Addressing Spotify’s Claims - Apple

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
Devs pay for a license.
That license payment goes toward support (yes devs get support) and administration of the App Store (approval of the app, updates, maintenance of systems for distribution, ratings, curation, etc)

Besides, the cost to serve an app is minuscule in relation to Apple's ecosystem,
Oh really? What are those costs?

and they're not asking for a one-time fee. They want a monthly fee. So, Spotify uses their bandwidth to serve up the music every month, all Apple does is process a payment, and they should owe 30 or 15% monthly?
I mean this is just disingenuous as hell. Apple gets a monthly fee because.. Spotify gets a monthly subscription... come on now...

Also, people saying that it's easy enough to sign up on the website, so it's not stopping someone. Apple must think it will stop people, otherwise they wouldn't ban the practice of putting a lot of no out to a subscription page.
So you have to understand the technical aspect of it. We're not talking about launching a link into safari where they can sign up. Allowing it in-app opens up the potential for using a Safari control to literally mimic a screen in the app that behaves the same way as a sign up would. THAT is what Apple is blocking. Pretty hard to do one (preventing an in-app web screen for signups) without the other (external browser signup from within the app
 

fuchsdh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,545
I like the statement but I am not convinced the European Commission will follow Apple's take on the situation. The forced share might be perceived as competition abuse.
Yeah while I think Apple is within their rights as the platform runner here this seems like a situation where the EU would rule for Spotify, leaving aside the fact iOS doesn’t have a monopoly, especially in Europe.
 

Mint

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,040
Canada
Can’t believe anyone actually thinks that Apple perpetually receiving a 15% cut on subscriptions is fair. They definitely should get a cut on the activation of a subscription but to perpetually receive 15% for doing nothing is ridiculous. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see the usual suspects acting as if this is actually a generous arrangement.

Either way, Spotify should just follow Amazon; direct people to the website to sign up and stop whining.
 

Irminsul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,338
The arguments against Apple taking a cut are bizarre. Their platform is bringing millions of customers to your app. It’s like arguing all websites should charge the same for ads regardless of views or clicks per month. You’re paying for the privilege to leverage that audience.
It's not about the cut. It's about the fact that Apple are doing things they're not allowing Spotify to do (e.g., promotional notifications). Also, on Android, Apple are doing the same fucking thing (no purchases through IAP, instead an external link to a website) they're not allowing Spotify to do on their own platform. That's garden-variety anti-competitive behaviour and legal experts on antritrust matters agree. Weren't you the guy all for listening to what experts have to say?
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
Can’t believe anyone actually thinks that Apple perpetually receiving a 15% cut on subscriptions is fair. They definitely should get a cut on the activation of a subscription but to perpetually receive 15% for doing nothing is ridiculous.
they're facilitating the payment. That's like saying the credit card processor for Spotify should get their discount rate and transaction fee on the first month, but not on any future months. and at the same time giving app devs "floor space" and "foot traffic" for their products.
 

Deleted member 249

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,828
God damn that's blisteringly direct.
I kinda see where Apple is coming from, but I am also uncomfortable with the platform holder being the content provider...
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,243
It's not about the cut. It's about the fact that Apple are doing things they're not allowing Spotify to do (e.g., promotional notifications). Also, on Android, Apple are doing the same fucking thing (no purchases through IAP, instead an external link to a website) they're not allowing Spotify to do on their own platform. That's garden-variety anti-competitive behaviour and legal experts on antritrust matters agree. Weren't you the guy all for listening to what experts have to say?
Are you saying folks aren’t whining about the 15% cut and therefore when I specifically address that I’m talking to no one?
 

Selbran

Member
Oct 25, 2017
816
It’s not the point but these are all (except for maybe Netflix) barely high quality apps 😬
What's your definition of "barely high quality" "I don't use it so it isn't that great"? They are all exceptionally popular apps and with the exception of Facebook all of them pay Apple a ton of money just to be present on the store.
 

Irminsul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,338
Are you saying folks aren’t whining about the 15% cut and therefore when I specifically address that I’m talking to no one?
It's about context. Nobody complains about Google taking a cut on IAP because they're allowing links to different ways of payment. Something Apple actually uses on Android.
 

oledome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,854
the competing product is made less functional, that's anti-consumer but people are ok with that for some reason

as for the 30%; it's too high, I think we will reach a point where legislation will force that figure down for all app stores, Apple made it sound like they had their own app developers working at Spotofy HQ lol
 

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,243
It's about context. Nobody complains about Google taking a cut on IAP because they're allowing links to different ways of payment. Something Apple actually uses on Android.
I’m currently talking with posters who don’t think it’s fair to continue taking a cut. I made a post about a specific point but what I need to do is discuss what you want instead?
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
It's not about the cut. It's about the fact that Apple are doing things they're not allowing Spotify to do (e.g., promotional notifications). Also, on Android, Apple are doing the same fucking thing (no purchases through IAP, instead an external link to a website) they're not allowing Spotify to do on their own platform. That's garden-variety anti-competitive behaviour and legal experts on antritrust matters agree. Weren't you the guy all for listening to what experts have to say?
in regards to this.. this is interesting, Because Apple WILL be allowing promotions (and likely promotional notifications) in the very near future. Provided you bill through the App Store.. So they may have a tough sell on that.

like I said.. Siri Apple SHOULD allow at the very least the same level of access as every other dev. period. Even if it puts Spotify on more equal footing with Apple Music. That seems like an easy anti-trust slam dunk. It doesn't have to be the same as Apple Music, BUT does have to be identical access and tools that every other dev can implement.

But the subscription thing... it's ridiculous and apple is 100% spot on. They want all of the benefits of the App Store (distribution, and ease of facilitating payments) while avoiding all of the contributions to the App Store that allow it to function.
 

Irminsul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,338
But the subscription thing... it's ridiculous and apple is 100% spot on. They want all of the benefits of the App Store (distribution, and ease of facilitating payments) while avoiding all of the contributions to the App Store that allow it to function.
So does Apple want all of the benefits of having Apple Music on the Google Play Store while avoiding all of the contributions to the Play Store that allow it to function? Because they're doing the same thing there.
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
So does Apple want all of the benefits of having Apple Music on the Google Play Store while avoiding all of the contributions to the Play Store that allow it to function? Because they're doing the same thing there.
"doing the same thing there" is "abiding by the rules and policies of the store". End of discussion. Apple is not doing anything to operate outside of the policies of the Google Play Store.
 

Irminsul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,338
I’m currently talking with posters who don’t think it’s fair to continue taking a cut. I made a post about a specific point but what I need to do is discuss what you want instead?
But those same posters aren't complaining about Google taking a cut for Play Store IAP. Because of context.
Are they suing anyone?
That doesn't even make any sense. They're allowed to do what Spotify isn't, why would they sue anyome?
"doing the same thing there" is "abiding by the rules and policies of the store". End of discussion. Apple is not doing anything to operate outside of the policies of the Google Play Store.
So rules are rules and can't ever be against the law? Because that's what Spotify is claiming.
 

Wraith

Member
Jun 28, 2018
3,250
Does anybody know how much cut google gets when you pay 10/m for the HBO app directly through the google play payment system?
I remember when the HBO Now service launched, it was exclusive to Apple for several months. You had to sign up on an iOS device (or through iTunes on desktop?) to get it. Even though you could still watch from the HBO Now site in your browser. I don't know if this was Apple giving them the big bucks for exclusivity, or if HBO needed to get this thing out the door and didn't have their own online payment system ready. But I expect a lot of users, myself included, are still paying for it through Apple.

As for Spotify, I dunno, it seems like Apple and Google's store fees are pretty similar, and both have their own first party music services. I guess it's worth checking to see if there are any anti-competitive practices at work, but... the payment services are a convenience Spotify chooses to offer their users. It doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
 

itchi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,140
I mean unless you're an Apple shareholder I really don't understand why anyone would be defending Apple and advocating for less consumer choice.
 

Irminsul

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,338
of course Spotify is allowed to bypass the Google Play Store IAP. Who's saying they aren't?
Oh c'mon, you know exactly what I mean. Spotify, just like Apple on Android, are linking to websites instead of using IAP to circumvent cuts to the platform holder for using the latter service. Both is completely understandable; the platform holders are providing a service and easier user experience, but Spotify and Apple would rather get all of the money and have a slightly lesser experience.

Apple doesn't allow Spotify to do the same thing on their platform. There is no seamless (linking to websites is basically seamless) way to get on a level playing field with Apple. That's really basic antitrust stuff. Legal experts agree on that matter.
As for Spotify, I dunno, it seems like Apple and Google's store fees are pretty similar, and both have their own first party music services. I guess it's worth checking to see if there are any anti-competitive practices at work, but... the payment services are a convenience Spotify chooses to offer their users. It doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
The fees are similar, the way to circumvent them isn't. That's why Google isn't on the hook here.
 

ConanEd

Alt account
Banned
Dec 27, 2018
1,033
Apple thinking they entitled to more than 2% of that monthly fee is insane. Maybe Spotify doesn't use that $10 to pay the artists, but Apple you are not running a charity either. You take that $3 and just stash it in Ireland. You are not bring it to anyone, not even Apple employees. Talk about pot calling the kettle.
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
So rules are rules and can't ever be against the law? Because that's what Spotify is claiming.
unfair != inherently illegal. Stop moving goal posts.

Apple operates on Google Play as they are allowed.
Google operates on App Store are they are allowed.
Spotify operates on Google Play as they are allowed.
Spotify DOESN'T want to operate on App Store as they are allowed.

"It gives Apple an unfair advantage." Margins related to "generic versions of products", i.e. in house.. are NOT considered an unfair advantage. It can be CLEARLY shown that Apple is pricing Apple Music fairly, based on the price compared to EVERY OTHER streaming service out there, INCLUDING Spotify's OWN pricing on their website.

This is the failure. Spotify is ONLY "prevented" from matching Apple's pricing BECAUSE of their untenable operational cost model... which is apple's ENTIRE letter. So Spotify can't afford to get $7/month after cut AND afford to operate... BUT AT THE SAME TIME they've indicated that $10 is a fair price for their service that everyone else has began charging also.

This would literally be like Apple, Sony, Google, etc.. suing Target because they are only getting $20 (or whatever) from a $25 gift card purchase from that store, while Target is getting all $25 from a $25 Target gift card sold.

Spotify is arguing that the margins are unfair... but this is predicated on their business model and operational costs being entirely unrealistic. You can buy Spotify gift cards in the stores. So why aren't they suing stores? Oh... because CLEARLY the App Store is a huge business driver for them. So why shouldn't they have to pay money for their primary business driver?

Insane.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,387
How is it irrelevant? Spotify is the largest music streaming company on the planet and has been for a while. Ek is a billionaire from Spotify, yet they constantly post annual losses, whine about paying store front cuts and oppose artist royalty pay rulings in court?

One percenter problems personified. Not sure where consumer welfare comes into it, unless Spotify charge higher sub prices via the App Store sign ups?
Apple is a much larger company than Spotify. If this case was being made in the US 50 years ago Apple Music would've been broken off from Apple for anti-trust purposes. Spotify's treatment of artists and size is irrelevant to their competition complaints.

Spotify did charge more when they did IAP because Apple takes a 30% cut. Apple isn't bound by this cost, which hurts consumer choice and pushed people who want to pay for music twords Apple since it was cheaper. This isn't even considering the power of the default.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
40,899
Apple is clearly preventing Apps from being natively integrated into Siri. You just need to compare Google assistant/Alexa vs Siri on integration of third party apps to understand that Apple is not trying to play a fair game...
On the other hand, the 30% cut taken on transaction taken from their store seems to be standard practice.
Ehhh Google Assistant is absolutely terrible at playing stuff on Apple Music for example
 

DassoBrother

Member
Oct 25, 2017
989
Saskatchewan
This whole fight seems dumb to me. Neither party is completely faultless so now we just get to argue over who's more wrong? Stakes seem so low too. I doubt if Spotify got a win they would pay more to artists, maybe it would benefit other app developers. I think Apple is more in the right, but they're essentially just fighting to justify some of the hurdles that exist with selling on the App Store.

It'd be nice to have more interoperability between services but doesn't Shortcuts also allow Siri to work with other apps now too? I honestly can't even remember if that was one of Spotify's complaints.
 

bsigg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,514
Oh, I'm really excited to see what happens. This thread should be fun to revisit once the lawsuit is settled.
 

Baki

Member
Oct 30, 2017
426
Anti-trust deals with trusts and monopolies. Apple is neither a part of a trust nor do they have a monopoly. They are leveraged on their own platform, but they aren't the only platform.
They are one of 2 platforms in the market. There's literally only 1 other platform. Apple has unfair advantage over Spotify because early API avress and apple tax. This is bad for consumers and j hope the EU brings down the full weight of their power on Apple. None of this would be an issue if Apple wasn't competing directly with Spotify.
 

Klotera

Member
Oct 27, 2017
722
Oh really? What are those costs?
Cheap enough that they can do it for free for millions of free apps. If you want more specific numbers, look at what someone like Amazon charges for bandwidth on S3 and consider its probably less than that since Apple is hosting themselves.

I mean this is just disingenuous as hell. Apple gets a monthly fee because.. Spotify gets a monthly subscription... come on now...
How is it disingenuous? You're argument was "come on now"? Spotify provides the monthly service. They secure the licenses, they use their bandwidth to serve up the stream. Why should Apple get a huge monthly cut?

So you have to understand the technical aspect of it. We're not talking about launching a link into safari where they can sign up. Allowing it in-app opens up the potential for using a Safari control to literally mimic a screen in the app that behaves the same way as a sign up would. THAT is what Apple is blocking. Pretty hard to do one (preventing an in-app web screen for signups) without the other (external browser signup from within the app
Apple disallows all of it. You can't even put a non-clickable URL in for people to reference to go sign up, so it's certainly not a technical hurdle.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,981
If you want a discrepency in behaviour - Apple music on Google play store doesn't need to pay google 30%.

Google play movies on ios doesn't give you an option to even buy with IAP because they would be charged 30%. And they aren't allowed to link out to the web. They just sit there saying 'you can play things... if you have them in your library....' and its up to you to buy them on the web completely seprately.

Yes both entirely working within the bounds of the rules set out by the respective stores, but very different limitations
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
Spotify did charge more when they did IAP because Apple takes a 30% cut. Apple isn't bound by this cost, which hurts consumer choice and pushed people who want to pay for music twords Apple since it was cheaper. This isn't even considering the power of the default.
In-house pricing (and margins) are NOT considered anti-competitive IF products are priced reasonably the same. This is as age old as generic brands at grocery stores. The industry has CLEARLY marketed the price os a subscription music service at $9.99. Apple is charging $9.99. Google is charging $9.99. Apple isn't using their increased margin AT ALL to be anti-competitive here, as they are pricing it at the industry standard.

The ONLY problem is that Spotify's operational model and razor thing margins cannot withstand ANY sort of additional cut. This is not apple's problem and is DEFINITELY not an anti-competitive problem. This is a Spotify problem.

If Apple were charging a regular price of $5.99 for Apple Music.. THEN we could talk anti-competitive. But Apple charging a margin cut for stuff sold on their store is not only reasonable but the cornerstone of free market economics. That Spotify can't afford to charge the market rate AND remain profitable is their issue, and their issue alone.
 

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,183
You're not being fair, all that infrastructure isn't in place for Spotify's benefit and I sincerely doubt it is anywhere near as expensive as retail stores (Especially when you recognize the amount of B&M stores shutting down). Not only that, but the profit margins are going to be a lot higher in Apple's favor compared to B&M stores. Just look at the Netflix situation, Apple made over 200 Million dollars off of the Netflix app and it isn't even their content. They aren't hosting Netflix's servers, or advertising them and yet they made 200+ million just for the "privilege" of being on their store.
That also means Netflix made ~470M by having access to the App Store (or is it ~$1.13B since people are now saying 15%?)
Perhaps there should be a lower cut for cross-platform subscription services with their own distribution infrastructure, but I don't think that it should be free.

Devs pay for a license. Besides, the cost to serve an app is minuscule in relation to Apple's ecosystem, and they're not asking for a one-time fee. They want a monthly fee. So, Spotify uses their bandwidth to serve up the music every month, all Apple does is process a payment, and they should owe 30 or 15% monthly?

Also, people saying that it's easy enough to sign up on the website, so it's not stopping someone. Apple must think it will stop people, otherwise they wouldn't ban the practice of putting a lot of no out to a subscription page.
Which is $99 a year.

Using the Netflix example again, since we actually have numbers for that, do you think it's fair that a company which sold ~$670M (or ~$1.33B?) in subscriptions on iOS gets away with only paying $99 a year?

It's a two way relationship. If all the major apps left the app store, or even just a few key ones, lots of people would jump ship to another platform. Apple needs apps as much as app devs need Apple.
And a two-way relationship means that it's... two way. You don't get access to the App Store for free; and the $99 developer fee that you keep bringing up isn't it.

Apple is providing the platform and the users. Arguing againt charging for that is really, really silly.
Exactly.
 

Kalamour

Member
Oct 25, 2017
139
Ehhh Google Assistant is absolutely terrible at playing stuff on Apple Music for example
Indeed, so is Alexa (or was? It might be changing). The common point is often Apple... They might be changing but Apple policy has always been to force their own ecosystem to the consumer.
Side note, I am quite fed up with Apple policies right now because I’m on travel and I just read about the new steam link functionalities. I wanted to try it but of course I only have an iPad with me...
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
40,899
yet it works really well with Spotify, your whataboutism not so hot

edit: that was unnecessary of me, what I would say is that if Spotify can make it work then this isn't Google hamstringing the competition
I don't use Spotify so I wouldn't know, I guess it is possible it's Apple's fault that Apple Music doesn't work well with Google Assistant.

I was just pointing out that my experience with Google Assistant and Apple Music is crap lol
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
40,899
Indeed, so is Alexa (or was? It might be changing). The common point is often Apple... They might be changing but Apple policy has always been to force their own ecosystem to the consumer.
Side note, I am quite fed up with Apple policies right now because I’m on travel and I just read about the new steam link functionalities. I wanted to try it but of course I only have an iPad with me...
Yeah I didn't actually consider that the integration might be Apple's fault so mea culpa on that,
 

jefjay

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,246
I don't pretend to understand the details of this fight. But as the consumer, an iPhone owner and Spotify Premium user, I'm sure the outcome won't be in my favor.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,387
In-house pricing (and margins) are NOT considered anti-competitive IF products are priced reasonably the same. This is as age old as generic brands at grocery stores. The industry has CLEARLY marketed the price os a subscription music service at $9.99. Apple is charging $9.99. Google is charging $9.99. Apple isn't using their increased margin AT ALL to be anti-competitive here, as they are pricing it at the industry standard.

The ONLY problem is that Spotify's operational model and razor thing margins cannot withstand ANY sort of additional cut. This is not apple's problem and is DEFINITELY not an anti-competitive problem. This is a Spotify problem.

If Apple were charging a regular price of $5.99 for Apple Music.. THEN we could talk anti-competitive. But Apple charging a margin cut for stuff sold on their store is not only reasonable but the cornerstone of free market economics. That Spotify can't afford to charge the market rate AND remain profitable is their issue, and their issue alone.
Apple is forcing their competition to either charge more or reduce their profit margin while Apple isn't.

You are also ignoring the power of the default that Apple has. Apple has an unfair advantage by making Apple music the default player. Many will not bother switching, even if an objectively better service were to be created.

This is not comparable to a generic brand, as I cannot install apps outside of the App Store by default. With a generic brand I can easily go to another store if they charge more, I cannot do this on iOS.

If Apple removed the IAP cut for media apps it would force Apple to better compete with Spotify, a service many would argue is superior.
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
Apple is forcing their competition to either charge more or reduce their profit margin while Apple isn't.
knock it the fuck off with "forcing". This is all the way back to the generic version argument. You sell your product in someone else's store, it's the stores prerogative to take a cut. We enter a digital services landscape and people suddenly become stupid about this.

You are also ignoring the power of the default that Apple has. Apple has an unfair advantage by making Apple music the default player. Many will not bother switching, even if an objectively better service were to be created.
meh... you know, I won't even argue this TBH. If Apple were forced to make Music a download.. I'd think that was fair.

This is not comparable to a generic brand, as I cannot install apps outside of the App Store by default. With a generic brand I can easily go to another store if they charge more, I cannot do this on iOS.
generic branding has nothing to do with selling it outside the App Store. Back to "digital services make people throw common sense out the window". Apple has a store. Apple selling iPhones at the Apple Store have higher margins than selling iPhones at Target and Best Buy. That's how free market economics work. IF Spotify doesn't like that, they have the right to sell their subscriptions outside of the App Store. What they want is to be able to make it appear as if they are selling their subscription inside of the App Store (simulating an IAP interface) without paying for any of the advantage of that ecosystem that Apple is providing through their product (device) and service (App Store)

If Apple removed the IAP cut for media apps it would force Apple to better compete with Spotify, a service many would argue is superior.
If Spotify didn't run their business where their service with such razor thin margins that they couldn't withstand a 15-30% margin on a 3rd party store.... they would be able to better compete with Apple... but no... heaven forbid they actually do that... (which again, is LITERALLY WHY Apple's letter is 100% spot on.. This isn't about Apple being unfair.. this is about Spotify being unable to support the pricing model THEY CREATED now that all of the big boys entered the market... not the big boys' problem...)
 

Vuze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,550
What's your definition of "barely high quality" "I don't use it so it isn't that great"? They are all exceptionally popular apps and with the exception of Facebook all of them pay Apple a ton of money just to be present on the store.
Not at all, I use all of them (bar Kindle but I used to use it).

Facebook doesn't (didn't?) support certain iPad resolutions after years of them being available and the app in general needs daily force quitting since pull to refresh stops working constantly for me - and I barely use it for 30mins at day.

YouTube uses a shitty custom menu bar for their design that's been broken on the new iPad Pros for months now, locks PiP and background playback behind a paywall which is prohibited by AppStore guidelines and doesn't adhere to iOS design language. And don't even get me started on the tvOS app of theirs which ignores basically every guidelines for interactions that make the platform an otherwise pleasant experience.

These just ain't as high quality apps as they could and should be.
 

Klotera

Member
Oct 27, 2017
722
Using the Netflix example again, since we actually have numbers for that, do you think it's fair that a company which sold ~$670M (or ~$1.33B?) in subscriptions on iOS gets away with only paying $99 a year?
Do you think Netflix only sold those subscriptions because of Apple? Or the person just happened to be on an iOS device when they signed up? They may sign up on iOS and end up watching it more on their Fire Stick, yet Apple would keep getting a cut, if they signed up there.

And a two-way relationship means that it's... two way. You don't get access to the App Store for free; and the $99 developer fee that you keep bringing up isn't it.
IIf Netflix wasn't on Apple TV, hardly anyone would buy an Apple TV. It's such a core app, Apple can't afford not to have it. I can assure you that is worth more than $99 in revenue for Apple. Now, not every app is a Netflix, but Apple is always bragging about having the best app ecosystem, a selling point for their devices. People expect many of these basic apps to be available. It's not just a matter of almighty Apple being generous enough to allow these apps on its store out of the good ess of its heart. This helps them, too.
 

Ninjadom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,054
London, UK

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
IIf Netflix wasn't on Apple TV, hardly anyone would buy an Apple TV. It's such a core app, Apple can't afford not to have it. I can assure you that is worth more than $99 in revenue for Apple. Now, not every app is a Netflix, but Apple is always bragging about having the best app ecosystem, a selling point for their devices. People expect many of these basic apps to be available. It's not just a matter of almighty Apple being generous enough to allow these apps on its store out of the good ess of its heart. This helps them, too.
people need to stop it with the "$99 revenue" thing... That $99/year covers the man power needed for
Support
Documentation
approvals
infrastructure needed to facilitate releases (scheduled, promotion, etc)
development
etc

That $99 I guarantee is 100% consumed in running and growing the SUPPORT of the store (not even running and growing the store itself)
 

Rushersauce

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,163
It's nice to see the proletariat defending their favorite multibillion dollar company.

We truly live on the best timeline.
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
The issue is the fact that Apple has a competing product that because of its nature as a 'first party' product does not have the profitability issue that Spotify does on their platform. All of the other talk Apple tries to push to deflect from this is rather immaterial.
 

Klotera

Member
Oct 27, 2017
722
people need to stop it with the "$99 revenue" thing... That $99/year covers the man power needed for
Support
Documentation
approvals
infrastructure needed to facilitate releases (scheduled, promotion, etc)
development
etc

That $99 I guarantee is 100% consumed in running and growing the SUPPORT of the store (not even running and growing the store itself)
That misses the point I was making. I was making the point that you can't complain that Netflix only pays $99 because Apple literally wouldn't sell as many devices (especially Apple TV) if Netflix wasn't available. They're bringing Apple revenue in more than one way.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,981
In-house pricing (and margins) are NOT considered anti-competitive IF products are priced reasonably the same. This is as age old as generic brands at grocery stores. The industry has CLEARLY marketed the price os a subscription music service at $9.99. Apple is charging $9.99. Google is charging $9.99. Apple isn't using their increased margin AT ALL to be anti-competitive here, as they are pricing it at the industry standard.

The ONLY problem is that Spotify's operational model and razor thing margins cannot withstand ANY sort of additional cut. This is not apple's problem and is DEFINITELY not an anti-competitive problem. This is a Spotify problem.

If Apple were charging a regular price of $5.99 for Apple Music.. THEN we could talk anti-competitive. But Apple charging a margin cut for stuff sold on their store is not only reasonable but the cornerstone of free market economics. That Spotify can't afford to charge the market rate AND remain profitable is their issue, and their issue alone.
The flip side of that is by charging 'industry norm' Apple makes more margin due to not needing to pay anyone a cut. This allows them to pay artists more, which puts pressure on negotiating rounds to increase payouts, which can make '$9.99 but pay 30% to platform holder' unsustainable, but '$9.99 and keep 100% yourself' ok.