Apple counsel attacks Spotify complaints as 'rumors and half-truths'

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 109
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    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?
    edited July 2016
    baconstangradarthekatjbdragonbrucemccalifoad
     6Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 109
    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.
    jonl
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 109
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,943moderator
    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.  
    baconstanghlee1169jbdragonstompypscooter63caliRayz2016
     7Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 109
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    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.  
    What marketing does Apple do for Spotify?
    dasanman69
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 109
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    TurboPGT said:
    You're lucky we don't just remove your App, assholes.

    -Apple.
    Because Apple would have a shitload of irate customers. 
    Not so sure about that. Spotify is doing a fine job of burning their own bridges. Plus, they are likely losing money at an incredible rate.
    jbdragonstompycali
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 109
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    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.
    dasanman69singularity
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 109
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,943moderator
    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.
    baconstanghlee1169jbdragonstompybrucemcpscooter63cali
     7Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 109
    lito_lupenalito_lupena Posts: 116member
    what's spotify?
    baconstangjbdragonbrucemcpscooter63
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 109
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    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.
    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?
    rogifan_newsingularity
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 109
    crowley said:
    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.
    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. 
    jbdragon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 109
    lostkiwilostkiwi Posts: 640member
    bulk001 said:
    sockrolid said:
    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. 

    Very happy with the decision. 
    jbdragoncali
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 109
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,943moderator
    crowley said:
    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.
    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.
    hlee1169jbdragonstompypscooter63califoadicoco3
     7Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 109
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,481member
    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. 
    jbdragonpscooter63
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 109
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    crowley said:
    Or distribution and fulfilment for that matter.

    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.
    radarthekathlee1169jbdragonbrucemc
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 109
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    lkrupp said:
    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.
    jonllord amhransingularity
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 109
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    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.
    kooplord amhran
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 109
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    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 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.
    lord amhrantallest skil
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 109
    jameskatt2jameskatt2 Posts: 722member
    TurboPGT said:
    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.
    lostkiwijbdragonpscooter63cali
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 109
    jameskatt2jameskatt2 Posts: 722member
    2old4fun said:
    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.
    lostkiwijbdragon
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 109
    jameskatt2jameskatt2 Posts: 722member
    ireland said:
    Spotify's investors are bricking it.
    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.
    lostkiwijbdragoncaliradarthekat
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.