So what was wrong with using Apple subscription service but jacking up the price 50%?
It's a lazy tax as far as I see it, why would anyone complain?
Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
711–720 of 865 posts
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#712Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those who have significant sums invested in the App Store, they are effectively dominant as there is no way to switch app licenses to a different app store.
Sure, but the rules are _reasonably_ unambiguous and unchanging. The 30% cut has been in place since day one. If Spotify didn't like it, they had the choice to focus their attentions exclusively on other platforms. That wasn't the case with Windows+IE, when effectively there were no other platforms of any size.
And worth noting that Spotify grows by millions of paying subscribers every quarter without the app store. They're currently choosing to focus exclusively on other channels rather than try to pay the 30% and… doing better than Apple Music…
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#713This will keep happening until Apple does what it should have done all along: give users control by allowing them to sideload apps.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#714Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…
Making micro-transactions more profitable would be an unfortunate course of action. There are enough of those apps in the store, and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime. Subscriptions for apps should be different, but I see a challenge in drawing the line between Spotify/Netflix and a scam app like "awesome culculator" that charges $5/mo to people who don'didn't realize it was a subs…
> and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime
These dollars are most certainly coming from VC funding. Most of these businesses aren't (and will never be) profitable.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#715Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…
Making micro-transactions more profitable would be an unfortunate course of action. There are enough of those apps in the store, and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime. Subscriptions for apps should be different, but I see a challenge in drawing the line between Spotify/Netflix and a scam app like "awesome culculator" that charges $5/mo to people who don'didn't realize it was a subs…
> There are enough of those apps in the store, and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime.
You're talking about the top 1% or less of micro transaction-based apps here. There are ton of indie apps that depend on micro transactions and aren't making enough to buy a Super Bowl ad.
It's unfortunate that spammy or low quality micro transaction-based apps have become commonplace, but I'd rather that be dealt with by the App Store flagging and filtering the apps with issues.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade to a premium account inside their iOS app last year. You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple getting any cut at all. https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip... Netflix has done the same thing. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-... In my book, the problem is that…
> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. The counter point is, if Apple allowed this, then every single App would use that method. Most people would not realize or care that they bought the XYZ in a web view vs through the AppStore payment system. Even apps that are currently paid only would switch to a "free" app with a "pay here" in-app purchas…
There is still a non-zero cost to implementing a checkout page, as well as associated vendor fees etc. In a fair market the fees for Apple checkout would be along the same lines as Stripe, PayPal etc., but they are using their position as the device and OS vendor to charge 10x as much and giving developers no other option.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#717Apple 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…
Which is especially unfortunate, since most Kindle users want this feature and (probably) frequently request it, not knowing that Amazon's hand is forced.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit this. This is what Spotify used to do (charging $13 instead of the normal $10 to give apple their cut), but they stopped when apple started making apple music available at $10 (since they didn't need to pay their own tax)
That's the sort of behavior that gets your company broken up. Apple's management team doesn't seem to own a single history book between them.
How so? Isn't the tipping point of an antitrust suit a lack of competition and/or a monopolized position? Apple doesn't have that. They can do whatever they want in the confines of their own store.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they need to do is split off the new competing services into a walled corporation (even new entity). And they play fair by the rules, so 30% tax even to them.
Not sure if you know how enterprises work. But it is standard practice for divisions to bill other divisions for work. I would be almost certain that Apple Music is already paying the 30% tax however since it’s internal it doesn’t really make a difference. Likewise splitting into a new entity does not change anything.
It changes a lot, since as an independent entity Apple Music (for example) is answerable to its own investors and board of directors, including having the pressure to be profitable. Right now Apple can subsidize them for as long as they force all competitors out.
Re: Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade to a premium account inside their iOS app last year. You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple getting any cut at all. https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip... Netflix has done the same thing. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-... In my book, the problem is that…
>In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app. Why on earth is Apple allowed to do that? I get that it is their marketplace and their rules, but they are directly hurting competition and consumers this way. There's simply no real argument to prohibit developers like this. Seems like something the EU should combat against.
That depends on whether you prioritize the ability for developers to profit or the security of customers making the purchase. Apple is guaranteeing its users that purchases made within apps are secure and that only Apple has access to their payment info. In the alternate scenario, customers have no way of verifying the security or veracity of some random app developer collecting their payment info.