As an extension, not only is Apple guilty of the absurd 30% tax on IAP, Google does it too and I think its very unfair that you cannot choose your own payment processor. Apple and Google should be viewed as an oligarchy of some sort being that they control almost all of the mobile market. The fact that there is almost no oversight to their business practices and their ability to literally take any app off the market or charge whatever processing fee they want is ridiculous. Its not like any company can also just set out to build their own app store since Google and specially Apple would never allow them to compete. I could go on this topic for days since I just know how much mobile developers are so vulnerable and powerless against the app stores.
Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
561–570 of 865 posts
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#562Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#563Cannot post link to
https://www.timetoplayfair.com/ on Facebook.
It says:
Oops
Something went wrong. We're working on getting it fixed as soon as we can.Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#564I hate to be that guy, but Apple built their own platform and they can bend the rules as they see fit.
Spotify should just quit said platform if they don't like the rules and ask their "fans" to follow them over to other platforms. I know this is not likely to happen but, oh boy, what a move. Let's all jump into the water and let the Apple platform be an Apple service ghost town.
On the other hand I do want to see Apple slapped on the hand by the European Commission and level the ground for all developers, specially indie ones.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how would you know Spotify Premium even exists if Spotify is prohibited by Apple to make any mention of it?
IIRC the iOS app promotes the desktop app, which can promote the premium plan. I have to imagine a fair number of Google searches for "spotify remove ads", too, which can lead to an upgrade.
Not every ios user has a desktop
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterargument: Apple's review process is more likely to let "some guy's" app slip through the cracks and make it in the App Store than the official app of one of its huge competitors with an install base of many, many, many millions of devices.
If I remember correctly the app wasn't on the app store (presumably because it couldn't get approved)
And its frustrating because a company like Spotify surely isn't asking Apple ahead of time if they can build a watch app.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#567Apple did the same thing to Kindle for iPhone back when it launched. We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple announces their intent to build in-app purchasing. The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MU…
> Kindle for iPhone
You put a walled garden... in another walled garden.
On a more serious note: I get it; among Apple users are the most happily paying people that you can find on this planet and if you have a product you want to make it available to them. No wonder they think it their right to take a massive 30% cut.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#568Interesting tidbit: "FairPlay" was the name of apple's proprietary iTunes DRM technology that was eventually mostly phased out due to the aftermath of Steve Jobs' open letter [1]. I wonder if the naming parallel is intentional?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#Steve_Jobs'_%22Though...
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody's claiming it's impossible. That's a strawman. What Spotify is complaining about is that it is possible, but at a massive inconvenience to users, (having to manually type the payment url into safari etc that they need to find manually first), which makes it so that most just decide the burden is not worth the hassle. That's how anti competitive behavior manifests itself, usually. Technically, anything is possi…
>Spotify doesn't want to use Apple's infrastructure and is compelled to do so regardless I believe I mentioned that not being allowed to provide a link to their payment website within their app was anticompetitive in my initial post? However your assertion that Spotify is forced to use Apple's in app payment system is simply not true. Especially given the fact that they no longer use it at all for new users.
> However your assertion that Spotify is forced to use Apple's in app payment system is simply not true.
But they absolutely are if they want to offer the same level of experience as Apple Music can.
What they're doing now is significantly degrading the user experience compared to Apple Music, which is the whole premise behind them complaining. I don't know why that needs explaining.
What you're saying is effectively akin to 'the iPhone is not limited to running iOS, because you could disassemble the SoC, reverse engineer the HW and load your own OS on it".
Am sure it would theoretically be possible, however nobody sane would say 'Apple allows multiple operating systems to run on the iPhone'.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribes to Spotify through Apple devices. This cost doesn't doesn't exist for PC users, for example. They probably could live with it but I can understand why it feels like an artificial cost that Apple came up with. It would be an understandable cost if they were selling the Spotify App through the App Store and using the actual store i…
> A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribe to Spotify through Apple devices Not so as I understand it. Only if you put the option to subscribe into your app in the app store. That cost doesn't exist for Mac or PC, but Apple doesn't heavily curate and have costs associated with the wild west of downloading apps from the web. > it doesn't weight anything to Apple There are…
>Not so as I understand it. Only if you put the option to subscribe into your app in the app store. That cost doesn't exist for Mac or PC, but Apple doesn't heavily curate and have costs associated with the wild west of downloading apps from the web.
They can do the purchases on their own website, but its against App Store rules for an app to tell users that they have the option of upgrading outside of IAP.