While I'm a confirmed Apple fanboy, Apple is quickly becoming "the evil empire".
They crush their competition and in doing so stifle development and creativity by some equally skilled external companies.
wait what? apple should try to foster development and creativity at external, competitor companies? what on earth are you smoking? thats what apple does for its developers, who are partners in the ecosystem. their job to is outsell their competitors. thats just how the world works, son.
I keep hearing the mall reference as an example of how Apple is right
First of all, if the app store is a mall, and they gave spotify space in their mall and charged them 30% of sales, that's fine.
If the app store is a mall, and they set up a completely similar store that sells almost exactly the same merchandise (Apple Music) right next to the Spotify store, but charged it 0% of sales (Since it owns it), then that's wrong. It gives the Apple Music store unfair advantage in pricing, as it can pass on the 30% savings onto consumers, and gain unfair market advantage.
It's like Walmart offering say it's own brand of soda next to Coke and Pepsi. It's unheard of! Oh wait.
First of of all, Apple allows Spoitify it's mall rent free. Secondly, Apple only gets paid when someone subscribes. So Spotify gets a free rides for free users?
there we go again w/ the misdirection about the credit card fee -- as if that was the purported reason for the 30%. nope. the 30% is rent to do busines in Apple's shopping mall, which they designed, built, and maintain with their own money. if you want to do business inside of it, you gotta pay rent. if apple didnt charge the fee for subscription apps, then all the other one-time-payment apps wouldnt instantly switch to subscription to avoid paying the 30% for their apps. that would be stupid.
its pretty clear. you cant walk into the Mall of America and sell magazine subscriptions for free, can you? same thing.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
It's a user safety issue alongside the money thing. Apple doesn't allow apps to direct users away from the app to pay, so that malicious app makers can't use that to steal customer data. Sure, spotify isn't likely going to try to steal your credit card info, but the rule is in place to prevent others from doing that.
Also to note; Google takes a cut of purchases and subscriptions made in their Android Market of 30%. Apple is lowering their subscription take to 15%.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
It's a user safety issue alongside the money thing. Apple doesn't allow apps to direct users away from the app to pay, so that malicious app makers can't use that to steal customer data. Sure, spotify isn't likely going to try to steal your credit card info, but the rule is in place to prevent others from doing that.
Also to note; Google takes a cut of purchases and subscriptions made in their Android Market of 30%. Apple is lowering their subscription take to 15%.
It's the obvious things that should make sense to people. The internet has been around a while, but not so long that people are already so numb to the Internet they're naive enough they think just random redirecting all over the Internet is just great stuff. Are these people a bunch of entitled grandmas or something?
I keep hearing the mall reference as an example of how Apple is right
First of all, if the app store is a mall, and they gave spotify space in their mall and charged them 30% of sales, that's fine.
If the app store is a mall, and they set up a completely similar store that sells almost exactly the same merchandise (Apple Music) right next to the Spotify store, but charged it 0% of sales (Since it owns it), then that's wrong. It gives the Apple Music store unfair advantage in pricing, as it can pass on the 30% savings onto consumers, and gain unfair market advantage.
It's like Walmart offering say it's own brand of soda next to Coke and Pepsi. It's unheard of! Oh wait.
First of of all, Apple allows Spoitify it's mall rent free. Secondly, Apple only gets paid when someone subscribes. So Spotify gets a free rides for free users?
I would agree with your walmart reference 100% if that's what Apple did, but that's not what Apple is doing.
Apple isn't selling a knockoff of Adele's "Hello", they're selling the real Adele. So they're not offering they're own brand of Coke, they're selling Coke at a cheaper price because they're not paying an extra 30%
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
It's a user safety issue alongside the money thing. Apple doesn't allow apps to direct users away from the app to pay, so that malicious app makers can't use that to steal customer data. Sure, spotify isn't likely going to try to steal your credit card info, but the rule is in place to prevent others from doing that.
Also to note; Google takes a cut of purchases and subscriptions made in their Android Market of 30%. Apple is lowering their subscription take to 15%.
Google offers alternate payment methods and they're also moving to 15%, though I think it's immediate not after a year.
It's like Walmart offering say it's own brand of soda next to Coke and Pepsi. It's unheard of! Oh wait.
First of of all, Apple allows Spoitify it's mall rent free. Secondly, Apple only gets paid when someone subscribes. So Spotify gets a free rides for free users?
I would agree with your walmart reference 100% if that's what Apple did, but that's not what Apple is doing.
Apple isn't selling a knockoff of Adele's "Hello", they're selling the real Adele. So they're not offering they're own brand of Coke, they're selling Coke at a cheaper price because they're not paying an extra 30%
That's because they made the investment into ecosystem absorbing the risk and liability and cost for the developers on their shoulders. They pro vide the platform and take on the risks for others welcoming competition. Spotify has so many more users. As they've jabbed their customers with their business operation costs while using that expense as a business tax deduction in guessing they also profit a lot more than Apple as they have three times the paid users Apple Music does. What's the damn problem?
Is there some App Store rule that requires subscriptions to be purchased in-app? Amazon doesn't offer in-app subscription. You can't buy books from inside the Barnes & Noble or Kindle app. I thought the only rules were you couldn't provide a link for alternate payment method or verbiage providing people a url of where to go to sign up. Perhaps that's what Spotify did in their app update. But what's the difference between signing up via the web or signing up via the app? Either way Spotify is making money of someone using an iOS device. The only difference is if you're signing up via the app Apple is processing the credit card transaction.
Yes, if you sell a subscription service it must be payed for in-app so Apple gets paid their 30%-15%.
Don't know or care what the others do -- this the App Store.
This has nothing to do with processing the CC transaction.
Apple is in business to make money -- so is Spotify.
If Spotify wants to put an app on the iPhone, the must abide by Apple's rules and pay the subscription percentage.
Otherwise. Spotify can setup a web site to stream music through your browser. An iPhone owner would use his browser to subscribe and to stream music.
Likely, (with today's tech) that would be an inferior experience than streaming through an iPhone app. I suspect that Spotify would lose business to their competition.
As I see it, Spotify has 3 choices:
Leave the App Store and abandon a native app/service
Stay on the App Store and play by the rules
Stay on the App Store and adjust their prices and services to be competitive
It is important that it is Spotify who has a problem -- not Apple.
Business 101: The purpose of a business is to make a profit at the risk of a loss!
If you have subscription service you have two options:
1. If you want to offer subscription within the app then it must go through The App Store and Apple will get their 30-15%.
2. If you don't want to pay Apple 30-15% then you can have users sign up using your website. BUT.. By doing so you are not allowed to provide links in the app that direct the user to the signup page even if the link opens safari. So you are only allowed to offer a login page. No links to your website. No prices. Nothing. Just a log in page that allow you to login using the ID and password you used to sign up on their website.
It's a user safety issue alongside the money thing. Apple doesn't allow apps to direct users away from the app to pay, so that malicious app makers can't use that to steal customer data. Sure, spotify isn't likely going to try to steal your credit card info, but the rule is in place to prevent others from doing that.
Also to note; Google takes a cut of purchases and subscriptions made in their Android Market of 30%. Apple is lowering their subscription take to 15%.
It's the obvious things that should make sense to people. The internet has been around a while, but not so long that people are already so numb to the Internet they're naive enough they think just random redirecting all over the Internet is just great stuff. Are these people a bunch of entitled grandmas or something?
Apple has made redirecting easier on iOS you even get a back button in the upper left hand corner to take you back to where you were. But they could also offer some sort of web wrapper right in app. I don't think this is a safety issue its Apple wanting their 30%.
It's the obvious things that should make sense to people. The internet has been around a while, but not so long that people are already so numb to the Internet they're naive enough they think just random redirecting all over the Internet is just great stuff. Are these people a bunch of entitled grandmas or something?
Apple has made redirecting easier on iOS you even get a back button in the upper left hand corner to take you back to where you were. But they could also offer some sort of web wrapper right in app. I don't think this is a safety issue its Apple wanting their 30%.
It's the obvious things that should make sense to people. The internet has been around a while, but not so long that people are already so numb to the Internet they're naive enough they think just random redirecting all over the Internet is just great stuff. Are these people a bunch of entitled grandmas or something?
Apple has made redirecting easier on iOS you even get a back button in the upper left hand corner to take you back to where you were. But they could also offer some sort of web wrapper right in app. I don't think this is a safety issue its Apple wanting their 30%.
You have to pay to play. You can't use someone else's platform to advertise your product and make money without paying the fees. And yes it is also a user experience/fraud prevention issue. It can be both. Furthermore, if Apple allowed that then what to prevent every other paid app in the app store to switch to this method to avoid the paying Apple the fee. It will not take long before you have to visit 100 website to manage your subscriptions.
I'm glad Spotify is doing this. Apple should allow subscription apps to offer a redirect to the browser to sign up. There's no reason Apple should be taking 30% of someone's monthly Spotify fee. They're not hosting any content. And it certainly doesn't cost them $3 to process the credit card transaction. Google allows alternate payment methods. Apple should do the same. How hard would it be for Spotify to have a link in the app that takes you out to Safari to sign up? It wouldn't be. This is all about $$$ for Apple.
Google might be allowing in app link to web sites because of competition. They are competing with the Apple App Store for developers. By offering this feature, they hope it might attract more developers into writing apps for their Google Play Store. Google and Apple are competing for developers. Apple has a big advantage in that their users base spends more money and are more likely to pay for apps. Thus Apple ecosystem attracts more developers. And many only develop for iOS devices. Even if iOS user base is much smaller that that of Android. So Google must do things to compete for those developers. Allowing in app links to websites might be one of them. Right now, Apple is in the position that they don't have to sacrifice any money to attract developers. But that may be changing and may be one of the reason why they're willing to lower the percentage they charge on subscriptions through an app. Competition is good.
Plus if someone click on an in app link to Spotify, Google knows it and will make money selling the ads to this user. Apple Music, Pandora and Tidal will pay Google a premium to direct their ads to people that click on an in app link to Spotify. So Google isn't losing as much for allowing in app links to websites as Apple would.
All Spotify paying users should be questioning why Spotify needles its customers by forcing them to pay business operation expenses. That 30% fee is a business expense, one they can and I'm sure they do write off at tax time. BUT, not only do they write it off (so it doesn't cost them much or anything at all) but they force you, their customer, to pay more anyway. They're screwing you and any other dope who decides to believe this victim sob story.
Spotify never sees the +30% they add to iOS-based subscriptions--there's nothing to write off. That +30% goes to Apple.
I hope you have an accountant doing your taxes. Spotify does too see that 30%. Apple do not charge the subscribers, they charge Spotify. So it's Spotify that must declare that extra 30% they received as revenue and then deduct it on their taxes when they pay Apple with it. And then Apple declare it as revenue on their taxes and deduct any cost it took to earn it.
So many clueless, crazy people here. You loons need to start sending 30% checks to the manufacturers of your TVs, BD players, AVRs, etc, all devices that have apps that you use that are subscription-based. They're being ripped off, and they probably don't even know it! Think how happy they'll be to get your monthly checks!
You are clueless. The reason why we don't have to send makers of Smart TV's, BD players, AVTs, etc a check for using the apps in their devices is because they are not charging us to use the apps in their devices. Plus you must already have an account with the owner of the app to use their app on one of these devices. And you must set up this account on the app's website. There is no direct link on the app that will connect you to their website. That's because most of these device don't have an internet browser. With Apple or Google app stores, you are paying the fee for using an app to pay for an account. Not to use the app to access the contents. Can one pay for their subscription account using the app on their Smart TV, BD players, AVRs. 'etc.? Is this getting through to you?
You can't subscribe to a magazine in Target, last I checked. And if Target decided to do that, the magazine companies can always go to Walmart instead.
If I go to Spotify.com in Safari and sign up there Apple doesn't get a cut. What is the difference between signing up inside the app or via a browser outside of processing the credit card fee? Spotify is still using Apple's App Store to make money. But since there is no other way to distribute their app on iOS devices what choice do they have? Wouldn't the solution be for Apple to allow developers to re-direct signup to the browser or at least provide a note inside the app explaining how to subscribe? Apple doesn't force subscription apps to offer sign-up in app. Apple doesn't force Amazon or Barnes & Noble to sell books in their apps. If you want to buy a book you do it outside the app and Apple makes no money off that.
Because many user don't want to go to a website and put in their CC number there. Now the risk may be minor with a company like Spotify, but many users still rather just use an app to pay and their CC number stays with Apple. But I would think most users don't want to give a small developer their CC to buy a .$99 app. Apple is known for being consistent with how their stores are set up. This makes it easy to understand. The music industry had the same complaint when Apple charged the same for single iTunes track. The iBook Store is the same way, 30% cut for Apple.
What Spotify gain are the iOS customers that don't want to give them their CC or don't want to bother with logging on to their website every time it's time to pay for their subscription. It is a lot easier for these users to manage all their purchases and subscription with their iTunes account. Plus when paying with an app, it makes it easy to cancel. just don't pay. Apple will not charge your CC or iTunes account. No hassle. And that might be lot of users that Spotify is losing if they don't provide that app payment service.So Apple will charge Spotify for that access to those users and right now it is 30% of the subscription fee. But it looks like it may be lower soon.
there we go again w/ the misdirection about the credit card fee -- as if that was the purported reason for the 30%. nope. the 30% is rent to do busines in Apple's shopping mall, which they designed, built, and maintain with their own money. if you want to do business inside of it, you gotta pay rent. if apple didnt charge the fee for subscription apps, then all the other one-time-payment apps wouldnt instantly switch to subscription to avoid paying the 30% for their apps. that would be stupid.
its pretty clear. you cant walk into the Mall of America and sell magazine subscriptions for free, can you? same thing.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
Most stores don't sell subscriptions to magazines but stores like Target do sell mobile service subscription contracts. In the old days, they would get about 25% of the contract cost (3 months for a 1 year contract and 6 months for a 2 year contract) from the likes of AT&T and Verizon. Not sure what it is now and I don't think they can offer a 2 year contract now. But none the less, if a Target customer signs up with AT&T at a Target, Target gets a commission that is a percentage of the contract from AT&T. That's why there there are often 2 contracts drawn up when you activate a new mobile account at stores like Target, Walmart, Costco and BestBuy. One contract covers the period that they are paid their commission and the other is the contract with the carrier. AT&T do not pass the cost of paying Target the commission to the customer.
Apple needs to be careful here. Apple Music isn't even something you have to seek out on the App Store and download. They just updated the native music app that's pre-installed on every phone. Look what happened with Microsoft and IE. And the DOJ already has contempt for Apple. Last thing Apple needs is a whole can of worms opened up about only being able to install software from the App Store.
Safari is also included with all version of iOS and OSX and guess what, NO PROBLEM with the DOJ. You know why? Of course you don't. Why would I assume that? It's because Apple do not have a monopoly. When Macs, iPhone and iPad have over 70% of the market, then Apple might have to worry about the DOJ.
I'm glad Spotify is doing this. Apple should allow subscription apps to offer a redirect to the browser to sign up. There's no reason Apple should be taking 30% of someone's monthly Spotify fee. They're not hosting any content. And it certainly doesn't cost them $3 to process the credit card transaction. Google allows alternate payment methods. Apple should do the same. How hard would it be for Spotify to have a link in the app that takes you out to Safari to sign up? It wouldn't be. This is all about $$$ for Apple.
Apple built a shop and they charge people a commission to put stuff in their shop, pretty standard practice if you ask me. Imagine if I sold hand made leather bags in a street market, but I convinced a large high profile retail store to stock them and the store wanted a 30% commission. Do you think the store would be willing to put up a sign near the bags telling customers that they can get the bag cheaper from the market?
Spotify simply needs to spend some money advertising the fact that customers can purchase direct from them and save $3. Maybe there are a lot of people who simply don't want to take a chance on an app that was not bought on the App store and that is fair enough because Apple has spent a great deal to make it an experience that people are willing to pay extra for. Apple is the most valuable brand on Earth, and they charge for it's use.
Comments
First of of all, Apple allows Spoitify it's mall rent free. Secondly, Apple only gets paid when someone subscribes. So Spotify gets a free rides for free users?
It's a user safety issue alongside the money thing. Apple doesn't allow apps to direct users away from the app to pay, so that malicious app makers can't use that to steal customer data. Sure, spotify isn't likely going to try to steal your credit card info, but the rule is in place to prevent others from doing that.
Also to note; Google takes a cut of purchases and subscriptions made in their Android Market of 30%. Apple is lowering their subscription take to 15%.
Apple isn't selling a knockoff of Adele's "Hello", they're selling the real Adele. So they're not offering they're own brand of Coke, they're selling Coke at a cheaper price because they're not paying an extra 30%
If you have subscription service you have two options:
1. If you want to offer subscription within the app then it must go through The App Store and Apple will get their 30-15%.
2. If you don't want to pay Apple 30-15% then you can have users sign up using your website. BUT.. By doing so you are not allowed to provide links in the app that direct the user to the signup page even if the link opens safari. So you are only allowed to offer a login page. No links to your website. No prices. Nothing. Just a log in page that allow you to login using the ID and password you used to sign up on their website.
Google might be allowing in app link to web sites because of competition. They are competing with the Apple App Store for developers. By offering this feature, they hope it might attract more developers into writing apps for their Google Play Store. Google and Apple are competing for developers. Apple has a big advantage in that their users base spends more money and are more likely to pay for apps. Thus Apple ecosystem attracts more developers. And many only develop for iOS devices. Even if iOS user base is much smaller that that of Android. So Google must do things to compete for those developers. Allowing in app links to websites might be one of them. Right now, Apple is in the position that they don't have to sacrifice any money to attract developers. But that may be changing and may be one of the reason why they're willing to lower the percentage they charge on subscriptions through an app. Competition is good.
Plus if someone click on an in app link to Spotify, Google knows it and will make money selling the ads to this user. Apple Music, Pandora and Tidal will pay Google a premium to direct their ads to people that click on an in app link to Spotify. So Google isn't losing as much for allowing in app links to websites as Apple would.
You are clueless. The reason why we don't have to send makers of Smart TV's, BD players, AVTs, etc a check for using the apps in their devices is because they are not charging us to use the apps in their devices. Plus you must already have an account with the owner of the app to use their app on one of these devices. And you must set up this account on the app's website. There is no direct link on the app that will connect you to their website. That's because most of these device don't have an internet browser. With Apple or Google app stores, you are paying the fee for using an app to pay for an account. Not to use the app to access the contents. Can one pay for their subscription account using the app on their Smart TV, BD players, AVRs. 'etc.? Is this getting through to you?
Because many user don't want to go to a website and put in their CC number there. Now the risk may be minor with a company like Spotify, but many users still rather just use an app to pay and their CC number stays with Apple. But I would think most users don't want to give a small developer their CC to buy a .$99 app. Apple is known for being consistent with how their stores are set up. This makes it easy to understand. The music industry had the same complaint when Apple charged the same for single iTunes track. The iBook Store is the same way, 30% cut for Apple.
What Spotify gain are the iOS customers that don't want to give them their CC or don't want to bother with logging on to their website every time it's time to pay for their subscription. It is a lot easier for these users to manage all their purchases and subscription with their iTunes account. Plus when paying with an app, it makes it easy to cancel. just don't pay. Apple will not charge your CC or iTunes account. No hassle. And that might be lot of users that Spotify is losing if they don't provide that app payment service.So Apple will charge Spotify for that access to those users and right now it is 30% of the subscription fee. But it looks like it may be lower soon.
Most stores don't sell subscriptions to magazines but stores like Target do sell mobile service subscription contracts. In the old days, they would get about 25% of the contract cost (3 months for a 1 year contract and 6 months for a 2 year contract) from the likes of AT&T and Verizon. Not sure what it is now and I don't think they can offer a 2 year contract now. But none the less, if a Target customer signs up with AT&T at a Target, Target gets a commission that is a percentage of the contract from AT&T. That's why there there are often 2 contracts drawn up when you activate a new mobile account at stores like Target, Walmart, Costco and BestBuy. One contract covers the period that they are paid their commission and the other is the contract with the carrier. AT&T do not pass the cost of paying Target the commission to the customer.
Safari is also included with all version of iOS and OSX and guess what, NO PROBLEM with the DOJ. You know why? Of course you don't. Why would I assume that? It's because Apple do not have a monopoly. When Macs, iPhone and iPad have over 70% of the market, then Apple might have to worry about the DOJ.
Apple built a shop and they charge people a commission to put stuff in their shop, pretty standard practice if you ask me. Imagine if I sold hand made leather bags in a street market, but I convinced a large high profile retail store to stock them and the store wanted a 30% commission. Do you think the store would be willing to put up a sign near the bags telling customers that they can get the bag cheaper from the market?
Spotify simply needs to spend some money advertising the fact that customers can purchase direct from them and save $3. Maybe there are a lot of people who simply don't want to take a chance on an app that was not bought on the App store and that is fair enough because Apple has spent a great deal to make it an experience that people are willing to pay extra for. Apple is the most valuable brand on Earth, and they charge for it's use.