Addressing Spotify’s Claims

Post by lozenge » Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 6:49 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #5

zaidf wrote: post #3

Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. Wow. It is astonishing to read this from a company being widely accused of an unfair 30% tax. Correction: the revenue share is 15%, it was originally 30%

To be fair Apple capitulated and reduced it to 15% for after the first year, and leave a lot of money on the table from freemium/ad-supported apps. I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is. You can subscribe outside of the App store (by not using in-app payments) and not pay that extra $$, and Apple doesn't get that extra $$.

Post by eridius » Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 6:49 AM UTC

cialowicz wrote: post #17

segphault wrote: post #7

> Underneath the rhetoric, Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work. And it’s not just the App Store that they’re trying to squeeze — it’s also artists, musicians and songwriters. Uh, I seem to recall Apple being forced to reverse some brazenly greedy policies for their music service when a high-profile artist called them out and withheld content in protest. For Apple to characterize itself as a champion…

> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work.

Post by chrischen » Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 6:50 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #21

chrischen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the % for processing/platform is justifiable and hard to argue against setting that % for them. The most likely outcome is that they will either remove the restriction from advertising alternative payment methods on signup, and in exchange Apple can do what it wants with in-app payments.

I agree that the best case is that Apple sets the price it does business at, but that there are reasonable ways for the app to use a different payment provider, even if just by linking to the web. This keeps Apple's price in check naturally... As they'll need to keep the price competitive enough that the convenience of using their service is worth it.

Post by justinjlynn » Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 6:52 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #33

cialowicz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify’s aim is to make more money off others’ work Moreover, that's the pot calling the kettle black. That's the app store in a nutshell -- Apple supplies the marketplace, but is also making a substantial chunk of money off of others’ work.

Spotify is essentially a middleman. Apple is much more, they’re building the entire platform.

Post by est » Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 6:55 AM UTC

lozenge wrote: post #27

est wrote: post #24

Can anyone explain why Wechat, the app that can do everything, streaming paid music, read paid ebooks, order food and goods, play games, are allowed to charge directly without IAP? Heck wechat even had its own mini app store.

Because apple needs wechat and not the other way around. WeChat being an essential feature for any Chinese customer.