Actually the main point, which will probably make Spotify win the cause in Europe, is that the Apple music app, which is direct concurrent from Spotify, does not have to comply with the same rules. So for me, if this claim is true, then Apple will be in trouble.
Addressing Spotify’s Claims
221–230 of 688 posts
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
True, but a counter argument could be that Apple has created the ability of your phone to have apps installed on it. And I’m theory you could jailbreak your phone and install any app you’d want.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple does not have a monopoly on Smart Phones or App Stores. They're able to as much as anyone to control how their platform is used - there's no law against maintaining a closed and curated platform and your product or platform is not considered a Market in by itself. There's also no law against having a monopoly, only for abusing your monopoly in one market to gain an unfair advantage in a different one.
> There's also no law against having a monopoly, Yes there is. It's called anti-trust law and a large part is about pure market share. It's also illegal to use your monopoly in a market to get advantages in that market. Most notably, you can't use your monopoly to keep your monopoly. (I.e. intel making a deal with dell where dell cannot use AMD processors)
Apple’s market share is 15%. Not quite monopoly territory.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Google also takes a 30% commission.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#225> 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…
It's not an even playing field though. Apple has a competing music service and they can undercut their competition by avoiding the 30% transaction fee, squeezing competitors into submission.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS isn't considered to be a market so they don't have one to abuse. Unless the courts declare that iOS is a market then the App Store would be considered to have a monopoly on App Stores in iOS, but you can't have a monopoly on your own product/platform (then everyone would be a monopolist). A monopoly is measured against the overall market. If Android didn't have an App Store or it was the size of Windows App Store…
The fraction doesn't matter at all in this case. Spotify is saying they're abusing the 30% to be able to push their own music application for cheaper.
If so, McDonalds is abusing its power even more. They don’t even let me sell my burgers in their stores.
Similarly, it wouldn’t surprise me if music festivals or cinemas charge suppliers selling on their grounds more than 30% of revenues.
I know app stores feel different, but as far as I know, that legally still is a reasonably apt comparison. That may eventually change, but if so, someone will have to specify what exactly the difference is. I’m not sure that is as simple as “physical vs digital”.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#227This whole discussion comes from spotify losing users, and Apple gaining so much.
I switched from spotify -> Apple music because:
1) I can store my own music in icloud and play them on my devices
2) Better content and includes videos
3) "Radio"
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#228> 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…
Have you ever tried getting a subscription with Spotify on an account linked to facebook, where the facebook account was disconnected?
It is impossible to stop the subscription. No thank you, I will trust my payments with Apple.. Esp. subscriptions.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. They took half of FreeBSD without giving them a single cent, only to never give horseshit about them afterwards. They're didn't even add support for FreeBSD to Swift despite the fact it would cost them very little effort, just to underline how little they care.
To be fair, if FreeBSD didn't want that to happen, they should have licensed under GPL.
FreeBSD quite famously is not licensed under the GPL but rather under a BSD-style license.
Re: Addressing Spotify’s Claims
#230> 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…
> I think that's a very hypothetical claim.
How is this is a hypothetical claim? It is blatantly obvious. Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace. Even now, desktop use constitutes a tiny fraction of their total users.
It's not a hypothetical claim at all, really.
> 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss
Source? Because 30% / 15% is a common middleman commision for most platforms.
> Google provides a similar App store service
This is ridiculously far from the truth. Google's Play Store isn't curated in the least. Malware regularly pops up, the review process is effectively nonexistent, and the quality of apps on the Play Store is thus far below what one can get from the App Store.
There are costs to reviewing every app. I don't think it's fair for you to say 30% is unfair unless you (a) compare the costs to other middlemen, and (b) figure out how expensive the review process and other infrastructure is.
In general, all you really seem to be doing is promoting freeloading off the App Store. Utilize the benefits it provides, but have users pay for your service via a side-channel so you don't have to contribute back to the ecosystem.