Spotify says Apple rejected update over App Store policies, 'causing grave harm' to service

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 143
    curt12curt12 Posts: 41member
    jungmark said:

    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?
    Last I checked, all developers including Spotify still pay $100/yr to be in the store regardless of whether they sell anything.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 102 of 143
    macarenamacarena Posts: 365member
    For a moment, forget Spotify here. This is not a spotify issue. When you bring Spotify into the picture, it only confuses things - about Apple Music, anti-competitive, etc.

    Instead look at the substance of the complaint. The substance is very simple - Company X says we don't want to pay a 30% (or 15%) cut to Apple. Because, Apple isnt offering anything of value to us, except listing our App. Charging a 30%/15% cut of all sales is simply blatant theft.

    Just take the Amazon shopping app - You can download the app for free, pay Amazon directly, and Apple is not involved in the picture at all. Why should it not be the same for Spotify? Spotify is using the App Store exactly in the same way that the Amazon shopping app is using it. They arent hosting their music on Apple Servers, nor are they streaming from Apple.

    If Apple believes that it owns the ecosystem, and that people should pay it 30% for the privilege of using that ecosystem, why cant it charge Amazon as well?

    The point here is, Apple is being greedy.

    This is textbook case of anti-competitive and restrictive behaviour - its like the bully in the park who says this is my bat, my ball, we play by my rules. Apple is being that bully here. It has got away with this for a long time, now this matter is going to stink up Apple.

    And one of these days, they will lose a massive lawsuit and be forced to payback all the money they have made using this approach back to the people they stole it from.
    edited July 2016 jonl
  • Reply 103 of 143
    macarenamacarena Posts: 365member
    This is just one more example of the reason people have a love/hate relationship with Apple. Apple is probably the most loved and most hated company at the same time, because of these unnecessary cheap tactics. This was the problem with Steve Jobs, and unfortunately, Tim Cook has also continued this aspect of Apple.

    I really wonder, of the money that Apple makes, does Apple really make so much money from all these customer unfriendly policies?

    Like selling Lightning Cables for $19.99, when the quality of the cable sucks, and it gets frayed in months? Like the ridiculous extra they charge for higher flash memory? Like the 30% cut from all these digital sales? Like going out of their way to solder RAM into a device to force people to pay a premium upfront for extra memory? I mean, why cant they take the bigger picture view here?

    Every time I hear this sort of thing from Apple, I just feel one thing. Someday Apple will sell 10's of millions of devices on launch day, and then face a massive recall of all those devices and probably have a huge loss because of this. And all the Apple haters would celebrate. All the fanboys who support Apple blindly simply because they own Apple shares will all take huge losses.

    This company accumulates bad karma in a way that's unbelievably unnecessary. This will all come back to hurt it. And best part is that they are already getting hurt by it. Apple shares are way below where they should be simply because a lot of people hate the company. A lot of people want this company to fail. And it is behaviour like this that makes people feel that way.
    edited July 2016 jonl
  • Reply 104 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    latifbp said:
    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 a God damned quality control issue
    Baloney. It's an Apple wants its 30% issue. Otherwise they could easily allow Spotify to have a message when you launch the app that says 'go to Spotify.com to sign up'. Besides credit card processing what service is Apple providing for Spotify that they're not providing for, say, CNN's app? The only thing they're hosting is the Spotify app, they're not hosting any of the content. So basically Spotify is subsidizing all the free apps in the App Store. When Apple originally came up with 30% were in-app subscriptions even a thing? It's one thing to charge 30% for a one time payment of $0.99 or $1.99 app but should that really apply to free apps that offer a monthly subscription for content where Apple has no involvement beyond hosting the app?
    edited July 2016 curt12jonl
  • Reply 105 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    macarena said:
    For a moment, forget Spotify here. This is not a spotify issue. When you bring Spotify into the picture, it only confuses things - about Apple Music, anti-competitive, etc.

    Instead look at the substance of the complaint. The substance is very simple - Company X says we don't want to pay a 30% (or 15%) cut to Apple. Because, Apple isnt offering anything of value to us, except listing our App. Charging a 30%/15% cut of all sales is simply blatant theft.

    Just take the Amazon shopping app - You can download the app for free, pay Amazon directly, and Apple is not involved in the picture at all. Why should it not be the same for Spotify? Spotify is using the App Store exactly in the same way that the Amazon shopping app is using it. They arent hosting their music on Apple Servers, nor are they streaming from Apple.

    If Apple believes that it owns the ecosystem, and that people should pay it 30% for the privilege of using that ecosystem, why cant it charge Amazon as well?

    The point here is, Apple is being greedy.

    This is textbook case of anti-competitive and restrictive behaviour - its like the bully in the park who says this is my bat, my ball, we play by my rules. Apple is being that bully here. It has got away with this for a long time, now this matter is going to stink up Apple.

    And one of these days, they will lose a massive lawsuit and be forced to payback all the money they have made using this approach back to the people they stole it from.
    Except with the Amazon app you can't buy digital content. I can buy an Amazon Echo via their app but not  a Prime subscription or digital music or kindle books. Apple is treating digital content differently than everything else. 
    edited July 2016 icoco3
  • Reply 106 of 143
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    jungmark said:
    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%
    Fine. Let's use generic drugs vs name brands. Both are exactly the same drug. 
  • Reply 107 of 143
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    macarena said:
    For a moment, forget Spotify here. This is not a spotify issue. When you bring Spotify into the picture, it only confuses things - about Apple Music, anti-competitive, etc.

    Instead look at the substance of the complaint. The substance is very simple - Company X says we don't want to pay a 30% (or 15%) cut to Apple. Because, Apple isnt offering anything of value to us, except listing our App. Charging a 30%/15% cut of all sales is simply blatant theft.

    Just take the Amazon shopping app - You can download the app for free, pay Amazon directly, and Apple is not involved in the picture at all. Why should it not be the same for Spotify? Spotify is using the App Store exactly in the same way that the Amazon shopping app is using it. They arent hosting their music on Apple Servers, nor are they streaming from Apple.

    If Apple believes that it owns the ecosystem, and that people should pay it 30% for the privilege of using that ecosystem, why cant it charge Amazon as well?

    The point here is, Apple is being greedy.

    This is textbook case of anti-competitive and restrictive behaviour - its like the bully in the park who says this is my bat, my ball, we play by my rules. Apple is being that bully here. It has got away with this for a long time, now this matter is going to stink up Apple.

    And one of these days, they will lose a massive lawsuit and be forced to payback all the money they have made using this approach back to the people they stole it from.
    Nonsense. Everyone knows the rules prior to App development. Spotify can not develop for iOS and stay with the "winner" Android. 

    Apple isnt the only game in town. 
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 108 of 143
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,025member
    latifbp said:
    It's a God damned quality control issue
    Baloney. It's an Apple wants its 30% issue. Otherwise they could easily allow Spotify to have a message when you launch the app that says 'go to Spotify.com to sign up'. Besides credit card processing what service is Apple providing for Spotify that they're not providing for, say, CNN's app? The only thing they're hosting is the Spotify app, they're not hosting any of the content. So basically Spotify is subsidizing all the free apps in the App Store. When Apple originally came up with 30% were in-app subscriptions even a thing? It's one thing to charge 30% for a one time payment of $0.99 or $1.99 app but should that really apply to free apps that offer a monthly subscription for content where Apple has no involvement beyond hosting the app?

    You are still not getting it. It's not about the app but the money that is made from an app. Imagine a street perform that plays a guitar. If he plays his guitar on a busy street corner, the IRS don't care. He can play on any street corner and all day long and the IRS still will not care. But as soon as this street performer opens up his guitar case and put a sign that say "Tips", the IRS will start caring. 

    Apple is the same way. If you're not making any money off what is being downloaded or streamed with your app, you do not have to pay Apple anything . Apple don't care if you want to supply a free service to their iOS users. Free apps is a bonus for iOS users. But if you're going to make money with your app, then Apple (like the IRS) will want a cut. Apple is not charging Spottily or any other developer for having an app in their Apple App Store. Apple is only charging Spotify or anyone else if they are making money from their app. And what they charge right now is 30% of what the app brings in. 

    All paid apps pays for the free apps. Even the $.99 ones. The $.99 apps may not bring is a lot per sale but there are a ton of $.99 apps and combined, they are a significant contributor. Maybe more so than all the apps costing $4.99 and above. And don't forget, many free apps are demos, just the first level of a game or trial version of paid apps. They are there in hopes of the users paying for the apps with more levels or the full version after getting the free version. So developers that have paid apps are not worry about having to subsidize free apps because most of their paid apps are sold to people that first used their free apps.  Plus, Spotify has free apps that they don't have to pay anything for. It's their app for the Free Spotify with ads. For you to say that the Free Spotify app is no different than their subscription app would like trying to tell the IRS that there's no difference between playing a guitar for free in public and getting paid for it. The IRS will give you a funny look and reply …... "Say what?"   

    And as for letting Spotify put a message in their app telling people to go to the Spotify website if they want to buy a subscription, do you think Best Buy should let Walmart paste messages next to items they're selling in their Best Buy stores saying, …… go to Walmart and get this item for less? Because if you do, you have other issues that needs to be address before you complain about Apple taking a 30% cut for sales in their app store. 
    latifbploquitur
  • Reply 109 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    latifbp said:
    It's a God damned quality control issue
    Baloney. It's an Apple wants its 30% issue. Otherwise they could easily allow Spotify to have a message when you launch the app that says 'go to Spotify.com to sign up'. Besides credit card processing what service is Apple providing for Spotify that they're not providing for, say, CNN's app? The only thing they're hosting is the Spotify app, they're not hosting any of the content. So basically Spotify is subsidizing all the free apps in the App Store. When Apple originally came up with 30% were in-app subscriptions even a thing? It's one thing to charge 30% for a one time payment of $0.99 or $1.99 app but should that really apply to free apps that offer a monthly subscription for content where Apple has no involvement beyond hosting the app?
    So you're telling me you're willing to click any link any app redirects you to, no qualms at all? Why not go over to Android and get redirected to all the malware links from their store?
  • Reply 110 of 143
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    macarena said:
    ...
    Just take the Amazon shopping app - You can download the app for free, pay Amazon directly, and Apple is not involved in the picture at all. Why should it not be the same for Spotify? Spotify is using the App Store exactly in the same way that the Amazon shopping app is using it. They arent hosting their music on Apple Servers, nor are they streaming from Apple.
    ...
    Bad analogy...the appstore allows for physical goods to be sold, the App Store policy only deals with digital products, not physical products.  If you look in the Amazon Store app, you can not purchase ebooks, movies, movie rentals, etc.
    edited July 2016 latifbpbrucemc
  • Reply 111 of 143
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    curt12 said:
    jungmark said:

    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?
    Last I checked, all developers including Spotify still pay $100/yr to be in the store regardless of whether they sell anything.
    Last I checked, all developers including Spotify still pay $100/yr to be in the store regardless of whether they sell anything BUT are also provided with all the tools and needed updates to create Apps to place in the marketplace to make money.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 112 of 143
    jungmark said:
    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%
    Fine. Let's use generic drugs vs name brands. Both are exactly the same drug. 
    It's still not the same. I dunno if you've ever played the older Guitar Hero, but they had name brand music, being sung by non name brand people. It sounded almost exactly the same as the original, but it was noticeably different for anyone who had heard the original song.

    Apple isn't selling Guitar Hero music (Generic Drugs), they're selling the original song (Name Brand drug) for CHEAPER because they're not paying 30% extra.


    latifbp said:
    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?


    Walmart also has built their own stores, created a mega chain where distributors can place their product on their shelves. But Walmart has never EVER sold the EXACT SAME PRODUCT and UNDERCUT their distributors. That's Anti competitive and monopolistic behavior REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES IT.

    As it stands now, any company that wants to make a subscription music service must price it $3 more than Apple Music, and that immediately puts that company at a disadvantage. This was not the case before Apple Music entered the market.

    Apple has entered a market that they've profited from by charging other companies a 30% subscription fee. And with this profit they created the same exact type of service at a cheaper cost, and undercutting the same companies they helped start. By making a cheaper service and having it be a preinstalled app (similar to what Windows did with Internet Explorer in the Netscape days), they are wielding unfair advantage over competitors and if left unchecked will create a monopoly in these markets.

    Or we could just let all these other music services die and let Apple Music be the only music service, with probably just Google Play Music or Amazon as the only competitors, and completely kill any chance of small companies trying to gain a foothold in these markets because... well it's Apple, and they should do whatever they want.

    jonlsingularity
  • Reply 113 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    jungmark said:
    Fine. Let's use generic drugs vs name brands. Both are exactly the same drug. 
    It's still not the same. I dunno if you've ever played the older Guitar Hero, but they had name brand music, being sung by non name brand people. It sounded almost exactly the same as the original, but it was noticeably different for anyone who had heard the original song.

    Apple isn't selling Guitar Hero music (Generic Drugs), they're selling the original song (Name Brand drug) for CHEAPER because they're not paying 30% extra.


    Walmart also has built their own stores, created a mega chain where distributors can place their product on their shelves. But Walmart has never EVER sold the EXACT SAME PRODUCT and UNDERCUT their distributors. That's Anti competitive and monopolistic behavior REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES IT.

    As it stands now, any company that wants to make a subscription music service must price it $3 more than Apple Music, and that immediately puts that company at a disadvantage. This was not the case before Apple Music entered the market.

    Apple has entered a market that they've profited from by charging other companies a 30% subscription fee. And with this profit they created the same exact type of service at a cheaper cost, and undercutting the same companies they helped start. By making a cheaper service and having it be a preinstalled app (similar to what Windows did with Internet Explorer in the Netscape days), they are wielding unfair advantage over competitors and if left unchecked will create a monopoly in these markets.

    Or we could just let all these other music services die and let Apple Music be the only music service, with probably just Google Play Music or Amazon as the only competitors, and completely kill any chance of small companies trying to gain a foothold in these markets because... well it's Apple, and they should do whatever they want.

    So, despite Apple being in the online music business for over a decade now, because Spotify created an app (using all of Apple's developers tools engineered, architected, and fully funded by Apple), Apple is not allowed to create a music streaming service? And despite Spotify having almost 3 times the amount of paying users Apple has, somehow Spotify is on its death bed? And this is because Apple is charging them a fee to be a part of the App Store Apple assumes ALL the liability for, and despite Spotify passing their tax deductible business expenses onto their customers AND charging more, somehow they are going broke because of Apple?
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 114 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    davidw said:
    Baloney. It's an Apple wants its 30% issue. Otherwise they could easily allow Spotify to have a message when you launch the app that says 'go to Spotify.com to sign up'. Besides credit card processing what service is Apple providing for Spotify that they're not providing for, say, CNN's app? The only thing they're hosting is the Spotify app, they're not hosting any of the content. So basically Spotify is subsidizing all the free apps in the App Store. When Apple originally came up with 30% were in-app subscriptions even a thing? It's one thing to charge 30% for a one time payment of $0.99 or $1.99 app but should that really apply to free apps that offer a monthly subscription for content where Apple has no involvement beyond hosting the app?

    You are still not getting it. It's not about the app but the money that is made from an app. Imagine a street perform that plays a guitar. If he plays his guitar on a busy street corner, the IRS don't care. He can play on any street corner and all day long and the IRS still will not care. But as soon as this street performer opens up his guitar case and put a sign that say "Tips", the IRS will start caring. 

    Apple is the same way. If you're not making any money off what is being downloaded or streamed with your app, you do not have to pay Apple anything . Apple don't care if you want to supply a free service to their iOS users. Free apps is a bonus for iOS users. But if you're going to make money with your app, then Apple (like the IRS) will want a cut. Apple is not charging Spottily or any other developer for having an app in their Apple App Store. Apple is only charging Spotify or anyone else if they are making money from their app. And what they charge right now is 30% of what the app brings in. 

    All paid apps pays for the free apps. Even the $.99 ones. The $.99 apps may not bring is a lot per sale but there are a ton of $.99 apps and combined, they are a significant contributor. Maybe more so than all the apps costing $4.99 and above. And don't forget, many free apps are demos, just the first level of a game or trial version of paid apps. They are there in hopes of the users paying for the apps with more levels or the full version after getting the free version. So developers that have paid apps are not worry about having to subsidize free apps because most of their paid apps are sold to people that first used their free apps.  Plus, Spotify has free apps that they don't have to pay anything for. It's their app for the Free Spotify with ads. For you to say that the Free Spotify app is no different than their subscription app would like trying to tell the IRS that there's no difference between playing a guitar for free in public and getting paid for it. The IRS will give you a funny look and reply …... "Say what?"   

    And as for letting Spotify put a message in their app telling people to go to the Spotify website if they want to buy a subscription, do you think Best Buy should let Walmart paste messages next to items they're selling in their Best Buy stores saying, …… go to Walmart and get this item for less? Because if you do, you have other issues that needs to be address before you complain about Apple taking a 30% cut for sales in their app store. 
    It costs $99/yr for a developer to have an app on the App Store.  Not sure if it is more/less for larger companies that have a lot of apps on the store. 

    https://developer.apple.com/programs/how-it-works/

    Open up the Amazon app on your iOS device. If you want to buy an Echo speaker you can do so right in-app. But if you want to buy a kindle book or a digital music download you have to do so outside the app. Why the distinction? Is Amazon not making money with their app when someone buys a physical good?

    If a company chooses not to offer IAP because they don't want to pay the fee to Apple they should be able to tell people where they can go to purchase content (or sign up for a subscription).  My elderly mother owns a Kindle. She also has an iPad mini now. When she downloaded the Kindle app on her iPad the first thing she asked me is where do I go to buy books. She had no idea that she had to go to Amazon.com in the browser to buy a book before she could read it on the Kindle app. And you're Best Buy/Walmart analogy doesn't make sense. When I'm in the Spotify app I'm no longer in Apple's store. There's nothing wrong with having a splash screen on launch that says 'go to Spotify.com to sign up'. I would go further and let them offer a redirect to Safari or a web wrapper in-app that let them complete the process but at least allow them to give people direction. I'd say the same thing for any provider of content. I stream all kinds of content from my DirecTV app but Apple isn't getting 30% of my monthly cable bill. Without a DirecTV subscription the app is basically worthless. Same thing with any other cable or satellite provider app. How is Spotify different?
  • Reply 115 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    icoco3 said:
    macarena said:
    ...
    Just take the Amazon shopping app - You can download the app for free, pay Amazon directly, and Apple is not involved in the picture at all. Why should it not be the same for Spotify? Spotify is using the App Store exactly in the same way that the Amazon shopping app is using it. They arent hosting their music on Apple Servers, nor are they streaming from Apple.
    ...
    Bad analogy...the appstore allows for physical goods to be sold, the App Store policy only deals with digital products, not physical products.  If you look in the Amazon Store app, you can not purchase ebooks, movies, movie rentals, etc.
    Why the distinction if this is all about Apple deserving to be compensated for others making money off apps in their store? So Amazon would only be making money off the App Store when an e-book or digital movie is purchased? That doesn't make much sense. Honestly once you're inside an app you're now outside of Apple's store and the only money they should make is whatever it costs to cover credit card transactions if the app is using iTunes for billing.
    curt12
  • Reply 116 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    icoco3 said:
    Bad analogy...the appstore allows for physical goods to be sold, the App Store policy only deals with digital products, not physical products.  If you look in the Amazon Store app, you can not purchase ebooks, movies, movie rentals, etc.
    Why the distinction if this is all about Apple deserving to be compensated for others making money off apps in their store? So Amazon would only be making money off the App Store when an e-book or digital movie is purchased? That doesn't make much sense. Honestly once you're inside an app you're now outside of Apple's store and the only money they should make is whatever it costs to cover credit card transactions if the app is using iTunes for billing.
    If the obvious doesn't make sense to you why don't just go try to wrap your mind around something else?
  • Reply 117 of 143
    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)?
    Hmm, where to start here ... 
    I have a few magazine subs that I read on my phone and iPad. I bought all of them individually, through the magazine directly, and Apple gets zero for my sub. If you buy a magazine at Target and subscribe, you would do that most likely by taking the trouble to go to the mags website. If Target signed you up, you bet they would take a cut for that, they're in business. (And Apple does pay a percentage of sales to mall owners, pretty standard stuff for high end retailers, not close to 30% though ...). Hosting apps that allow a user free ad-supported service is a great thing for the consumer of course. Allowing a user to establish an account, outside of the app on their own as apparently Amazon does, seems like an easy, no hassle work around for Spotify. They are grandstanding, and more than a bit worried about their business model, for which they only have themselves to blame. And that's the danger of a politician offering an opinion before they know much about the issue. Businesses based on bad models with razor thin margins don't deserve to be propped up, they should fade away. 
    latifbp
  • Reply 118 of 143
    curt12curt12 Posts: 41member
    icoco3 said:
    curt12 said:
    Last I checked, all developers including Spotify still pay $100/yr to be in the store regardless of whether they sell anything.
    Last I checked, all developers including Spotify still pay $100/yr to be in the store regardless of whether they sell anything BUT are also provided with all the tools and needed updates to create Apps to place in the marketplace to make money.
    Apple provides the developer tools free of charge. One has to pay nothing to get Xcode and write code. The $100/yr is rent for space in the app store.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 119 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    curt12 said:
    icoco3 said:
    Last I checked, all developers including Spotify still pay $100/yr to be in the store regardless of whether they sell anything BUT are also provided with all the tools and needed updates to create Apps to place in the marketplace to make money.
    Apple provides the developer tools free of charge. One has to pay nothing to get Xcode and write code. The $100/yr is nothing but rent for space in the app store.
    So basically Apple goes out of its way to not only make it cheap to get into the store, but provides development tools at no cost so any developer can create an app with ease, and not incur any costs if they don't make any money off sales in Apple's App Store? Sounds like Apple makes it pretty easy for others to compete.
  • Reply 120 of 143
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,652member
    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. 
    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.
    No it's not the same thing, since taking a space in the Mall of America doesn't require you to pay a royalty on every sale to the mall operator.   You pay a fixed fee for rent per month.    It's definitely fair for Apple to take 30% of the charge for an application.   Whether it's fair for Apple to take 30% of everything sold within an application is a completely other question.   For anyone selling physical products, it's impossible, since 30% of sales would be below wholesale in 90% of goods sold today.    

    However, I think rogifan_new is wrong when he says it's all about $$$$ for Apple.   I think it is more about seeing that Spotify doesn't succeed as well as Apple's usual arrogance.   I remember that when Apple first announced the 30% fee, publishers especially, were very upset.    In many businesses today, there isn't 30% margin to give.  I think some flexibility is warranted here. 
Sign In or Register to comment.