Perhaps Apple should allow redirects to outside the AppStore for certain things. it makes no sense that a company like Spotify or Netflix etc. should have to pay a 30% fee just for Apple to process the credit card transaction. Especially when they do their own processing as well. Having said that I have no sympathy for Spotify because they were perfectly fine with charging consumers that 30% "tax" before Apple music launched. so this has nothing to do with looking out for the consumer. It's all about trying to prevent a mass exodus to Apple music.
You are missing the value of the AppStore. Users who signup via the AppStore are available to Spotify because of Apple. If Spotify actually paid for advertising and attracted people to their site, they would be their customers. In that case they own the relationship and the customer would sign directly and bypass Apple. Apple's policies are fine with this. It's just not in their interest market their store, maintain it and support it, but not make a profit on it. It's not Apple's job to provide them a free platform to siphon users from.
Secondly, for other App developers, the percentage taken by Apple is nothing compared to what the App developer would have to do if they have to do all there work by themselves (creating e-commerce site, managing payment, etc.)
Yes, but let's add a bit of practical analysis to this statement. If you are a small developer with thousands, or even 10s of thousands of customers (ie, a startup), those marketing and transaction processing costs on a per customer basis are going to be high. Acquiring new customers is typically much more expensive than maintaining an existing customer. In those cases Apple's 30% cut is justified, and probably a very good bargain for the developer.
But if you have millions of customers, the economies of scale mean those marketing/transaction costs per customer are going to be dramatically lower. And in the case of subscriptions, that cost/customer is quickly approaching zero other than the cost of processing the credit card transaction. After that transaction data is sent to the developer (relatively cheap to perform), the developer still has to have all the back end systems to handle the transaction and update the user's account. Apple does still provide services in that they provide the mechanism to distribute app updates and such, but given the iTunes massive economies of scale that, too, is relatively cheap.
The 30% Apple takes for subscriptions is not related to the cost of the service Apple provides. It is a pure-and-simple "because they can."
Pretty pathetic of them to transfer 100% of the appstore fee to the customer. Typically, this is the cost of doing business, and having access to a platform of hundreds of millions of active users that are actually willing to pay for shit. Spotify should eat the cost, or at least some of it.
Not at all. It's a 30% cost that someone has to eat. I see no problem with Spotify showing how customers can choose to save $3 per month on service.
Perhaps Apple should allow redirects to outside the AppStore for certain things. it makes no sense that a company like Spotify or Netflix etc. should have to pay a 30% fee just for Apple to process the credit card transaction. Especially when they do their own processing as well. Having said that I have no sympathy for Spotify because they were perfectly fine with charging consumers that 30% "tax" before Apple music launched. so this has nothing to do with looking out for the consumer. It's all about trying to prevent a mass exodus to Apple music.
It's a slippery slope to make exception for the 30% rule. Beside, these companies must see value in the App Store including the 30% fee because if they don't then they would have took Amazon approach or pulled their apps from the App Store in protest.
Perhaps Apple should allow redirects to outside the AppStore for certain things. it makes no sense that a company like Spotify or Netflix etc. should have to pay a 30% fee just for Apple to process the credit card transaction. Especially when they do their own processing as well. Having said that I have no sympathy for Spotify because they were perfectly fine with charging consumers that 30% "tax" before Apple music launched. so this has nothing to do with looking out for the consumer. It's all about trying to prevent a mass exodus to Apple music.
Google Play does the EXACT same thing that the App Store does. 30% for all app transactions (in-app purchases, downloads, and subscriptions) and no links can be within the app to external stores to make said app transactions. Amazon also charges 30%. Where is Spotify with the complaints about Google Play or the Amazon Store?
This is how it's been for awhile now with such services (magazine subs, etc). They can't link to the outside from within the app, but to my knowledge there's nothing saying the company can't email them about signing up on a website, etc. So both Apple and Spotify are operating within the existing AppStore rules.
Yeah, there's no problem here. The Economist's app is free, and my subscription to the relevant content stems from my dead-tree subscription. Spotify can do the same if it hasn't already (I don't use it): separate the app and the subscription credentials, and they're golden.
For a limited time, sign up with Spotify and get two free Samsung tablets*
*while inventory lasts. Please take this inventory off our hands, or it's off to a landfill in New Mexico and it will cost us money to recycle the lithium batteries before burial.
No, but if you want perpetual access to Apples hundreds of millions of customer who are willing to pay for things, then you should expect to pay them perpetually.
Ha, didn't even know there was an option for in-app subscription for Spotify. I tried it for a few months before and it was easy to build playlists on my laptop to use on the phone. Haven't tried that with Apple Music because the For You section has been very good for me so far, don't feel the need to build my custom list yet.
This is how it's been for awhile now with such services (magazine subs, etc). They can't link to the outside from within the app, but to my knowledge there's nothing saying the company can't email them about signing up on a website, etc. So both Apple and Spotify are operating within the existing AppStore rules.
Indeed, I do it as well for one of my apps. As long as I do the marketing via my own website, it is OK for Apple. The 30% commission that Apple is taking for inApp purchases is rather high compared to the value that Apple is offering to the app developer.
Given that there are million of apps, the exposure of my app by Apple is extremely limited and does not justify the 30% as it did when there were only a few thousand apps in the App store.
Secondly, for other App developers, the percentage taken by Apple is nothing compared to what the App developer would have to do if they have to do all there work by themselves (creating e-commerce site, managing payment, etc.) Yes, like Android Apps has other market places, unlike Apple. But, for Apple, for the reputation and creditability they want to make sure that roque Apps do not get on their device, because for Apple they are not only the OS manufacturer, but the hardware too. The consumer are going to blame Apple and not the App that is draining the battery or the app that is posting some consumer data in background to some public website. Matter of fact, Google learned the hard way and they are actually going in the direction of following Apple Store model, a control App store.
Apple is not offering you an e-commerce tool, just a payment tool. If you want to develop an app for an e-commerce site, then you still have to develop the e-commerce site yourself or use an e-commerce tool like Magento or PrestaShop. And these e-commerce tools include a payment tool from the shelf (accepting more payment methods than Apple supports).
So yes the 30% that Apple is charging is high compared to the normal 3% a standard payment tool is charging. Of course Apple is also doing the marketing and hosting of the app, but having million of apps in the App Store, these efforts are quite limited in value for a single app.
The remark about posting consumer data to websites is not correct: Apple cannot check which data the app is sending out, because there is no way to detect which data is absolutely necessary for the app to work correctly and which data can be misused for any commercial purpose. And because one is allowed to use standard https to encrypt the line, Apple cannot even read the data.
No, but if you want perpetual access to Apples hundreds of millions of customer who are willing to pay for things, then you should expect to pay them perpetually.
That's like 30% of your mortgage going to the broker every month.
Apple does now have to be careful though because they can't be construed as anti-competitive and monopolistic, especially if they have the new Apple Music streaming option. If people can sign up outside of app and then log into account at $9.99/month so be it, but if you purchase through app then it should be Apple's prerogative to charge fee. It's a fine line.
I agree Apple can not stop them, the rules are still valid about not directing people out of the app to a website (there is lots of other reason not to allow this other than the money), nothing in the rule says you can not email them and say they also have the option of signing up on the companies website and paying there. There are other services out there which has a web presents which you can sign up on and pay you fees and also use an app to access your account.
I guessing Apple knew this was come and probably factored in that companies like Spotify would encourge people to pay direct vs via Itune store and they would eventually loose this revenue stream. But if apple music is a hit this lost is a drop in a bucket
Comments
They must really be looking at a lot of customer defections.
Secondly, for other App developers, the percentage taken by Apple is nothing compared to what the App developer would have to do if they have to do all there work by themselves (creating e-commerce site, managing payment, etc.)
Yes, but let's add a bit of practical analysis to this statement. If you are a small developer with thousands, or even 10s of thousands of customers (ie, a startup), those marketing and transaction processing costs on a per customer basis are going to be high. Acquiring new customers is typically much more expensive than maintaining an existing customer. In those cases Apple's 30% cut is justified, and probably a very good bargain for the developer.
But if you have millions of customers, the economies of scale mean those marketing/transaction costs per customer are going to be dramatically lower. And in the case of subscriptions, that cost/customer is quickly approaching zero other than the cost of processing the credit card transaction. After that transaction data is sent to the developer (relatively cheap to perform), the developer still has to have all the back end systems to handle the transaction and update the user's account. Apple does still provide services in that they provide the mechanism to distribute app updates and such, but given the iTunes massive economies of scale that, too, is relatively cheap.
The 30% Apple takes for subscriptions is not related to the cost of the service Apple provides. It is a pure-and-simple "because they can."
Not at all. It's a 30% cost that someone has to eat. I see no problem with Spotify showing how customers can choose to save $3 per month on service.
Perhaps Apple should allow redirects to outside the AppStore for certain things. it makes no sense that a company like Spotify or Netflix etc. should have to pay a 30% fee just for Apple to process the credit card transaction. Especially when they do their own processing as well. Having said that I have no sympathy for Spotify because they were perfectly fine with charging consumers that 30% "tax" before Apple music launched. so this has nothing to do with looking out for the consumer. It's all about trying to prevent a mass exodus to Apple music.
It's a slippery slope to make exception for the 30% rule. Beside, these companies must see value in the App Store including the 30% fee because if they don't then they would have took Amazon approach or pulled their apps from the App Store in protest.
If this violates Apple's rules on apps, then the app may be pulled.
Sounds like it might violate Apple's ToS...
No rules were broken. Amazon has been doing it for long time.
What say you both that Google and Amazon charge the same exact 30% fee and have the same exact rules for linking to external store fronts?
Agreed but the person I quoted was acting like they weren't as of now.
This is how it's been for awhile now with such services (magazine subs, etc). They can't link to the outside from within the app, but to my knowledge there's nothing saying the company can't email them about signing up on a website, etc. So both Apple and Spotify are operating within the existing AppStore rules.
Yeah, there's no problem here. The Economist's app is free, and my subscription to the relevant content stems from my dead-tree subscription. Spotify can do the same if it hasn't already (I don't use it): separate the app and the subscription credentials, and they're golden.
For a limited time, sign up with Spotify and get two free Samsung tablets*
*while inventory lasts. Please take this inventory off our hands, or it's off to a landfill in New Mexico and it will cost us money to recycle the lithium batteries before burial.
Interesting timing by spotify. I'm surprised they haven't don't this earlier.
Err, never mind.
No, but if you want perpetual access to Apples hundreds of millions of customer who are willing to pay for things, then you should expect to pay them perpetually.
This is how it's been for awhile now with such services (magazine subs, etc). They can't link to the outside from within the app, but to my knowledge there's nothing saying the company can't email them about signing up on a website, etc. So both Apple and Spotify are operating within the existing AppStore rules.
Indeed, I do it as well for one of my apps. As long as I do the marketing via my own website, it is OK for Apple. The 30% commission that Apple is taking for inApp purchases is rather high compared to the value that Apple is offering to the app developer.
Given that there are million of apps, the exposure of my app by Apple is extremely limited and does not justify the 30% as it did when there were only a few thousand apps in the App store.
Is Spotify still a thing?
Spotify has a decent iOS app, I wish I could say something similar about the Apple Music app
Secondly, for other App developers, the percentage taken by Apple is nothing compared to what the App developer would have to do if they have to do all there work by themselves (creating e-commerce site, managing payment, etc.) Yes, like Android Apps has other market places, unlike Apple. But, for Apple, for the reputation and creditability they want to make sure that roque Apps do not get on their device, because for Apple they are not only the OS manufacturer, but the hardware too. The consumer are going to blame Apple and not the App that is draining the battery or the app that is posting some consumer data in background to some public website. Matter of fact, Google learned the hard way and they are actually going in the direction of following Apple Store model, a control App store.
Apple is not offering you an e-commerce tool, just a payment tool. If you want to develop an app for an e-commerce site, then you still have to develop the e-commerce site yourself or use an e-commerce tool like Magento or PrestaShop. And these e-commerce tools include a payment tool from the shelf (accepting more payment methods than Apple supports).
So yes the 30% that Apple is charging is high compared to the normal 3% a standard payment tool is charging. Of course Apple is also doing the marketing and hosting of the app, but having million of apps in the App Store, these efforts are quite limited in value for a single app.
The remark about posting consumer data to websites is not correct: Apple cannot check which data the app is sending out, because there is no way to detect which data is absolutely necessary for the app to work correctly and which data can be misused for any commercial purpose. And because one is allowed to use standard https to encrypt the line, Apple cannot even read the data.
That's like 30% of your mortgage going to the broker every month.
I agree Apple can not stop them, the rules are still valid about not directing people out of the app to a website (there is lots of other reason not to allow this other than the money), nothing in the rule says you can not email them and say they also have the option of signing up on the companies website and paying there. There are other services out there which has a web presents which you can sign up on and pay you fees and also use an app to access your account.
I guessing Apple knew this was come and probably factored in that companies like Spotify would encourge people to pay direct vs via Itune store and they would eventually loose this revenue stream. But if apple music is a hit this lost is a drop in a bucket