I built my restaurant business from scratch with blood, sweat and tears. Now my competitor wants to set up shop in my restaurant and sell their food alongside mine thereby giving customers a choice. Choice is great for customers they say. And my competitor doesn’t want to pay any rent or utilities. I tell my competitor to go pound salt so they write a letter to a politician who is only too happy to warn me that my attitude is anti-competitive.
Amazon gets to choose which products they will sell in their online store and they DON’T sell the Apple TV. It’s banned. Why can’t Apple choose whose products it sells in its online store? Why is Amazon competitive and Apple is anti-competitive?
Why can’t GM sells it trucks on Ford’s showroom floors?
The 30% cut Apple takes on the App Store may seem high, but it's considerably lower than what it used to cost to sell software on the retail market, so everybody wins. However, applying that same 30% to everything on the store is greedy, shortsighted, and makes no sense. In the case of Spotify, Apple is only acting as a payment facilitator for the subscription and as such it should be entitled to a payment -- but only something equivalent to a credit card transaction fee, certainly not 30%. Alternatively, they should allow Spotify to reroute the customer to a different payment site, or make payments in a different manner. Amazon, for instance, allows you to make purchases through their app, they just route the payment through their own system and so don't have to pay Apple for anything. It's clear that Apple's heavy handed use of its dominant position has enabled them to establish a system that's drastically biased in their favor; while they were a revolutionary influence and invented this convenient market place, they're acting like a monopolistic bully and in the end it's only hurting the consumer. I find it particularly galling that they won't even let Spotify warn their customers that they can pay less by purchasing the subscription outside of the app. How else can this be interpreted than they want to be able to fleece their customers. I have no intention of becoming a Spotify subscriber, but I'm really appalled at how greedy and nasty Apple can be sometimes.
The 30% cut Apple takes on the App Store may seem high, but it's considerably lower than what it used to cost to sell software on the retail market, so everybody wins. However, applying that same 30% to everything on the store is greedy, shortsighted, and makes no sense. In the case of Spotify, Apple is only acting as a payment facilitator for the subscription and as such it should be entitled to a payment -- but only something equivalent to a credit card transaction fee, certainly not 30%. Alternatively, they should allow Spotify to reroute the customer to a different payment site, or make payments in a different manner. Amazon, for instance, allows you to make purchases through their app, they just route the payment through their own system and so don't have to pay Apple for anything. It's clear that Apple's heavy handed use of its dominant position has enabled them to establish a system that's drastically biased in their favor; while they were a revolutionary influence and invented this convenient market place, they're acting like a monopolistic bully and in the end it's only hurting the consumer. I find it particularly galling that they won't even let Spotify warn their customers that they can pay less by purchasing the subscription outside of the app. How else can this be interpreted than they want to be able to fleece their customers. I have no intention of becoming a Spotify subscriber, but I'm really appalled at how greedy and nasty Apple can be sometimes.
So, in your mind Apple is the greedy one. Apple isn't merely facilitating payment, they also developed the tools and programming libraries that make creation of apps for iOS possible. And they developed iOS too. And the hardware it runs on. What Sopify is delivering through the App Store is not equivalent to what Amazon is delivering to its customers through its app. Amazon is merely acting as a seller when it sells a physical product to one of its customers. That's no different from you or I using the eBay app to purchase some old coins from an eBay seller. Of course Apple isn't going to demand a cut of that transaction. This is different and you seem not to be able to recognize or acknowledge that.
It's Spotify who is being greedy by demanding of their own customers an additional 30% on top of the usual price of their service because they don't want to incur the costs of marketing, distribution and fulfillment provided by Apple to their most significant sales channel.
The 30% cut Apple takes on the App Store may seem high, but it's considerably lower than what it used to cost to sell software on the retail market, so everybody wins. However, applying that same 30% to everything on the store is greedy, shortsighted, and makes no sense. In the case of Spotify, Apple is only acting as a payment facilitator for the subscription and as such it should be entitled to a payment -- but only something equivalent to a credit card transaction fee, certainly not 30%. Alternatively, they should allow Spotify to reroute the customer to a different payment site, or make payments in a different manner. Amazon, for instance, allows you to make purchases through their app, they just route the payment through their own system and so don't have to pay Apple for anything. It's clear that Apple's heavy handed use of its dominant position has enabled them to establish a system that's drastically biased in their favor; while they were a revolutionary influence and invented this convenient market place, they're acting like a monopolistic bully and in the end it's only hurting the consumer. I find it particularly galling that they won't even let Spotify warn their customers that they can pay less by purchasing the subscription outside of the app. How else can this be interpreted than they want to be able to fleece their customers. I have no intention of becoming a Spotify subscriber, but I'm really appalled at how greedy and nasty Apple can be sometimes.
So, in your mind Apple is the greedy one. Apple isn't merely facilitating payment, they also developed the tools and programming libraries that make creation of apps for iOS possible. And they developed iOS too. And the hardware it runs on. What Sopify is delivering through the App Store is not equivalent to what Amazon is delivering to its customers through its app. Amazon is merely acting as a seller when it sells a physical product to one of its customers. That's no different from you or I using the eBay app to purchase some old coins from an eBay seller. Of course Apple isn't going to demand a cut of that transaction. This is different and you seem not to be able to recognize or acknowledge that.
It's Spotify who is being greedy by demanding of their own customers an additional 30% on top of the usual price of their service because they don't want to incur the costs of marketing, distribution and fulfillment provided by Apple to their most significant sales channel.
So, in your mind Apple is the greedy one. Apple isn't merely facilitating payment, they also developed the tools and programming libraries that make creation of apps for iOS possible. And they developed iOS too. And the hardware it runs on. What Sopify is delivering through the App Store is not equivalent to what Amazon is delivering to its customers through its app. Amazon is merely acting as a seller when it sells a physical product to one of its customers. That's no different from you or I using the eBay app to purchase some old coins from an eBay seller. Of course Apple isn't going to demand a cut of that transaction. This is different and you seem not to be able to recognize or acknowledge that.
It's Spotify who is being greedy by demanding of their own customers an additional 30% on top of the usual price of their service because they don't want to incur the costs of marketing, distribution and fulfillment provided by Apple to their most significant sales channel.
What marketing does Apple do for Spotify?
Or distribution and fulfilment for that matter.
Apple only handles the payment processing, all of the content comes from Spotify.
So, in your mind Apple is the greedy one. Apple isn't merely facilitating payment, they also developed the tools and programming libraries that make creation of apps for iOS possible. And they developed iOS too. And the hardware it runs on. What Sopify is delivering through the App Store is not equivalent to what Amazon is delivering to its customers through its app. Amazon is merely acting as a seller when it sells a physical product to one of its customers. That's no different from you or I using the eBay app to purchase some old coins from an eBay seller. Of course Apple isn't going to demand a cut of that transaction. This is different and you seem not to be able to recognize or acknowledge that.
It's Spotify who is being greedy by demanding of their own customers an additional 30% on top of the usual price of their service because they don't want to incur the costs of marketing, distribution and fulfillment provided by Apple to their most significant sales channel.
What marketing does Apple do for Spotify?
App discovery through the App Store. The marketing of Apple's devices, it's superior OS, to a premium audience who spend more than any other audience. Are you serious in implying Spotify and others don't benefit from the visibility of the iPhone as a premium device, iOS as a premium experience? That they don't benefit from being associated with that? I suppose we could go back to applications on CDs shrink-wrapped and shipped through the mail. But I'd rather be in the App Store. Maybe that's just me.
App discovery through the App Store. The marketing of Apple's devices, it's superior OS, to a premium audience who spend more than any other audience. Are you serious in implying Spotify and others don't benefit from the visibility of the iPhone as a premium device, iOS as a premium experience? That they don't benefit from being associated with that? I suppose we could go back to applications on CDs shrink-wrapped and shipped through the mail. But I'd rather be in the App Store. Maybe that's just me.
Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't benefit from an app ecosystem adding value to their platform, of which they are able to sell hundred of billions worth of hardware product?
Apple only handles the payment processing, all of the content comes from Spotify.
If that is indeed all that Apple provides, it does seem rather simple, except you have to put a value on the venue itself, which of course is valuable. On one hand, the upcoming system is a step in the right direction of fairness for the consumer (the 15% mark-up for subscribers who come via the app-store), perhaps there can be more descending tiers if that customer is in fact continuously loyal (next year 10%, next year 5%, then done - zeroed out). That would be another improvement. If there was a way for there to be a rebate for the first year on half of that 30%, once you hit the mark, that would be even better.
This is such a hot button issue and I admit that I hadn't thought much about it before this recent kerfuffle. I don't think that a company with a questionable business model should be rewarded much, especially if it's true that they totally lowball their content providers (i.e. - the musicians), but I think Apple has to stay ahead of the game and not be seen as gouging.
I still think that if I was in Spotifys shoes I would do what someone said Amazon has done and offer the Kindle app, which when opened informs the new customer that they need an account to use it. The customer goes to their website, signs away their privacy and then returns to the app and logs in. Spotify gets it all, Apple gets nothing. Everyone is happy.
Never used Spotify. Never will. Good luck with that.
When the Spotify CEO came out and said that those who didn't like the fact that their app was basically going to collect as much info on me, my contacts etc. they should quit, I did. I do think their app is easier to use than Apple Music and makes it easier to find music I like but it sounds like this may be fixed in the next iOS update.
Yeah I wholeheartedly agree here. I grew very uncomfortable with Spotify's rather aggressive data collection efforts. Sure, I understand why they are doing it - they can't make enough money to cover costs with their streaming music. That doesn't mean I have to like it, so I too too voted with my wallet and moved to Apple Music.
App discovery through the App Store. The marketing of Apple's devices, it's superior OS, to a premium audience who spend more than any other audience. Are you serious in implying Spotify and others don't benefit from the visibility of the iPhone as a premium device, iOS as a premium experience? That they don't benefit from being associated with that? I suppose we could go back to applications on CDs shrink-wrapped and shipped through the mail. But I'd rather be in the App Store. Maybe that's just me.
Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't benefit from an app ecosystem adding value to their platform, of which they are able to sell hundred of billions worth of hardware product?
This is the argument I've been waiting for. Of course Apple benefits from having a robust app ecosystem, but does that imply that's all the benefit Apple should get? Who is the one who decides how much benefit Apple should reap from the ecosystem it has developed? Not me, not you or any other individual. We are in no position to demand that the benefit of having a robust ecosystem that helps Apple sell hardware, even hundreds of billions of dollars worth, should be the limit of Apple's benefits. It's the market that decides this, and the law. And it's up to Apple, within the law, to establish the parameters by which others may play within the ecosystem it owns and controls. And from what can see, Apple has decided the following:
If you don't directly charge your costumers for any part of an app or service you provide through the ecosystem, then Apple will agree to shoulder all of the burden, on your behalf, of hosting your app, delivering it to iOS users, and running it (sandboxing it, providing it access to hardware and software services it uses, etc).
But if you do charge for any portion of your app or service delivered through Apple's ecosystem, if you therefore directly benefit financially from the capabilities and services the ecosystem provides, on a one-time or recurring [subscription] basis, then it's only fair that you contribute some of those financial gains back to the entity, Apple, that paid to create and pays to maintain and administer, that ecosystem.
The trouble is, people don't think in the terms described above. They instead twist the logic a bit, telling themselves that it's some kind of right to be allowed to have an app hosted, delivered, and run within Apple's ecosystem, because they see all those free apps in there that Apple graciously does not charge any fees for hosting. And then they tell themselves, well, if all that is free, then the only value Apple is adding when I charge for my app is payment collection. And payment collection isn't worth 30%. And then they end up here, bitching about how Apple is the greedy host, rather than the gracious host.
So let's say Apple can successfully argue that Spotify has paying customers in large part because of access to the iOS install base. Is that something Apple should get a fee for (outside of cc processing) for the life that someone is a Spotify customer? Or should it be a one time fee they get for every new customer?
For an ongoing subscription (one year +), 15% sounds about right, 30% sounds high. A one time fee of $1.50 (at the new upcoming 15% rate) is rather low when a long time customer might be spending hundreds of dollars. And at the same time, if a customer should establish an account directly with Spotifys site, and just use the app downloaded at the AppStore to log in to that account, Apple would get bupkis.
The point is, if their marketing were drawing the customer they would already be a direct customer and could offer the app with no fee. There are a lot of people like me who refuse to give their credit card to a bunch of companies.
Apple only handles the payment processing, all of the content comes from Spotify.
If that is indeed all that Apple provides, it does seem rather simple, except you have to put a value on the venue itself, which of course is valuable. On one hand, the upcoming system is a step in the right direction of fairness for the consumer (the 15% mark-up for subscribers who come via the app-store), perhaps there can be more descending tiers if that customer is in fact continuously loyal (next year 10%, next year 5%, then done - zeroed out). That would be another improvement. If there was a way for there to be a rebate for the first year on half of that 30%, once you hit the mark, that would be even better.
This is such a hot button issue and I admit that I hadn't thought much about it before this recent kerfuffle. I don't think that a company with a questionable business model should be rewarded much, especially if it's true that they totally lowball their content providers (i.e. - the musicians), but I think Apple has to stay ahead of the game and not be seen as gouging.
I still think that if I was in Spotifys shoes I would do what someone said Amazon has done and offer the Kindle app, which when opened informs the new customer that they need an account to use it. The customer goes to their website, signs away their privacy and then returns to the app and logs in. Spotify gets it all, Apple gets nothing. Everyone is happy.
the spotify content comes from spotify. Apple also provides - the DRM to trust the app is truly an unadulterated app from spotify - The CDN to download the app. - User notifications that the App has been updated - A comments and review section for marketing the application
In short, it provides a permanent software marketplace.. 30% is a reasonable amount to showcase your wares, and 15% is reasonable to maintain the customer relationship year over year.
As noted elsewhere, Spotify could easily put up a 'free' app and forgo inapp purchases, and sell subscriptions at a web page (e.g. netflix). But they don't. Something tells me that the Apple has created a marketplace that consumers want to shop, and for that, there should be a price of admission for the vendors who want to set up a booth, and use the in store Point of Sale system.
I built my restaurant business from scratch with blood, sweat and tears. Now my competitor wants to set up shop in my restaurant and sell their food alongside mine thereby giving customers a choice. Choice is great for customers they say. And my competitor doesn’t want to pay any rent or utilities. I tell my competitor to go pound salt so they write a letter to a politician who is only too happy to warn me that my attitude is anti-competitive.
Amazon gets to choose which products they will sell in their online store and they DON’T sell the Apple TV. It’s banned. Why can’t Apple choose whose products it sells in its online store? Why is Amazon competitive and Apple is anti-competitive?
Why can’t GM sells it trucks on Ford’s showroom floors?
Ignoring your inane analogy, Bezo's has already insinuated he removed Apple TV from Amazon because of their app store policies, and he's not all that interested in allowing Apple platforms to access all its media services as a result. I hear Apple users complaining about the lack of Amazon support, and I wonder if these are the same people so gung-ho over the idea of giving extra money to Apple for subscription services. Whether you care to believe it or not, Apple started it. Ask yourself why Roku has Amazon services or Playstation has Amazon services (Playstation Vue is on the Fire TV Stick). It's building relationships and not using your platform to royally screw people over. This is why I own a Roku and stick to the more open and amicable platforms over the closed platforms that serve to use me as a piggy bank.
Apple of course just spouted a red herring as a response to Spotify and people think it was amazing. If Apple's device sales begin to nose dive, you better believe Google, Amazon, Spotify and service leaders will be waiting to hold their head underwater and help them to the grave that much quicker. This is the same shit that Microsoft pulled in the 90's except they didn't have as many clapping seals.
Are you suggesting that Apple doesn't benefit from an app ecosystem adding value to their platform, of which they are able to sell hundred of billions worth of hardware product?
This is the argument I've been waiting for. Of course Apple benefits from having a robust app ecosystem, but does that imply that's all the benefit Apple should get? Who is the one who decides how much benefit Apple should reap from the ecosystem it has developed? Not me, not you or any other individual. We are in no position to demand that the benefit of having a robust ecosystem that helps Apple sell hardware, even hundreds of billions of dollars worth, should be the limit of Apple's benefits. It's the market that decides this, and the law. And it's up to Apple, within the law, to establish the parameters by which others may play within the ecosystem it owns and controls. And from what can see, Apple has decided the following:
If you don't directly charge your costumers for any part of an app or service you provide through the ecosystem, then Apple will agree to shoulder all of the burden, on your behalf, of hosting your app, delivering it to iOS users, and running it (sandboxing it, providing it access to hardware and software services it uses, etc).
But if you do charge for any portion of your app or service delivered through Apple's ecosystem, if you therefore directly benefit financially from the capabilities and services the ecosystem provides, on a one-time or recurring [subscription] basis, then it's only fair that you contribute some of those financial gains back to the entity, Apple, that paid to create and pays to maintain and administer, that ecosystem.
The trouble is, people don't think in the terms described above. They instead twist the logic a bit, telling themselves that it's some kind of right to be allowed to have an app hosted, delivered, and run within Apple's ecosystem, because they see all those free apps in there that Apple graciously does not charge any fees for hosting. And then they tell themselves, well, if all that is free, then the only value Apple is adding when I charge for my app is payment collection. And payment collection isn't worth 30%. And then they end up here, bitching about how Apple is the greedy host, rather than the gracious host.
You're very generous describing Apple as the gracious host, given that the hosted App Store is entirely at Apple's behest, and was not normal or the expectation when iOS was opened up to third party development. That's not to say its wrong, or inferior, but Apple chose to create an App Store, and to host all permitted applications, breaking from the Mac model (pre-Mac App Store, obvs). They did that for control, and (to an extent) quality, and to control the experience, all things that benefit Apple. So to flip that and say that Apple is gracious for allowing other applications to take up room in their app store, seems a bit rich. The iPhone probably would have done alright without third party apps, but would Apple be among the most valuable and profitable companies on the planet? Doubtful. The App Store overheads, by comparison, are a pittance to Apple.
App discovery through the App Store. The marketing of Apple's devices, it's superior OS, to a premium audience who spend more than any other audience. Are you serious in implying Spotify and others don't benefit from the visibility of the iPhone as a premium device, iOS as a premium experience? That they don't benefit from being associated with that? I suppose we could go back to applications on CDs shrink-wrapped and shipped through the mail. But I'd rather be in the App Store. Maybe that's just me.
App discovery on the App Store is pretty much a joke. Even still how frequently is Apple specifically spotlighting Spotify on the App Store? My guess is next to never (though I don't think Spotify needs it). The only reason I switched from Spotify to Apple Music is because of Apple imposed limitations like being able to sync playlists with my Apple Watch and being able to use Siri. And notice music is not one of the domains approved for 3rd party Siri use. I don't think that's an accident. For me there is nothing inherently better about Apple Music. Spotify's Discover Weekly feature provided me better playlists and recommendations than anything I get with Apple Music. And outside of the Beatles there's nothing I'm streaming on Apple Music that I couldn't stream on Spotify.
You're lucky we don't just remove your App, assholes.
-Apple.
Because Apple would have a shitload of irate customers.
Nah. Spotify would have a shitload of irate customers.
Apple would have grateful customers. Everyone else can go to Android.
Apple's customers realize that software developers have to play by the rules. No exceptions.
That is why they trust Apple to keep them safe from viruses, malware, identity theft, etc.
I opened the AppStore on my iPad and searched for "music". First listed app was Apple Music, the second listed app was Spotify. I fail to see the problem. Apple built and maintains the AppStore and can run it as they see fit. If you do not like the terms of service just don't participate.
That's right. Spotify is being whiny. Its lawyer use to work for Microsoft. So he's obviously whiny.
Whiny services are bad services.
Spotify is lazy and likes stabbing its customers in the back.
It doesn't want to do the job of attracting customers to its own website to pay for its services.
It wants to ride free on Apple's work.
Then it charges customers even more if they pay with their iTunes account.
Comments
Amazon gets to choose which products they will sell in their online store and they DON’T sell the Apple TV. It’s banned. Why can’t Apple choose whose products it sells in its online store? Why is Amazon competitive and Apple is anti-competitive?
Why can’t GM sells it trucks on Ford’s showroom floors?
Alternatively, they should allow Spotify to reroute the customer to a different payment site, or make payments in a different manner. Amazon, for instance, allows you to make purchases through their app, they just route the payment through their own system and so don't have to pay Apple for anything.
It's clear that Apple's heavy handed use of its dominant position has enabled them to establish a system that's drastically biased in their favor; while they were a revolutionary influence and invented this convenient market place, they're acting like a monopolistic bully and in the end it's only hurting the consumer. I find it particularly galling that they won't even let Spotify warn their customers that they can pay less by purchasing the subscription outside of the app. How else can this be interpreted than they want to be able to fleece their customers.
I have no intention of becoming a Spotify subscriber, but I'm really appalled at how greedy and nasty Apple can be sometimes.
It's Spotify who is being greedy by demanding of their own customers an additional 30% on top of the usual price of their service because they don't want to incur the costs of marketing, distribution and fulfillment provided by Apple to their most significant sales channel.
Apple only handles the payment processing, all of the content comes from Spotify.
This is such a hot button issue and I admit that I hadn't thought much about it before this recent kerfuffle. I don't think that a company with a questionable business model should be rewarded much, especially if it's true that they totally lowball their content providers (i.e. - the musicians), but I think Apple has to stay ahead of the game and not be seen as gouging.
I still think that if I was in Spotifys shoes I would do what someone said Amazon has done and offer the Kindle app, which when opened informs the new customer that they need an account to use it. The customer goes to their website, signs away their privacy and then returns to the app and logs in. Spotify gets it all, Apple gets nothing. Everyone is happy.
Very happy with the decision.
If you don't directly charge your costumers for any part of an app or service you provide through the ecosystem, then Apple will agree to shoulder all of the burden, on your behalf, of hosting your app, delivering it to iOS users, and running it (sandboxing it, providing it access to hardware and software services it uses, etc).
But if you do charge for any portion of your app or service delivered through Apple's ecosystem, if you therefore directly benefit financially from the capabilities and services the ecosystem provides, on a one-time or recurring [subscription] basis, then it's only fair that you contribute some of those financial gains back to the entity, Apple, that paid to create and pays to maintain and administer, that ecosystem.
The trouble is, people don't think in the terms described above. They instead twist the logic a bit, telling themselves that it's some kind of right to be allowed to have an app hosted, delivered, and run within Apple's ecosystem, because they see all those free apps in there that Apple graciously does not charge any fees for hosting. And then they tell themselves, well, if all that is free, then the only value Apple is adding when I charge for my app is payment collection. And payment collection isn't worth 30%. And then they end up here, bitching about how Apple is the greedy host, rather than the gracious host.
- the DRM to trust the app is truly an unadulterated app from spotify
- The CDN to download the app.
- User notifications that the App has been updated
- A comments and review section for marketing the application
In short, it provides a permanent software marketplace.. 30% is a reasonable amount to showcase your wares, and 15% is reasonable to maintain the customer relationship year over year.
As noted elsewhere, Spotify could easily put up a 'free' app and forgo inapp purchases, and sell subscriptions at a web page (e.g. netflix). But they don't. Something tells me that the Apple has created a marketplace that consumers want to shop, and for that, there should be a price of admission for the vendors who want to set up a booth, and use the in store Point of Sale system.
Apple of course just spouted a red herring as a response to Spotify and people think it was amazing. If Apple's device sales begin to nose dive, you better believe Google, Amazon, Spotify and service leaders will be waiting to hold their head underwater and help them to the grave that much quicker. This is the same shit that Microsoft pulled in the 90's except they didn't have as many clapping seals.