level as Apple?

Those are two different markets though. That's why Apple received complaints about their rules on the App Store for music streaming services: they cannot use their significant success in the smartphone market to get an unfair advantage in the music streaming market.

they can sell it via web. it's open.

But they cannot inform the user of that option from the app, which is actually what the EU considered an anti-competitive practice in their preliminary assessment in the context of music streaming services.

 

[k995]

apple took a multi billion dollar risk with the smartphone. spotify didn't risk multi billions. so why should spotify be on the same level as Apple?

Because its the law: apple can't use one side of its business to prop up and give it an unfair advantage to other parts.

Its why microsoft got convicted for example.

 

[bookofxero]

You know, Spotify should just give people the option of paying more through the AppStore if they are so sure of their product’s superiority. There are better ways to fight this battle than putting customers right in the middle of it.

 

[bookofxero]

Because its the law: apple can't use one side of its business to prop up and give it an unfair advantage to other parts.

Its why microsoft got convicted for example.

Not a lawyer, but pretty sure that is a gross misrepresentation at best.

 

[bookofxero]

If they could also stop making their app worse that'd be lovely, thanks. Stop filling it with bloated garbage in an attempt to turn it into some kind of social media app. Stop pushing podcasts on people that want to just listen to music.

Nah, they would rather give tons of money to Joe Rogan 🤢 than to the musicians.

 

[Ubuntu]

Rare occurrence. Closest thing to that is the keyboard for watch which arguably was infringing on rules.

Competition is always a risk.

It happens more often than you think. Of course competition is a risk but it's not fair when the competitor is also the gatekeeper - that is the problem here.

 

[bookofxero]

So Apple should be allowed to distort the market such that competitors' services must be priced uncompetitively so they can get their desired cut?

Why not accommodate users that may not want their financial data scattered across multiple vendors with unknown degrees of security (or who just want a single place to manage subscriptions) with an option, even if it costs more, while waging the battle more strategically? Do they lack that much case in their experience? Or would they rather give all their money to conspiracy theorists to host podcasts instead of to the artists?

 

[bookofxero]

It happens more often than you think. Of course competition is a risk but it's not fair when the competitor is also the gatekeeper - that is the problem here.

It is their store. I bet you that Brand X could easily find a place in Store Y if they paid the corresponding shelf fees. Same way you end up with competing brands of cereal in supermarkets, but certain items stay brand-exclusive.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You know, Spotify should just give people the option of paying more through the AppStore if they are so sure of their product’s superiority. There are better ways to fight this battle than putting customers right in the middle of it.

It WOULD indeed provide the customer choice. Which, of course, means none of this was about choice in the first place.

 

[5232152]

There literally MUST be something consumers like about it because if consumers didn’t like it, they wouldn’t be buying Apple products.

Do you think consumers care where the money ends up? Probably not. They care when the app developers don't care because it's no longer profitable. This is also not a consumer issue. We once again must rely on the EU taking control because American bureaucrats seem to be getting their money stuffed by everyone who can afford it (Apple included).

 

[compwiz1202]

You know, Spotify should just give people the option of paying more through the AppStore if they are so sure of their product’s superiority. There are better ways to fight this battle than putting customers right in the middle of it.

YES I'd rather pay to have all my subs in one place on Apple. I don't care if they want to ALSO use their own sub site too, but let people use Appstore that prefer. I don't do anything that's not a sub on Appstore

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Do you think consumers care where the money ends up? Probably not. They care when the app developers don't care because it's no longer profitable. This is also not a consumer issue. We once again must rely on the EU taking control because American bureaucrats seem to be getting their money stuffed by everyone who can afford it (Apple included).

That’s mainly because the EU has driven out all the innovative tech companies. Regulation and fees is literally the ONLY thing left for the EU to do to try to scrape up a few millions here and there. I don’t think they’re even trying to do anything to foster the creation of tech companies in the region. Their only focus is to ensure that Google and Apple remain the preeminent mobile hardware software providers. So it appears that the stuffing IS indeed happening worldwide!

From the financial times
“The US economy is now considerably richer and more dynamic than the EU or Britain — and the gap is growing. That will have an impact well beyond relative living standards. Europe’s dependence on the US for technology, […] is steadily undermining any aspirations the EU might have for ‘strategic autonomy.'”

 

[tripsync]

It happens more often than you think. Of course competition is a risk but it's not fair when the competitor is also the gatekeeper - that is the problem here.

Considering Apple doesn't release many apps, relatively it doesn't happen often.

If it was so bad, release for Android and web. They have far more marketshare cumulatively than iOS.

 

[tripsync]

Because its the law: apple can't use one side of its business to prop up and give it an unfair advantage to other parts.

Its why microsoft got convicted for example.

Microsoft was convicted because there was no viable alternative.

Android and web are the viable alternatives. It's not the law.

 

[mrochester]

I'm not sure what the point is. Many users wants to use the app, not using Spotify through the web.



That's because they blocked subscriptions from iOS long ago and basically grandfathered those who kept the subscription until now. It's the reason killing those last subscriptions it's ultimately a change which impacts a very small minority of Spotify users.

Still not sure what the point is in relation to what I wrote though.



People definitely do. Spotify is on every platform, so it's not a variable in the decision now, but the question is whether the Spotify app being available on Apple brings value to Apple, so the hypotetical scenario is what would happen if Spotify were to discontinue the app on Apple devices? The answer is that likely some users interested in using Spotify would be pushed to purchase other devices where Spotify would still be available, ultimately buying less Apple devices.

I can’t imagine there’s that much loyalty to Spotify in comparison to loyalty to Apple.

If it’s a toss-up between dumping Apple or Spotify, I can imagine most people will dump Spotify (especially as they can get the same service directly from Apple or any other streaming service).

 

[bsolar]

I can’t imagine there’s that much loyalty to Spotify in comparison to loyalty to Apple.

If it’s a toss-up between dumping Apple or Spotify, I can imagine most people will dump Spotify (especially as they can get the same service directly from Apple or any other streaming service).

I can image it quite well since I've seen people with that attitude switching between iPhones and Android smartphones as one device was more appealing to them than the other. They might not be invested in Apple's ecosystem if they e.g. have a Windows PC or Laptop and for them the iPhone is just another smartphone.

I am far more invested in Apple's ecosystem so for me it would take a significant motivation to switch from the iPhone, but I do have some apps that are so important to me that I would likely do the switch if they were to become available e.g. only on Android.

 

[jole]

How much would you charge? $30 per app review? + $50/mo for high volume distribution? This would kill indie developers.

I am sure Apple has explored all kinds of pricing models in case they are in some markets forced out of the revenue share model. It SHOULD be up to Apple to decide pricing model and price for their product. In the same way as it is up to Wallmart to choose which products to resell and for what price.

Some models Apple could explore:
- $1 / app download with 10,000 free / month
- $0.01 / notification with 1,000,000 free / month
- $0.1 / month / app for any app stored in an iPhone with free tier tailored to allow small publishers to stay for free
- SDK priced per developer based on number of developers in an organization. First 3 seats $100 / year, next 10 at $1000 / year, and the rest $10,000 / year.
- App reviews priced based on number of downloads: Any app with 100,000+ annual downloads would charge $50,000 / review
- Two tiered system: Pro tier pricing would be as it is today but with max 100,000 app downloads / month, Enterprise tier is unlimited but pricing terms are negotiated per customer and high penalties for disclosing the pricing.
...


IMO, none of these would be a good replacement for revenue sharing.