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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 65
    cambercamber Posts: 1member
    What is everyone thinking?

    Retail stores get 40% minimum of the selling price of everything they sell. - 40% minimum!!! Markups on products go as high as 500% on some products in certain industries.

    Apple only takes 30%. They don't have the cost of brick and mortar, so they charge less than regular retail stores. That is to be expected and as a business person it sounds like a very reasonable fee to me.

    If someone doesn't like the fee then don't sell your product in the Apple stores. Naturally one forgoes the exposure which a product gets from such a store. No businesses sell products for other businesses without some kind of a fee.

    As to the FTC investigation the only matter to check on is if Apple is taking unfair advantage of the vertical integration. It doesn't sound like it to me.
  • Reply 42 of 65
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Apple could probably buy Cuba for a song.

    America would just invade them to hmmm, restore democracy, rule of law, world peace and kittens. Classic reasons. If Apple buys Cuba, the USA have experience with blockades, though their Cuban-invasion skills aren't that good.
  • Reply 43 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    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.



    Then instead of FTC Investigations, there would be "Sanctions"! National Pride would swell and the Government would do everything it could to defend the US Companies like Google against the outsider Apple.

  • Reply 44 of 65
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post



    They just need to disable in app purchased and let customers get there subscription on there website.



    That being said, I still wish the FTC force Apple to take a very small cut when an app is selling copyright content like movies, music, books, ...

     

    I'm for this, but Apple won't even let them have a link or say anything about going to their own store to pay for service in the App!!!  I think that's going to far.  I also know Credit Card Transaction fee's are in the 1-3% range, and yet Apple is taking a 30% cut every single month, and to do what?  The App is not getting downloaded every month over and over again.  I wouldn't care if Apple took that 30% cut the first month, but after that, it should drop way down.  5-10% to cover the transaction fee costs and a bit more and that's it.  Once you download a copy of the Spotify App, why should Apple get 30% every month forever?  Apple is not doing a single thing for that user once that small App has been downloaded.

     

    How about Paying $9.99 for the App, you download it, Apple gets that 30% and then allow link in the App for a person to sign up at Spotify?  First month is free as you paid to download the App.  Now Apple gets ZERO after that just like any other App!!!  Apple has taking things way to far.  You should have every right to have a link in your own App to send someone to your own store to pay for service.  Apple just goes to far to  now even allow you to mention anything about going to their own store.  It's just crazy.

  • Reply 45 of 65
    "FORCES"! Give me a break - this is the standard profit Apple makes from ALL Apps in it's store.
  • Reply 46 of 65
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    This is so bunk and a waste of my taxes. The competitors can charge the same rate as Apple. They choose not to.

     

    Of course they could, but Apple is not getting 30% taking from the top FOREVER.  I bet you Apple would be up in Arms if the Credit Card Company's said they were going to start charging 30% Transaction fee's instead of the 1-3% they do now!!!  You don't thing Apple would then have to bump up their prices?  

  • Reply 47 of 65
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     

    So the competitors are whining that they have to give a percentage of their earnings for an app that gives those whiners access to millions of potential (and paying) customers all the while Apple maintains that ecosystem and all the overhead costs that goes with it for free?  As if all that infrastructure magically pays-for and maintains itself?



    Stupid people.  Nothing is stopping them from going to a competitor like Android - oh wait.. Fandroids expect everything to be free.



    Apple can have a monopoly on its own product.  Have a nice day crybabies.


     

    Excuse me, but isn't the main reason for the App store is to sell more Apple Hardware.  you know where Apple makes most of it's money?

    What reason should Apple get a 30% cut forever for a App you may have downloaded a year or 5 years ago?   There's lots of FREE Apps that Apple gets ZERO from.  They even get updated once in a while and people download another copy.  Who's paying?   I don't even have a problem with Apple charging 30% for that first month, but after that, it should drop.  Transaction fee's are only 1-3%, why is Apple getting a 30% chunk?  It shouldn't be more then 10%.  That easily more then covers the monthly fee and make some profit.  Apple goes out of their make to make it almost Impossible to get people to their own web site to pay that way because then Apple wouldn't get crap.

     

    Imagine is the Credit Card company's started charging Apple 30%.  You don't think Apple would increase the subscription to Apple Music by 30%?  That Apple would just eat the cost?  These company's are having a hard time to even make a profit and Apple should just get 30% for doing not much of anything.  It's not like Apple allows 3rd party App stores.  So that's forced by Apple also.  

  • Reply 48 of 65
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Eric Swinson View Post

     

    "They [Apple] control iOS to give themselves a price advantage," one music industry insider told The Vergeearlier this year. "Thirty percent doesn't go to any artist, it doesn't go to us, it goes to Apple."

     

    ?Do stores stock their shelves with products for manufactures and sell to and service their customers for free? If the argument is the app store is a virtual store and therefore should get no cut I'd argue that apps and music are virtual products and should be free. I understand they want to keep the 30% themselves just as I'd like my sales staff to sell for me and I keep the commission. Just because it is a subscription and the music services are ultimately paying the cost of royalties and bandwidth to reach their customers does not change the fact that their app is distributed by apple. If they are allowed to argue against this requirement then every other term Apple has set forth for code compliance and app compatibility is also up for grabs. Bottom line you can't force a store to sell what you want on your terms unless you are in a position to negotiate them. Apple is pretty uniform on the commissions so it's not like any service, company or industry is being shown preference which would be discriminatory. 


     

    Do you Shop at best Buy, and then get charged 30% to use that product forever?

  • Reply 49 of 65
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,185member

    Then instead of FTC Investigations, there would be "Sanctions"! National Pride would swell and the Government would do everything it could to defend the US Companies like Google against the outsider Apple.

    We'll see what President Trump has to say about this. /s
  • Reply 50 of 65
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,185member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Do you Shop at best Buy, and then get charged 30% to use that product forever?

    Do you pay a monthly fee for cable TV or Internet service, or did you actually buy the entire company when you signed up?
  • Reply 51 of 65
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    I'm for this, but Apple won't even let them have a link or say anything about going to their own store to pay for service in the App!!!  I think that's going to far.  I also know Credit Card Transaction fee's are in the 1-3% range, and yet Apple is taking a 30% cut every single month, and to do what?  The App is not getting downloaded every month over and over again.  I wouldn't care if Apple took that 30% cut the first month, but after that, it should drop way down.  5-10% to cover the transaction fee costs and a bit more and that's it.  Once you download a copy of the Spotify App, why should Apple get 30% every month forever?  Apple is not doing a single thing for that user once that small App has been downloaded.

    How about Paying $9.99 for the App, you download it, Apple gets that 30% and then allow link in the App for a person to sign up at Spotify?  First month is free as you paid to download the App.  Now Apple gets ZERO after that just like any other App!!!  Apple has taking things way to far.  You should have every right to have a link in your own App to send someone to your own store to pay for service.  Apple just goes to far to  now even allow you to mention anything about going to their own store.  It's just crazy.

    How many spotify customers actually subscribe? What about those that use the free version? Is Apple suppose to just to process those downloads free of charge?
  • Reply 52 of 65
    Forcing my ass. This is the AppStore policy.
    Yeah! How dare they invent an operating system and control it.

    Apple users aren't forced to buy media from iTunes. iOS users can buy and enjoy media from other companies, such as Amazon, Audible, Pandora, Spotify, or even Google Play on their iOS device.
  • Reply 53 of 65

    Then instead of FTC Investigations, there would be "Sanctions"! National Pride would swell and the Government would do everything it could to defend the US Companies like Google against the outsider Apple.

    Amazon is their golden boy. Not even angry publishers and book authors (over Amazon's strong-arm tactics) can get the DOJ to go after them.
  • Reply 54 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Geekmee View Post



    Help me to understand this?... The FTC is investigating what Apple does with pricing of its own product & services, huh??... Something reeks!!



    You didnt read the article did you? It's not Apple's products or services.

  • Reply 55 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post



    Forcing my ass. This is the AppStore policy.

    Yeah! How dare they invent an operating system and control it.



    They know it is in the App Store policy. That is what the complaint is about. And it's not an operating system that is at issue. It is an economy of which Apple handles transactions, and because they manage the hosting and transaction process for everything featured on the App Store, including subscriptions, Apple takes a 30% cut for the effort they are going through. The issue is that because Apple is now a direct competitor with Spotify and other streaming music services you can use on iOS, Apple taking a 30% cut for subscriptions presents an unfair advantage because their service doesn't get hurt by the 30%. Even if they do take 30%, from a technical standpoint, it is still going back into Apple's pocket. The argument that other services should just drop their prices to match Apple isnt a very good one because that would mean those other services would get less money from all the users who subscribed from the iOS app. While some might say that the government should stay out of this, if you create an economy of any kind, it can and will get regulated at some point.

  • Reply 56 of 65
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member
    Yea how dare they invent a music service and control it. How dare they ask for money for there service period. Since Apple owns its service and the App store why can't it take advantage of what it has. If spotify had its own app store and took profits from it would anyone say that was bad?
    Bunch of whiners.
  • Reply 57 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post

     



    They know it is in the App Store policy. That is what the complaint is about. And it's not an operating system that is at issue. It is an economy of which Apple handles transactions, and because they manage the hosting and transaction process for everything featured on the App Store, including subscriptions, Apple takes a 30% cut for the effort they are going through. The issue is that because Apple is now a direct competitor with Spotify and other streaming music services you can use on iOS, Apple taking a 30% cut for subscriptions presents an unfair advantage because their service doesn't get hurt by the 30%. Even if they do take 30%, from a technical standpoint, it is still going back into Apple's pocket. The argument that other services should just drop their prices to match Apple isnt a very good one because that would mean those other services would get less money from all the users who subscribed from the iOS app. While some might say that the government should stay out of this, if you create an economy of any kind, it can and will get regulated at some point.




    This is no different than a store selling their own brand of a product (let's say laundry detergent) on the self next to a name brand like Tide. They can even sell it cheaper because they can eat some margin. Even if they sold them at the same price point, Is P&G right to complain that the store should not mark up their product (Tide) so it is more price competitive with the store brand?  They could equally argue that the markup doesn't support the manufacturer, shareholders or subcontractors of P&G and just goes to the store. 

  • Reply 58 of 65
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

     

    Do you Shop at best Buy, and then get charged 30% to use that product forever?




    The customer doesn't get charged 30% forever for subscribing to a service from the app store either. or at all. The service provides pays a commission to Apple. If best buy resold a subscription service, like say one of their extended warranties or useless support contracts, I promise you every time they bill your card to renew the service they are getting a cut. Probably far in excess of 30%. 

  • Reply 59 of 65

    This is no different than a store selling their own brand of a product (let's say laundry detergent) on the self next to a name brand like Tide. They can even sell it cheaper because they can eat some margin. Even if they sold them at the same price point, Is P&G right to complain that the store should not mark up their product (Tide) so it is more price competitive with the store brand?  They could equally argue that the markup doesn't support the manufacturer, shareholders or subcontractors of P&G and just goes to the store. 

    This is a faulty analogy to compare the app store as just a physical store. The app store is better described as a mall.

    So if we have an apple mall and Spotify has rented out space in the mall for 30% of revenues, and their service is selling music (per se).

    Then apple itself uses the space next to Spotify and sells their music for 30% off (because they don't have to pay the 30% rent) then Spotify will be forced to shutdown their store at the apple mall because they can't compete with Apple

    In other words, anti-competitive behavior.
  • Reply 60 of 65
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Eric Swinson View Post

     



    This is no different than a store selling their own brand of a product (let's say laundry detergent) on the self next to a name brand like Tide. They can even sell it cheaper because they can eat some margin. Even if they sold them at the same price point, Is P&G right to complain that the store should not mark up their product (Tide) so it is more price competitive with the store brand?  They could equally argue that the markup doesn't support the manufacturer, shareholders or subcontractors of P&G and just goes to the store. 




    Among solutions would be to offer the service for free, or have Apple Music turn into a stand-alone company.

     

    It does seem very similar to Internet Explorer bundled with Windows discussions, only this time with Apple as the Microsoft of the day...

Sign In or Register to comment.