71–80 of 825 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage is acceptable to you? Perhaps all percentage based transactions are rent seeking and should be made illegal. I’m on board.
Any percentage is accessible, Spotify just can't be forced to use it. Don't wanna use Spotify's own billing system? Don't use Spotify, there's Apple music. Voila. Competition.
Let’s not act like this is some “principles” based discussion. The only reason for the EU getting into this is that spotify is european and Apple isn’t
I wish one of the outcome would be to allow better web browsers than Safari on iOS.
There are exactly three browser engines of any note: Safari's, Chrome's and Firefox's.
iOS allows other browsers and doesn't allow other engines. And considering things like this: https://webapicontroversy.com/ I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter. According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue. So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get…
But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter. According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue. So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get…
But I think the key here, and probably a big reason Spotify went after Apple and not Google, is that on iOS you have to use Apple's app store. You can't distribute your app using your own infrastructure, or an alternative app store even if you want to.
Also as a user I don't see any evidence that I am suffering from this, are app prices significantly lower on Android App Stores other than the Play Store? The vast majority of Apps are free, or rally pretty cheap. Show me the evidence.
I think the idea that competition in this area will benefit users is highly dubious. Does it really benefit users on Android? Side loading didn't work out for Fortnite very well.
At the end of the day it's Apple's product and they get to decide what code they do or don't write and what features they do or don't support and how they work. They get to decide, and are accountable for the security architecture. As long as hey are meeting trade, advertising and safety standards it's up to them.
Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).
It's 30% for the first year of subscriptions and 15% thereafter. According to Apple in 2019 Spotify didn't actually pay 30% on any of it's subscriptions at that time, and only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. The rest are ad supported and Apple gets 0% of the ad revenue. So for every Spotify app user Apple get's a 15% fee for, there are 199 Spotify app users Apple is distributing the App to for which they get…
If you started a music streaming service, could you get those lower rates? If not, is there any way you coins compete?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Their platform, their rules" – there are many people who say this, especially on HN.
The problem is not the rules themselves. The rules applies to Spotify, but not to Apple music. Apple should make Apple music a separate entity, and make it pay 30%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they're proposing anything at this point but the obvious remedy would be to allow third party payment options.
I think this would be the best solution. Apples only (real) reason for forbidding sideloading is because then they could no longer force people to use their payments. If developers were free to use 3rd party payment solutions, then Apple would probably be a lot more lenient towards side loading apps. I believe that Apple generally wants to build what's best for their customers, except when money is on the line.
Happy to have 3rd party payment options as long as it prevents sideloading.
Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).
Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee".
How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine with the fee. If they weren't, they wouldnt use it. It's a choice.
Also "abusing market position" what does that mean. It's purposely broad, it can mean anything.