Your idea of clear and direct is Apple not directly responding to Spotify's claims? OK then.Like that Apple is taking this problem head on with Spotify. Clear and direct statement and nothing ambiguous in their response, your turn next Spotify!
Your idea of clear and direct is Apple not directly responding to Spotify's claims? OK then.Like that Apple is taking this problem head on with Spotify. Clear and direct statement and nothing ambiguous in their response, your turn next Spotify!
What? So if a platform holder, like valve with steam, shouldn't be able to sell games? Apple setup iTunes to sell music. Now everybody streams music. Apple is changing with the times and you think they shouldn't also go into streaming music because they control the App Store and the App Store has other streaming options?"Like every other app developer"
Except Apple itself, obviously.
Warren is right on this. Platform holders should be designated as utilities and should not be able to compete on said platform.
Said fucking who?
No, they shouldn't. Because it's heavily anticompetitive.What? So if a platform holder, like valve with steam, shouldn't be able to sell games? Apple setup iTunes to sell music. Because they're changing with the times they shouldn't also go into streaming music because they control the App Store?
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.This is not true. That's why competition rules and anti-trust cases exist.
The Watch app is free. The Spotify app is free.Can you download the watch app without going through the app store and bypassing the 30% cut? If not then apple has an issue on their hands.
The first parties you listed are selling different content than other developers on those platforms. Streaming a Nirvana song from Spotify is not functionally different than streaming a Nirvana song from Apple Music, but Apple gives themselves in advantage in their marketplace.How is this that different than any other walled garden? Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all compete with 3rd parties who must pay a cut that 1st parties don't. This goes for both games and on-platform media sales.
i don't care which side won. I just want cheaper (free) music in a centralized and consolidated package.
What's stopping Apple from just removing Spotify from the App Store? They can't complain about competition because there are other streaming services available on there.
What exactly does this distinction prove? If Apple had a library of exclusive content, would their service be appreciably different then? Why does "same product" matter?The first parties you listed are selling different content than other developers on those platforms. Streaming a Nirvana song from Spotify is not functionally different than streaming a Nirvana song from Apple Music, but Apple gives themselves in advantage in their marketplace.
Second, Spotify is not just an iOS service. So, people sign up through the app, but may end up using on their pc. So, they're paying 30% to Apple for a service that someone could only be using half time on their iOS device.
But similarly, they could be making literally zero cents on users that had signed up for Spotify premium outside the app, but are still using it 99% on their iPhone. So that would kinda balance things out, don't you think?
Also, the share is 15% after the 2nd year.
But similarly, they could be making literally zero cents on users that had signed up for Spotify premium outside the app, but are still using it 99% on their iPhone. So that would kinda balance things out, don't you think?
What exactly does this distinction prove? If Apple had a library of exclusive content, would their service be appreciably different then? Why does "same product" matter?
And of course, Sony and Microsoft DO sell the exact same products as potential competitors. A film downloaded from Sony is no different than one you might buy on Amazon or Vudu.
Yea, there is no comeback from that line...
They did and exposed Spotify's exaggeration/lies re: service integration at the very least 🤷♂️Your idea of clear and direct is Apple not directly responding to Spotify's claims? OK then.
Last I checked you can't even purchase movies in the Vudu/Amazon apps — either Sony doesn't allow it or they want to avoid Sony's tax.Does Sony demand a 30% cut of movies purchased/rented on the Amazon streaming PS4 app?
I see. So does apple prevent developers from having the option to launch a browser from within the app to subscribe?The Watch app is free. The Spotify app is free.
If you subscribe to spotify from within the App, Apple takes a cut.
They don't take a cut if you already are a premium subscriber, they don't take a cut from the ad revenue the free spotify tier generates.
Yes since that would be circumventing the app store. It's the same reason the Steam Link app got shut-down because people had the ability to buy Steam Games through the streaming and Apple didn't like that.I see. So does apple prevent developers from having the option to launch a browser from within the app to subscribe?
Lots of Apple hate here. Won't somebody think of the small startup streaming service owned and operated by billionaire Daniel Ek, who doesn't seem to believe the artists on his platform deserve a fair cut?
Interested to see the percentage of people such as myself that use Spotify on Apple devices but set up the account/sub via browser, compared to those who pay via app.
Spotify's claims amount to Proctor & Gamble saying "Why does Target get to sell generic laundry detergent with higher margin at the same price as our Tide product? That's unfair."Your idea of clear and direct is Apple not directly responding to Spotify's claims? OK then.
Lots of Apple hate here. Won't somebody think of the small startup streaming service owned and operated by billionaire Daniel Ek, who doesn't seem to believe the artists on his platform deserve a fair cut?
Interested to see the percentage of people such as myself that use Spotify on Apple devices but set up the account/sub via browser, compared to those who pay via app.
Just to make it clear: Spotify have removed the option to buy a subscription in their app.The Watch app is free. The Spotify app is free.
If you subscribe to spotify from within the App, Apple takes a cut.
They don't take a cut if you already are a premium subscriber, they don't take a cut from the ad revenue the free spotify tier generates.
Both companies benefit from Spotify being on the App Store, but it would hurt Spotify more than Apple if they were blacklisted.No. Why should Apple make money from that? People keep making this out to be a one way beneficial relationship, but as other posters have mentioned, Apple benefits from having Spotify in their store too outside of just monetary compensation.
Yeah, I'm sure that $99 Spotify pays Apple to be on the service is really covering their bills.Also people realize to upload an app to the Apple store devs pay yearly for a Developer account, right? Just because the act of uploading doesn't cost them doesn't mean the entire process is free. Even for "free" apps without IAP, Apple makes money
Should stores be required to carry every product that someone wants to sell, or should they be able to decide what products they want to offer?Said fucking who?
We're just giving up to monopolies now?
Regulate this shit already.
So you're saying that the App Store should be taken over and publicly owned/funded/regulated rather than controlled by Apple?No, they shouldn't. Because it's heavily anticompetitive.
Digital platforms, especially app delivery systems in closed systems, should be treated like public utilities at this point. Everybody needs one.
Yes. You're not allowed to link to external stores from an app to bypass the in-app purchase system.I see. So does apple prevent developers from having the option to launch a browser from within the app to subscribe?
I think there's a massive difference between stocking an item on a store shelf (Which takes up physical space, let alone the costs of shipping said product) and a digital storefront where Apple isn't going through hoops to have Spotify's product on there. You're kind of splitting hairs with this argument if you just want to say "Oh well these stores have no problem so too bad so sad Spotify!"Spotify's claims amount to Proctor & Gamble saying "Why does Target get to sell generic laundry detergent with higher margin at the same price as our Tide product? That's unfair."
The answer is easy... don't sell your product (i.e. subscription) at that store then (App Store).
This shit has been around for decades in retail.. but we get to digital services and everyone throws common sense out the fucking window. Apple didn't respond to it because it literally merits no response. What DOES warrant a response is Spotify's entire business model revolving around "how can we pay as little as absolutely possible to ALL of the companies and creator's who allow us to exist?"
Last I checked you can't even purchase movies in the Vudu/Amazon apps — either Sony doesn't allow it or they want to avoid Sony's tax.
Spotify's claims amount to Proctor & Gamble saying "Why does Target get to sell generic laundry detergent with higher margin at the same price as our Tide product? That's unfair."
The answer is easy... don't sell your product (i.e. subscription) at that store then (App Store).
This shit has been around for decades in retail.. but we get to digital services and everyone throws common sense out the fucking window. Apple didn't respond to it because it literally merits no response. What DOES warrant a response is Spotify's entire business model revolving around "how can we pay as little as absolutely possible to ALL of the companies and creator's who allow us to exist?"
So now THIS I will say needs to be looked into. Right now it's very "he said she said". But yes I agree. The Siri rules SHOULD be the same for all developers. and if not Apple needs to be taken to task.. That being said.. We've seen in the past claims that apple is being obstructive when clearly THEY were not the ones obstructing (Amazon). So EU or such may be the best place to figure the Siri thing out. For all we know Spotify is full of shit.. or Apple is being asses.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.
yes, it is. And this is literally what I JUST said!A locked down digital ecosystem isn't really comparable to a physical store.
Storage is relatively minor, sure.. but no way do I believe Apple's bandwidth bills are trivial. Probably a good chunk of operational costs. Plus maintenance, development, etc of the platform. Those things may even rival dollar per square footage at retail locations when we're talking about downloads (billions)I think there's a massive difference between stocking an item on a store shelf (Which takes up physical space, let alone the costs of shipping said product) and a digital storefront where Apple isn't going through hoops to have Spotify's product on there. You're kind of splitting hairs with this argument if you just want to say "Oh well these stores have no problem so too bad so sad Spotify!"
Apple is getting $0 from their subscriptions, while paying for the distribution costs of their app.
Company size is irrelevant. This is about competition and consumer welfare.
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.
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.Storage is relatively minor, sure.. but no way do I believe Apple's bandwidth bills are trivial. Probably a good chunk of operational costs. Plus maintenance, development, etc of the platform. Those things may even rival dollar per square footage at retail locations when we're talking about downloads (billions)
The only contribution that Apple requires is for digital goods and services that are purchased inside the app using our secure in-app purchase system. As Spotify points out, that revenue share is 30 percent for the first year of an annual subscription — but they left out that it drops to 15 percent in the years after.
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.
I'm curious what you think would happen if overnight apps like Facebook, Netflix, YouTube, Kindle and the like all vanished from Apple's platform.That's nonsense. The iPhone sold millions of devices with a tiny, minuscule fraction of the apps it has now. They can't take it away but the idea the apps drove the size of the App Store is wrong.
Apple is providing the platform and the users. Arguing againt charging for that is really, really silly.
I'm curious what you think would happen if overnight apps like Facebook, Netflix, YouTube, Kindle and the like all vanished from Apple's platform.
The platform grew because of the support of apps, it may have sold decently but it wasn't flying off the shelves like it is nowadays.
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.
The platform grew because of the support of apps, it may have sold decently but it wasn't flying off the shelves like it is nowadays.