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

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    zoetmb said:
    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. 
    The App Store is the store. It's an online store. Rent at a mall is not an appropriate analogy. If Walmart, Target, or whichever store sells your product you will pay them some commission on any sales of your item(s). You will not find any business arrangement whereby you could approach a store, give them $100, and sell an unlimited amount of items in that store. That is naive to the point of being delusional to believe such a business arrangement exists.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 122 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    latifbp said:
    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?
    No what's obvious is Apple can't stop someone from subscribing to Spotify outside the App Store so why make it more of a pain to do so? And what's the difference between me going to Spotify.com in Safari and signing up or being able to do so right inside the app? One difference is the latter is more convenient. That's especially the case with buying books. I'd love it if I could buy Nook books right from their app. But I understand why they don't want to give Apple 30% of every digital book they'd sell from the app. Especially when it doesn't apply to iBooks. Unless you think all these companies should eat the 30% rather than pass it on to the consumer? 
  • Reply 123 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    latifbp said:
    If the obvious doesn't make sense to you why don't just go try to wrap your mind around something else?
    No what's obvious is Apple can't stop someone from subscribing to Spotify outside the App Store so why make it more of a pain to do so? And what's the difference between me going to Spotify.com in Safari and signing up or being able to do so right inside the app? One difference is the latter is more convenient. That's especially the case with buying books. I'd love it if I could buy Nook books right from their app. But I understand why they don't want to give Apple 30% of every digital book they'd sell from the app. Especially when it doesn't apply to iBooks. Unless you think all these companies should eat the 30% rather than pass it on to the consumer? 
    If Spotify would be allowed to redirect to an external link outside of the app so could everybody else. Then for Apple to maintain the same level of quality control to prevent its users from being directed to malware links they have to investigate every external link that goes outside the App Store. That is unduly burdensome to Apple. If you want unregulated redirection to any and every link some fools post then go use Android and get redirected over there at your own risk.
  • Reply 124 of 143
    curt12curt12 Posts: 41member
    latifbp said:
    curt12 said:
    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.
    If a developer is not making money from app store sales, he is losing $100/yr. At any rate, the OP claimed that Apple was letting Spotify in its store "rent free" when that is patently false.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 125 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    zoetmb said:
    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. 
    You might be right. When was the 30% introduced? At the same time Apple introduced IAP? Obviously Apple is starting to be flexible as they introduced 15% after one year. But I still think if companies can sell physical goods or services in their app without going through iTunes or paying the 30% fee they should be able to with digital goods as well. Or at least the fee Apple gets should be a lot less than 30%. You could argue that Spotify needs iOS in order to acquire customers but Amazon doesn't. Hence why they don't give Apple 30% for anything.
  • Reply 126 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    curt12 said:
    latifbp said:
    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.
    $100/yr is not a cost? That's how much a developer needs to make to break even. At any rate, the OP claimed that Apple was letting Spotify in its store "rent free" when that is patently false.
    How about I just build a house with all my own money and open it up to whoever wants to fuck around and do whatever they want in my house. Let's not stop there. Let's make it you're right to do so regardless of the fact that I own it, I paid for it, and all that. Sounds like the kind of deal you'd like.
  • Reply 127 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    curt12 said:
    latifbp said:
    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.
    If a developer is not making money from app store sales, he is losing $100/yr. At any rate, the OP claimed that Apple was letting Spotify in its store "rent free" when that is patently false.
    If $100/year is a lot of money to your business, you really need to rethink your business strategy. Hell, you've really got to rethink your life!
    edited July 2016 baconstang
  • Reply 128 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    Well Apple has responded. As we all suspected, Spotify submitted an app update that they knew would be rejected. I still say good on them for forcing this debate. If Apple's right then they should have no problem winning this debate in the court of public opinion.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-fires-back-at-spotify-for-asking-for-preferential-trea?utm_term=.xuxOWyALz#.gd92dr0Rg
  • Reply 129 of 143
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    davidw said:
    jonl said:
    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? 
    The point is, Apple should be using their model. I don't know what you loons think is so special about iOS devices compared to other devices. I never have and never would  pay Apple a tax to use a service on their devices. I don't pay other device manufacturers a tax. Understand, loon?
  • Reply 130 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    latifbp said:
    No what's obvious is Apple can't stop someone from subscribing to Spotify outside the App Store so why make it more of a pain to do so? And what's the difference between me going to Spotify.com in Safari and signing up or being able to do so right inside the app? One difference is the latter is more convenient. That's especially the case with buying books. I'd love it if I could buy Nook books right from their app. But I understand why they don't want to give Apple 30% of every digital book they'd sell from the app. Especially when it doesn't apply to iBooks. Unless you think all these companies should eat the 30% rather than pass it on to the consumer? 
    If Spotify would be allowed to redirect to an external link outside of the app so could everybody else. Then for Apple to maintain the same level of quality control to prevent its users from being directed to malware links they have to investigate every external link that goes outside the App Store. That is unduly burdensome to Apple. If you want unregulated redirection to any and every link some fools post then go use Android and get redirected over there at your own risk.
    Ok then not a redirect but similar to what apps like Target, Amazon etc. already do. I can buy stuff inside the Target app with out them paying Apple 30%. So it's clearly not a technical or security/safety issue. So then the question becomes how much is Apple attributable to digital content providers customer acquisition? Spotify has ~30M paying subscribers. Can Apple successfully argue that figure is because of iOS? Maybe. Does that mean they deserve 30% of every monthly sub being processed via iTunes? That's a debate I think is worth having. When I was using Spotify I signed up via the web because I didn't want to give them an extra 3 dollars per month. It's not that difficult to manage subscriptions outside of iTunes. It's just like I manage every other bill I have.
  • Reply 131 of 143
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    jungmark said:
    Fine. Let's use generic drugs vs name brands. Both are exactly the same drug. 
    ...
    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.
    ...
    Well that's a fallacy.  How come all the Walmart brands sell for less than the brand name ones?
  • Reply 132 of 143
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    icoco3 said:
    ...
    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.
    ...
    Well that's a fallacy.  How come all the Walmart brands sell for less than the brand name ones?
    How is a Walmart brand the "exact same product" as a brand name one? It's not hence why they can sell it cheaper.
  • Reply 133 of 143
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    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 rent for space in the app store.
    Technically they are not free.  Apple has development cost that are ongoing.  Your IAP of $100 allows you to sell in the store. :wink: 
  • Reply 134 of 143
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    latifbp said:
    If the obvious doesn't make sense to you why don't just go try to wrap your mind around something else?
    No what's obvious is Apple can't stop someone from subscribing to Spotify outside the App Store so why make it more of a pain to do so? And what's the difference between me going to Spotify.com in Safari and signing up or being able to do so right inside the app? One difference is the latter is more convenient. That's especially the case with buying books. I'd love it if I could buy Nook books right from their app. But I understand why they don't want to give Apple 30% of every digital book they'd sell from the app. Especially when it doesn't apply to iBooks. Unless you think all these companies should eat the 30% rather than pass it on to the consumer? 
    I buy from Amazon off my Kindle Fire.  All set and no hassles.  This policy has been in place since the App Store started IIRC so it is like beating a dead horse yet again.
  • Reply 135 of 143
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    icoco3 said:
    Well that's a fallacy.  How come all the Walmart brands sell for less than the brand name ones?
    How is a Walmart brand the "exact same product" as a brand name one? It's not hence why they can sell it cheaper.
    Who do you think packages them?????  When I lived in England, Heinz sold baked beans for 80 pence a tin.  The Tesco Blue Label was sold for 12 pence.  THE SAME CANS!!!  Heinz didn't even hide the fact the wrapped them for Tesco's.  The plant manager admitted it on a news show and said, "people pay it."  They didn't hide the fact they did it.  Big brands do "white label" products at times and there are other companies that are pure "white label" products for whoever wants to buy from them.
    baconstang
  • Reply 136 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    icoco3 said:
    Well that's a fallacy.  How come all the Walmart brands sell for less than the brand name ones?
    How is a Walmart brand the "exact same product" as a brand name one? It's not hence why they can sell it cheaper.
    It is cheaper to produce the same products with the same ingredients in house. Simple
  • Reply 137 of 143
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    latifbp said:
    If Spotify would be allowed to redirect to an external link outside of the app so could everybody else. Then for Apple to maintain the same level of quality control to prevent its users from being directed to malware links they have to investigate every external link that goes outside the App Store. That is unduly burdensome to Apple. If you want unregulated redirection to any and every link some fools post then go use Android and get redirected over there at your own risk.
    Ok then not a redirect but similar to what apps like Target, Amazon etc. already do. I can buy stuff inside the Target app with out them paying Apple 30%. So it's clearly not a technical or security/safety issue. So then the question becomes how much is Apple attributable to digital content providers customer acquisition? Spotify has ~30M paying subscribers. Can Apple successfully argue that figure is because of iOS? Maybe. Does that mean they deserve 30% of every monthly sub being processed via iTunes? That's a debate I think is worth having. When I was using Spotify I signed up via the web because I didn't want to give them an extra 3 dollars per month. It's not that difficult to manage subscriptions outside of iTunes. It's just like I manage every other bill I have.
    Then just continue to go to the browser per your preference 
  • Reply 138 of 143
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 1,091member
    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 $$$ for Apple. 
    All about $$$.....right.   You'd think they were running a business or something.
    We all know Apple built the iOS platform as a charity for people that spend a lot of time on their phones.
    edited July 2016 latifbploquitur
  • Reply 139 of 143
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Well Apple has responded. As we all suspected, Spotify submitted an app update that they knew would be rejected. I still say good on them for forcing this debate. If Apple's right then they should have no problem winning this debate in the court of public opinion.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkowski/apple-fires-back-at-spotify-for-asking-for-preferential-trea?utm_term=.xuxOWyALz#.gd92dr0Rg
    Who the Frak cares about the court of public opinion? Are Devs gonna pull out of the App Store? Nope. 
    latifbpbaconstangloquitur
  • Reply 140 of 143
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    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.


    It is the same active ingredient because they're drugs. The only difference is branding. That's it.  In fact I bet some drugs are produced by the same plant but one set gets "name branding" while the other gets generic branding. 
    latifbpicoco3
Sign In or Register to comment.