Hey Apple, if not for Spotify we would still had to cope with iTunes..
Addressing Spotify’s Claims
161–170 of 688 posts
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a good comparison. An iOS device is not like a book shop. The iBooks application is. Nobody's asking that you can buy Kindle books in iBooks, but you can't even buy Kindle books in the Kindle app because Apple would demand 30% of the book. If you open the Kindle app on Windows you can buy books in there and Microsoft doesn't take a cut of the sale. People would lose their mind over this. Why is Apple diffe…
You can import books via iTunes.
You're still missing the point.
Apple owns a mall (iOS). In that mall, Apple owns a book store (iTunes). Amazon also has a book store in the mall (Kindle).
Apple does not want to sell Amazon's books (Kindle format ebooks) in it's store (iTunes). Ok.
Apple decrees that no store in the mall shall sell any books but iTunes books, which only they may sell. Not Ok.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a case of morals, but 30% at apples scale is fairly egregious.
Pretty cheap actually for distribution channels. If Spotify were selling their products through retail they would probably lose about 50% of their margins.
It's not fair to compare a digital marketplace with retail channels..
I'm quite sure technically (at the size of the Apple Store) a digital marketplace could charge 1% and still make a profit after the operational costs.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holy cow. So you have to play a song 227 times for the artist to make a dollar off the song? Any idea what it's like for just buying the song on Amazon?
Artists or record labels get about 30 cents of a $0.99 song purchase I believe.
Wow interesting... thank you!
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#165Nice side stepping there on apple music not paying fees to apple store and advertising from within the app as well as offering in app subscriptions and tighter integration with other apple services that outside developers do not have.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, Apple makes Microsoft look like an angel. Using this argument, Microsoft could claim they could have made hundreds of billions if they got a cut out of every Windows app sale. Oh, and that those companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Windows.
Look at what Apple is doing to native integration [1]: Because it uses these deep integration APIs, we're only allowed to distribute the application using the macOS App Store (whose rejections, appeals, and eventual acceptance made for quite the stressful saga over the last week and a half) Imagine having to get certified by the Linux Foundation, under distribution clause, to access native Linux kernel APIs. But that…
In addition, Windows 10 requires that Microsoft approve and sign each kernel driver that's loaded, actually.
https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/windows-driver-docs/blob/HE...
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#167> 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 literally sued artists and musicians because they didnt agree with a court ordered fee increase...but Apples hypocritical on this issue somehow. Spotify also uses Apples infrastructure and marketing tools for its app. I dont think Ive seen any app creator up on stage at Apple events more than Spotify. Its not like Spotify will use Apples tools and ecosystem one time then stop. Its ongoing and 15% is reasonabl…
Well, why don't Apple Music pay its "fair share" of 15%~30% to Google since it's hosted on Google Play? They are also using Google's tools and ecosystem.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use spotify and netflix without going through apple, the former on my linux desktop, the latter additionally on my smart tv.
You can't carry neither your TV nor your desktop on the go with you like you can with your smartphone.
But just like my TV and my desktop computer, I've paid for my phone with cash. Its mine. Just like my PC, I don't owe Apple Computers any extra money in exchange for the privilege to install apps like spotify on my device. The benefit of having access to the app store is already factored into the (quite high) price I paid for my phone.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the problem was, that their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own, if they choose to.
There is zero evidence that Apple does not pay the 30%. We don't see the internal accounting but it's quite likely they do. Internal revenue distribution is standard practice in almost all enterprises.
>> Internal revenue distribution is standard practice in almost all enterprises.
This is both true and generally irrelevant for business, except for the particular matter of taxation.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#170> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs. We think that’s wrong. I think that's a very hypothetical claim. > Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update…
> And Spotify isn't asking to keep 100% of the revenue. Spotify is asking for a choice of letting users pay how they wish. But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling…
> But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams.
Give me a break. It doesn’t take 15-30% to implement a secure payment system. This is proven by Apple itself: Apple Pay charges very little for secure payments for physical goods.