FTC begins issuing subpoenas in App Store investigation triggered by Apple Music - report

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 65
    radster360radster360 Posts: 540member

    Apple needs to lift the shop and move to a country who will welcome them extremely especially with all the cash they have. No matter what Apple does, it is getting screwed by the US government and Wall Street doesn't treat it well either. Screw 'Em!

  • Reply 22 of 65
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by radster360 View Post

     

    Apple needs to lift the shop and move to a country who will welcome them extremely especially with all the cash they have. No matter what Apple does, it is getting screwed by the US government and Wall Street doesn't treat it well either. Screw 'Em!


    And what other country would not try to screw them even worse? They had their chance to buy Greece. ;)

  • Reply 23 of 65
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,191member
    mstone wrote: »
    And what other country would not try to screw them even worse? They had their chance to buy Greece. ;)

    I still say a small nation purchased by and for the benefit of Apple would be a great move. Apple should buy an island just outside U.S. territorial waters and immediately sign a peace treaty with the U.S. for peaceful trade.
  • Reply 24 of 65
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    As long as that app is offered through the App Store, that pricing is completely fair. Let these deadbeats offer their services as web apps otherwise.



    For Apple to demand a commission on the month to month reoccurring billing that they have nothing to do with is not so much a commission, but more like a royalty.

  • Reply 25 of 65
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,191member
    mstone wrote: »


    For Apple to demand a commission on the month to month reoccurring billing that they have nothing to do with is not so much a commission, but more like a royalty.

    It's more like a subscription fee. Every other app store has the same deal also, so singling out Apple is bollocks (with apologies to the Brits).
  • Reply 26 of 65
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     



    For Apple to demand a commission on the month to month reoccurring billing that they have nothing to do with is not so much a commission, but more like a royalty.


    These are the sovereign nation islands close to the US

     

    Antigua & Barbuda

    Bahamas

    Barbados

    Cuba

    Dominica

    Dominican Republic

    Grenada

    Haiti

     

    Edit: forgot Jamaica

  • Reply 27 of 65
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,191member
    mstone wrote: »
    These are the sovereign nation islands close to the US

    Antigua & Barbuda

    Bahamas

    Barbados

    Cuba

    Dominica

    Dominican Republic

    Grenada

    Haiti

    Apple could probably buy Cuba for a song.
  • Reply 28 of 65
    junior99junior99 Posts: 17member

    Apple is doing what MS did with unfair pricing for services. They crossed then line when they got into services themselves. And they are a monopoly because you can only legally get apps through their app store.

     

    For services that they compete in, they should not be charging others 30%.

     

    This is not unprecedented. Phone companies that have owned the last mile have had to share phone lines with competitors. Same with DSL.

     

    It does not help the consumer that Apple is unfairly making 30% more than everyone else. FTC should spank them for this.

  • Reply 29 of 65
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 225member
    Apple should just ban any and all apps that directly compete such as spotify.
    It would be no different to not allowing other apps that replicate functionality already present.
    No-one has a right to be able to put an app in Apple's app store, especially a competitor.
    Let spotify users use a web version istead (in mobile safari on their iphone if they want).
  • Reply 30 of 65
    blazarblazar Posts: 270member
    As long as that app is offered through the App Store, that pricing is completely fair. Let these deadbeats offer their services as web apps otherwise.

    Genius statement. There are plenty of ways to access these music services and a phone, much less an app in the appstore ... Is not required. Calling this a must monopoly is ludicrous.

    Spotify is allowed to make its own phone with sybian or android or whatever. That customers dont want these products is somehow apple's fault as well.
  • Reply 31 of 65
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    junior99 wrote: »
    Apple is doing what MS did with unfair pricing for services. They crossed then line when they got into services themselves. And they are a monopoly because you can only legally get apps through their app store.

    For services that they compete in, they should not be charging others 30%.

    This is not unprecedented. Phone companies that have owned the last mile have had to share phone lines with competitors. Same with DSL.

    It does not help the consumer that Apple is unfairly making 30% more than everyone else. FTC should spank them for this.

    Buy an Android or Win phone. No one has to get an iPhone. No monopoly. People needed phone service at the time of Ma Bell. No one needs an iPhone.
  • Reply 32 of 65
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,191member
    blazar wrote: »
    Genius statement. There are plenty of ways to access these music services and a phone, much less an app in the appstore ... Is not required. Calling this a must monopoly is ludicrous.

    Spotify is allowed to make its own phone with sybian or android or whatever. That customers dont want these products is somehow apple's fault as well.

    Spotify's problem is that they haven't got a profitable business model. They are losing money and those losses will increase as the fees charged by labels are set to increase shortly (if they haven't already). Jason Calacanis had knowledge of this and mentioned it when he hosted the MacBreak Weekly (or it may have been This Week In Tech) podcast.
  • Reply 33 of 65
    revenantrevenant Posts: 501member

    capitalism works great, unless you are apple.

     

    "Thirty percent doesn't go to any artist, it doesn't go to us, it goes to Apple."

     

    how much goes to a record label- you know the guys who sit in suits who never meet the artists nor listen to their music. how much do they pay they artists? think they pay 30%? 

  • Reply 34 of 65
    schmidm77schmidm77 Posts: 223member
    elroth wrote: »
    Yeah, and when you sell a CD through a record store, the store takes 50%. Have you filed a complaint about that also?
    When you buy a CD player at Best Buy, you aren't required to only buy CDs at Best Buy. Apple has made itself the owner and gatekeeper to any access to 10s of millions of potential customers of other software and service companies. When Apple then creates restrictions and barriers for these other companies to sell their products to these users and wants to charge a mandatory 30% vig on all transactions, which the software can't even tell the user how to avoid, then I will not be surprised at all if they are found to be engaging in restraint of trade or other anticompetitive activities.
  • Reply 35 of 65
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    eightzero wrote: »
    Well...John D. Rockefeller had an "operating system" for distributing kerosene too....

    That is an absolutely ignorant analogy! Rockefeller did not let other petroleum companies sell their gas at his stations. Apple lets all the major players in each of its media product categories onto ITS system in the areas of music, books movies, even google maps. If they don't want to pay to be on the apple network, then pull out. It's that simple!
  • Reply 36 of 65
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    schmidm77 wrote: »
    When you buy a CD player at Best Buy, you aren't required to only buy CDs at Best Buy. Apple has made itself the owner and gatekeeper to any access to 10s of millions of potential customers of other software and service companies. When Apple then creates restrictions and barriers for these other companies to sell their products to these users and wants to charge a mandatory 30% vig on all transactions, which the software can't even tell the user how to avoid, then I will not be surprised at all if they are found to be engaging in restraint of trade or other anticompetitive activities.

    What total bullshit - that analogy does not in any way shape or form represent what Apple is doing. There is so much ignorance out there it is comical. With Apple you can still buy CDs and movies and books etc without buying them through Apple and play them on your Apple device. You can still access Spotify, pandora, amazon prime, Hulu, etc. through their websites. There are NO restrictions to access. It's just if you want to sell your services through APPLE's store, and you want direct access to their hundreds of millions of customers, you have to pay. Gee, what a concept! It's called a retail business! Perhaps you have heard of it. And the reality is that a 30% margin in retail is actually LOW!!! And does not account for overhead! It's not profit!

    As to the stupidity of disparaging Apple for not allowing these companies to advertise that you can buy their services cheaper outside of the Apple Store, seriously???!!! So a company selling their product at Target should be able to advertise at the Target store that their product can be purchased for less at their own website, or maybe at Walmart? Give us all a fk'ng break!
  • Reply 37 of 65
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    junior99 wrote: »
    Apple is doing what MS did with unfair pricing for services. They crossed then line when they got into services themselves. And they are a monopoly because you can only legally get apps through their app store.

    For services that they compete in, they should not be charging others 30%.

    This is not unprecedented. Phone companies that have owned the last mile have had to share phone lines with competitors. Same with DSL.

    It does not help the consumer that Apple is unfairly making 30% more than everyone else. FTC should spank them for this.

    Seriously, I'm not even going to go there. Go get yourself a good education as you are totally clueless... You have no basic concept of what is going on. This in no way resembles the phone company model. Not even close.
  • Reply 38 of 65
    joefjoef Posts: 1member

    If a customer discovers Spotify via app store:

    app store -> download app -> in-app subscription -> 30% commission

     

    If a customer discovers Spotify via other means:

    web signup -> download app -> 0% commission

     

    Whether Apple controls the app store is immaterial, since the app can be downloaded either way for free. What matters is who aquires the customer. If you work in sales, you know how expensive it is to acquire a new customer.

     

    Spotify wants Apple to acquire a customer for them for free or at a low cost. Apple wants a referral fee of 30%. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, then Spotify just needs to not accept referrals from Apple (i.e. not allow in-app subscriptions like Netflix). This will mean that Spotify needs to advertise and set up it's own sales channels to get customers to their web site (i.e. pay sites to refer customers, buy online and print ads).

     

    Also, note that it costs Apple to acquire a customer for Spotify, so it's actually not making 30% every month. It pays sites to refer customers to the app store. It sells iTunes cards to retailers at a discount. For example, if I looked hard enough, I can buy iTunes cards at 80% of face value, so I only pay $12.99 x 80% = $10.39/month for an in-app subscription to Spotify. Assuming that these iTunes cards are not sold at a lost, apple only makes 10%, and the retailers make up to 20%, depending on how much they sell them at.

     

    Asking Apple to allow Spotify to link to their website for direct subscription in the app is ridiculous. You are forcing a company to put up ads for a competitor in their sales channel. It's like asking Amazon to allow a link in the product description that goes directly to the manufacturer site to buy it cheaper.

  • Reply 39 of 65
    imt1imt1 Posts: 87member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     



    For Apple to demand a commission on the month to month reoccurring billing that they have nothing to do with is not so much a commission, but more like a royalty.




    -Apple does all of the billing on a subscription. Oh and don't forget all of the API's programming, etc that Apple has provided to allow Spotify and others to have subscription based apps in the first place. Its not like Spotify could have done any of this the platform, via an App, if Apple didn't spend time to create the functionality. 

     

    -Spotify also wasn't complaining all of these years, prior to Apple music, that the 30% cut was unfair. Seemed to suit them just fine and they were able to compete against other streaming services. 

     

    - This is no different then Movie rentals. Apple offers rentals on iTunes, if others want to rent movies via an App then Apple gets 30%. Unless you rent outside of the app, like Amazon or even Netflix for that matter. Apple will face the same hurdle when Apple Music is offered on Android, assuming its a paid version. 

     

    - Even if Apple cuts its subscription rate, which was reported back before Apple music was released, or even eliminates it entirely, Spotify coulnd't compete in price with Apple's family plan. Is that Apple's fault too that they struck a better deal?

     

    - As Apple has shown, people will pay more $$ for a better product. How about Spotify innovates this space, like what Apple Music is trying to do, and build a better compelling service and people will stay or flock to Spotify, regardless of price. 

     

     

  • Reply 40 of 65
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,366member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post





    That is an absolutely ignorant analogy! Rockefeller did not let other petroleum companies sell their gas at his stations. Apple lets all the major players in each of its media product categories onto ITS system in the areas of music, books movies, even google maps. If they don't want to pay to be on the apple network, then pull out. It's that simple!



    You might be right.

Sign In or Register to comment.