Good! I hope they rule in favor of Spotify. Not because of Spotify, but that the App Store model and monopoly needs to change. 70/30 is no longer sustainable to many developers as it was in 2007. Secondly it’s conceptually wrong to own an entire ecosystem - just one of two - and abuse that by taxing 30% and very specifically create exceptions to hurt competition (such as not allowing Siri to control Spotify)
Ah, there is no such thing as a monopoly within a platform. Psystar found that out when they claimed Apple constituted an illegal monopoly with Mac computers. Of course what you and others are always claiming is that the App Store itself is a monopoly and you’re wrong.
Will be interesting to have the vicious side of Apple exposed here. Hopefully they will get what they deserve.
Care to explain?
Apple develops operating system. Apple designs and makes devices for that operating system to run on. Apple develops the tools to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates a developer program to allow developers to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates and maintains a way for developers to sell and distribute those apps.
Developers are allowed to sell their software at ANY price. Apple asks for 30% of that. Which goes towards financing the last three parts above. Developers AGREE to that before they start selling on the App Store.
That last part is what’s the most significant here. Developers have to AGREE and Apple has to ALLOW before ANYTHING can happen.
If Spotify wants a fair playing ground, then they need to start doing all the above themselves. Make their own devices and platform that they can run their service on. Amazon did it with the Kindle. Apple did it with the iPod and iTunes.
Better to wait for the EU to explain. Everyone here is guessing at what the legality of it is in the view of the EU. There must be something to it or they wouldn't have accepted it. Personally I think not much will come from it, perhaps no more than a couple of suggestions for minor changes and certainly no fines. But I'm guessing as you are.
The only time a developer has to pay Apple 30% of the sale price of an app, in the App Store, is if they want to allow their Apple iOS customers to pay with their Apple iTunes accounts. There is nothing and I mean nothing, that prevents a developer from having their customers pay by way of their own payment system, outside of the App Store.
If developers thinks paying Apple a 30% cut of the price of their app is too much, then let them host their own payment system. Let smaller developers require their customers to PayPal the money to their email account directly. Let them host their own web sites for payment purposes. Let them set up a business account with Visa and MasterCard, so they can accept CC payments and then pay the CC company 5% of each charge. Let them worry about securing their customers personal and account data from hackers on the internet. Let them have their customer mail them a check or money order. Let them handle any customers dispute with the payment.
Then they can still have their app in the App Store, without paying the "Apple tax". Apple will not "tax" them for having their app in the App Store if the payment is made outside of iTunes. How hard can that be for these developers complaining about the "Apple tax"? Surely, you must think that the cost for a developer to host, maintain and keep secure, their own payment systems, will easily be paid for by no longer having to pay the "Apple tax", if you're thinking Apple 30% cut is too much. ........ Right?
That's how I pay for my Netflix. I'm using Netflix auto pay, where Netflix directly bills by CC every month. Netflix do not have to pay the "Apple tax" with my subscription and yet, their app is available for me to use on my Apple devices.
What percentage of the their sales in the App Store, do you think it's going to cost developers to have their own payment system to handle the sales of their apps? Specially for the smaller ones. And that cost is the same whether they have any money coming in from the sales of their apps or not. At least with paying the "Apple tax", they are paying for a payment system with money that's coming in. If there's no money coming in from sales, there's no cost associated with maintaining a payment system outside the App Store.
I am an app developer and for most of my apps I have 3 versions: an iOS version, an Android version and a web version for PC and Macs. For the webversion I ve set up a secure hosting and payment solution. Guess what: a secure hosting solution costs me about 0.3 % of my revenue and the secure payment costs me about 2.5% of the revenue. And these costs rise almost linear when the number of subscribers increase.
So I don't complain about the Apple tax as such, I do complain that I am not allowed to offer payments inside the iOS app using my own payment system (as I do with the Android versions of my app). There is a not important cost related to maintaining 2 codes bases each with a different payment APIs, managing 2 payment processors in my back end, merging 2 payment flows in my management reporting and processing 2 payment sources in my accounting system.
Here’s an easy way to solve the problem. Let apps like Spotify use their own payment system in app along side Apple’s payment system. Then the user can choose which way they want to go. If they want all of their subscriptions managed by Apple they can choose that option, if they’re fine handling their own then chose the other option.
Good! I hope they rule in favor of Spotify. Not because of Spotify, but that the App Store model and monopoly needs to change. 70/30 is no longer sustainable to many developers as it was in 2007. Secondly it’s conceptually wrong to own an entire ecosystem - just one of two - and abuse that by taxing 30% and very specifically create exceptions to hurt competition (such as not allowing Siri to control Spotify)
Hey, Apple spends millions to start apps store...there are other apps store around. If they dont like the pricing of apple go somewhere else...competitions are good for consumers, just like shopping in walmart vs macys. If you don’t like iphone because too expensive go buy androids....simple as ABC
The only time a developer has to pay Apple 30% of the sale price of an app, in the App Store, is if they want to allow their Apple iOS customers to pay with their Apple iTunes accounts. There is nothing and I mean nothing, that prevents a developer from having their customers pay by way of their own payment system, outside of the App Store.
If developers thinks paying Apple a 30% cut of the price of their app is too much, then let them host their own payment system. Let smaller developers require their customers to PayPal the money to their email account directly. Let them host their own web sites for payment purposes. Let them set up a business account with Visa and MasterCard, so they can accept CC payments and then pay the CC company 5% of each charge. Let them worry about securing their customers personal and account data from hackers on the internet. Let them have their customer mail them a check or money order. Let them handle any customers dispute with the payment.
Then they can still have their app in the App Store, without paying the "Apple tax". Apple will not "tax" them for having their app in the App Store if the payment is made outside of iTunes. How hard can that be for these developers complaining about the "Apple tax"? Surely, you must think that the cost for a developer to host, maintain and keep secure, their own payment systems, will easily be paid for by no longer having to pay the "Apple tax", if you're thinking Apple 30% cut is too much. ........ Right?
That's how I pay for my Netflix. I'm using Netflix auto pay, where Netflix directly bills by CC every month. Netflix do not have to pay the "Apple tax" with my subscription and yet, their app is available for me to use on my Apple devices.
What percentage of the their sales in the App Store, do you think it's going to cost developers to have their own payment system to handle the sales of their apps? Specially for the smaller ones. And that cost is the same whether they have any money coming in from the sales of their apps or not. At least with paying the "Apple tax", they are paying for a payment system with money that's coming in. If there's no money coming in from sales, there's no cost associated with maintaining a payment system outside the App Store.
I am an app developer and for most of my apps I have 3 versions: an iOS version, an Android version and a web version for PC and Macs. For the webversion I ve set up a secure hosting and payment solution. Guess what: a secure hosting solution costs me about 0.3 % of my revenue and the secure payment costs me about 2.5% of the revenue. And these costs rise almost linear when the number of subscribers increase.
So I don't complain about the Apple tax as such, I do complain that I am not allowed to offer payments inside the iOS app using my own payment system (as I do with the Android versions of my app). There is a not important cost related to maintaining 2 codes bases each with a different payment APIs, managing 2 payment processors in my back end, merging 2 payment flows in my management reporting and processing 2 payment sources in my accounting system.
The core argument is that Apple would be at an unfair advantage because they aren't beholden to their own 30%(Or 15% after one year) cut of subscription revenue when running Apple Music.
But that relies on the assumption that the 30% of app revenues cover the cost of Apple's cloud infrastructure, bandwidth, the cost of hosting Apple Music, the cost of developing iOS and so on. This is patently not the case - the cost for all these things is overwhelming supported by the sales of hardware. Additionally Apple provides three months of free listening, which represents an additional cost to running the service.
Consider the following:
The 9 most downloaded Apps are free, representing pure cost to Apple.
Many of those top apps have weekly or near weekly updates, each more than 100MB a piece, again a high bandwidth cost.
To date there have been more than 130B app downloads, again a huge bandwidth cost to Apple
Apple has paid out more than 70B to developers, meaning that at most they have acquired 30B in revenue, indicating that the app store not very profitable, and more likely a loss leader when considering the cost of data centres, bandwidth, development, investment in energy projects, upkeep and staff.
It is more likely that Apple Music, like other Apple services - are no or thin-margin products to make the platform more attractive, and are not at any special advantage to competitors.
This might be an argument that Apple doesn’t have an unfair advantage but it isn’t really an argument for charging a commission/tax on digital content. I mean why should Spotify incur a 30/15% tax when Uber and Lyft incur nothing? I can buy just about anything under the sun in the Amazon app, except digital goods because Amazon doesn’t want to give Apple a cut of those sales. Seems rather arbitrary. Especially since Apple can’t prevent you from acquiring this content outside of the App Store.
Will be interesting to have the vicious side of Apple exposed here. Hopefully they will get what they deserve.
Care to explain?
Apple develops operating system. Apple designs and makes devices for that operating system to run on. Apple develops the tools to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates a developer program to allow developers to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates and maintains a way for developers to sell and distribute those apps.
Developers are allowed to sell their software at ANY price. Apple asks for 30% of that. Which goes towards financing the last three parts above. Developers AGREE to that before they start selling on the App Store.
That last part is what’s the most significant here. Developers have to AGREE and Apple has to ALLOW before ANYTHING can happen.
If Spotify wants a fair playing ground, then they need to start doing all the above themselves. Make their own devices and platform that they can run their service on. Amazon did it with the Kindle. Apple did it with the iPod and iTunes.
The most downloaded apps in the App Store are free. So all they’re giving Apple is the yearly iOS developer fee. Why doesn’t Apple charge for every app then? Make every app cost at least 99 cents.
Yes one can argue these apps wouldn’t exist without Apple hardware and software. But one could also argue Apple hardware and software wouldn’t be nearly as valuable if they didn’t have robust 3rd party apps.
It sounds like CEO needs a bigger yacht for the summer.
No. Artists want more money. Spotify has to pass that cost onto someone else, so they’re desperately trying to get a free ride on Apple’s back. Which probably means a majority of their paid users are coming from Apple’s platform.
Spotify hasn't made a profit since first starting up. They've been in the red since day 1 and that hasn't changed. As they get more users every year, they lose even more money every year. Now they're trying to find some way to hold onto more money. They see that Apple 30% cut and then 15% after a year and think, Ummmm, wouldn't it be better if we got to keep that money instead!!! Forget that Apple is hosting their App, an App that gets updated many times and then having to be re-downloaded millions of times over and over again. They just want the free ride.
The simple answer is to do what Amazon has done. Let people sign up for service through their own web site, not through Apple. Then Apple gets 0%. I think it's a little unfair as it's costing Apple money, but that's an option they can easily do. You want a new book on your iPad from Amazon. You can't get it from the Kindle App, you have to go and get it at Amazon's site and pay for it there. Same goes for their other services. I don't have a problem with this. I'm also never going to sign up to Spotify. I think at some point they are going to file for Chapter 11. They are a bottomless pit. At some point, there will be no one left to give them money to keep their doors open. They have nothing else to fall back on. Their whole business relies on the Music Industry whims.
Here’s an easy way to solve the problem. Let apps like Spotify use their own payment system in app along side Apple’s payment system. Then the user can choose which way they want to go. If they want all of their subscriptions managed by Apple they can choose that option, if they’re fine handling their own then chose the other option.
That is not allowed my the Apple app store guidelines, and that is basically the core of the Spotify complaint
I don't trust anything EU related, what a bunch of sick clowns. Apple created and run their own App Store, and any developer signing up knows about and agreed to the rules regarding the cut, etc.
Microsoft created Windows, but they came a cropper when they tried to keep Netscape out.
I don't have a problem with Apple charging a percentage for things hosted on their App Store, and 30% isn't extortionate, but I think wanting a 30% cut of subs etc bought through apps sold on the App Store is extortionate. Why should Apple take another 30% of something they have no part in (see Steam Link), short of selling the device to purchase on? I don't expect 30% of the purchase price of things bought in Safari on my Mac or iOS to go to Apple, so why should it for app store hosted apps?
Will be interesting to have the vicious side of Apple exposed here. Hopefully they will get what they deserve.
Care to explain?
Apple develops operating system. Apple designs and makes devices for that operating system to run on. Apple develops the tools to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates a developer program to allow developers to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates and maintains a way for developers to sell and distribute those apps.
Developers are allowed to sell their software at ANY price. Apple asks for 30% of that. Which goes towards financing the last three parts above. Developers AGREE to that before they start selling on the App Store.
That last part is what’s the most significant here. Developers have to AGREE and Apple has to ALLOW before ANYTHING can happen.
If Spotify wants a fair playing ground, then they need to start doing all the above themselves. Make their own devices and platform that they can run their service on. Amazon did it with the Kindle. Apple did it with the iPod and iTunes.
So when you use your vehicle for business, 30% of all revenue you generate using that vehicle should go to the manufacturer of the vehicle? You use fuel too, so 30% of the revenue should go to the gas company?
This is not that dissimilar to the Qualcomm suit, why should Qualcomm get a percentage of the cost of the iPhone and not a fixed amount per chip? What's the value of the final product got to do with anything.
Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that someone agreeing to something in a contract makes it legal. It doesn't. A company could have in their T&C's that you agree they they can take your kidney as payment-in-kind if you get into debt. That doesn't make it legal, whether someone has agreed to it or not.
Will be interesting to have the vicious side of Apple exposed here. Hopefully they will get what they deserve.
Care to explain?
Apple develops operating system. Apple designs and makes devices for that operating system to run on. Apple develops the tools to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates a developer program to allow developers to write apps for that operating system. Apple creates and maintains a way for developers to sell and distribute those apps.
Developers are allowed to sell their software at ANY price. Apple asks for 30% of that. Which goes towards financing the last three parts above. Developers AGREE to that before they start selling on the App Store.
That last part is what’s the most significant here. Developers have to AGREE and Apple has to ALLOW before ANYTHING can happen.
If Spotify wants a fair playing ground, then they need to start doing all the above themselves. Make their own devices and platform that they can run their service on. Amazon did it with the Kindle. Apple did it with the iPod and iTunes.
So when you use your vehicle for business, 30% of all revenue you generate using that vehicle should go to the manufacturer of the vehicle? You use fuel too, so 30% of the revenue should go to the gas company?
This is not that dissimilar to the Qualcomm suit, why should Qualcomm get a percentage of the cost of the iPhone and not a fixed amount per chip? What's the value of the final product got to do with anything.
Why should Ericsson get royalties based on the cost of an iPhone? How about Nokia who also collects royalties from Apple based on the cost? How about several others who also receive cost-based royalties? It's not uncommon.
Good! I hope they rule in favor of Spotify. Not because of Spotify, but that the App Store model and monopoly needs to change. 70/30 is no longer sustainable to many developers as it was in 2007. Secondly it’s conceptually wrong to own an entire ecosystem - just one of two - and abuse that by taxing 30% and very specifically create exceptions to hurt competition (such as not allowing Siri to control Spotify)
The only time a developer has to pay Apple 30% of the sale price of an app, in the App Store, is if they want to allow their Apple iOS customers to pay with their Apple iTunes accounts. There is nothing and I mean nothing, that prevents a developer from having their customers pay by way of their own payment system, outside of the App Store.
If developers thinks paying Apple a 30% cut of the price of their app is too much, then let them host their own payment system. Let smaller developers require their customers to PayPal the money to their email account directly. Let them host their own web sites for payment purposes. Let them set up a business account with Visa and MasterCard, so they can accept CC payments and then pay the CC company 5% of each charge. Let them worry about securing their customers personal and account data from hackers on the internet. Let them have their customer mail them a check or money order. Let them handle any customers dispute with the payment.
Then they can still have their app in the App Store, without paying the "Apple tax". Apple will not "tax" them for having their app in the App Store if the payment is made outside of iTunes. How hard can that be for these developers complaining about the "Apple tax"? Surely, you must think that the cost for a developer to host, maintain and keep secure, their own payment systems, will easily be paid for by no longer having to pay the "Apple tax", if you're thinking Apple 30% cut is too much. ........ Right?
That's how I pay for my Netflix. I'm using Netflix auto pay, where Netflix directly bills by CC every month. Netflix do not have to pay the "Apple tax" with my subscription and yet, their app is available for me to use on my Apple devices.
What percentage of the their sales in the App Store, do you think it's going to cost developers to have their own payment system to handle the sales of their apps? Specially for the smaller ones. And that cost is the same whether they have any money coming in from the sales of their apps or not. At least with paying the "Apple tax", they are paying for a payment system with money that's coming in. If there's no money coming in from sales, there's no cost associated with maintaining a payment system outside the App Store.
Your arguments are so flawed on just one point.
Apple doesn't let developers include links to their website in the said app where the user can subscribe in the way you mention. So Apple is saying, "Use our payment method and take the 30% cut, OR hope that users are intrigued enough by your service that they go out of their way to find your website where they can subscribe on their own through your payment system."
Do Amazon allow sellers advertising and selling in Amazon Marketplace, to place a link to pay for the item outside of Amazon? Do Amazon allow their Marketplace venders to advertise that they can get the same item cheaper on their eBay sellers account?
I've on more than several occasion bought items I saw advertised on Amazon, for a lower price on eBay. And when the item is delivered, it comes in an Amazon box, from an Amazon warehouse. Evidently, the seller sells his stuff on Amazon Marketplace and eBay, with eBay being lower in price because eBay takes less of a cut. But you wouldn't know that the seller is also selling on eBay, because they are not allowed to advertise their eBay prices on Amazon. Nor can they provide a link for you to pay for the item sold through the Marketplace, outside of Amazon. Even though they can handle the payment without Amazon.
With Amazon Marketplace sellers, sellers pays Amazon 15% to 20% of the sale pice plus a $.99 listing fee of each item sold. Unless the seller pays a monthly fee of $40. There by they don't have to pay the $.99 listing fee but have to sell over 40 items a month to make up for the fee. So if a seller sells a $10 item and have to pay 15% of it to Amazon plus the $.99 listing fee, that's 25%. Of course the percent goes up and down depending on the price of the item sold, as the $.99 becomes more or less a factor.
But there's no way to list and advertise an item on Amazon, sell it and not pay Amazon a percentage. Where as with the App Store, developers can advertise their app in the App store and not have to pay Apple anything on a sale, by making it possible to pay for it, outside the App Store.
I've also bought items on eBay that shipped from an Amazon warehouse, without ever realizing that the seller is also sell the same item on Amazon, because they are not allowed to advertise that. And I had to pay with PayPal. I would love to had pay for those eBay items using my reward dollars from my Amazon CC, if i knew the seller also sold on Amazon. But neither eBay or Amazon would allow the sellers to provide such links on their sites or even mention that they also sell the same items on each others site.
If I'm shopping at a Target and just happens to see a TV on display, that got my interest, do Target allow BestBuy to advertise that they sell the same TV and provide a map to the nearest BestBuy, with a flyer right next to the TV?
Netflix had no problem with following Apple App Store rules and they still ended up being one largest video streaming service. Larger that Apple streaming service itself. And Netflix still follows the rules.
Good! I hope they rule in favor of Spotify. Not because of Spotify, but that the App Store model and monopoly needs to change. 70/30 is no longer sustainable to many developers as it was in 2007. Secondly it’s conceptually wrong to own an entire ecosystem - just one of two - and abuse that by taxing 30% and very specifically create exceptions to hurt competition (such as not allowing Siri to control Spotify)
Walk into any store and tell them they don't deserve profits.
Here’s an easy way to solve the problem. Let apps like Spotify use their own payment system in app along side Apple’s payment system. Then the user can choose which way they want to go. If they want all of their subscriptions managed by Apple they can choose that option, if they’re fine handling their own then chose the other option.
But that will only work if the developers charges the same for their app, whether the iOS user chooses to pay with the developer's own payment system or with their iTunes account through Apple. But most developer will want to charge 30% more, if the iOS user chooses to pay through Apple, to cover the "Apple tax". And Apple will not allow that. Developers want to be able to have and sell their app in the App Store but don't want to pay any percentage of the sale price, to have access to Apple's iOS customers base. The bottom line is that there are some developers that want their cake and eat it too.
What gets me with Spotify argument is that they claim Apple has an unfair advantage in regards to pricing because they don't have to pay the "Apple tax." But how is that an unfair advantage when Apple charge their customers the same price for streaming music as Spotify? I could see Apple having an unfair competitive edge if they were to charge 30% less for their music streaming service. Just because it cost Spotify more to access Apple customer base doesn't mean Apple has an unfair advantage. It's the cost of doing business. No where in that argument does it mean that Apple makes 30% more profit from an iOS user than Spotify. Apple pays out more royalty to the music owners than Spotify thus Apple makes less profit per subscriber, than Spotify, when all things are equal.
Isn't it against the law to sell things at a loss?
Not at all.
I know for a fact it is illegal in France. I don't know if the E.U. has passed a law like that yet...
AFAIK it is not against the law ANYWHERE in the world to lose money on a business venture. Hell I would have been arrested at least twice so far. What you are apparently referring to is intentionally under-pricing products, intending to sell below cost, to drive competitors away. Yes that can be illegal.
Comments
Yes one can argue these apps wouldn’t exist without Apple hardware and software. But one could also argue Apple hardware and software wouldn’t be nearly as valuable if they didn’t have robust 3rd party apps.
Spotify hasn't made a profit since first starting up. They've been in the red since day 1 and that hasn't changed. As they get more users every year, they lose even more money every year. Now they're trying to find some way to hold onto more money. They see that Apple 30% cut and then 15% after a year and think, Ummmm, wouldn't it be better if we got to keep that money instead!!! Forget that Apple is hosting their App, an App that gets updated many times and then having to be re-downloaded millions of times over and over again. They just want the free ride.
The simple answer is to do what Amazon has done. Let people sign up for service through their own web site, not through Apple. Then Apple gets 0%. I think it's a little unfair as it's costing Apple money, but that's an option they can easily do. You want a new book on your iPad from Amazon. You can't get it from the Kindle App, you have to go and get it at Amazon's site and pay for it there. Same goes for their other services. I don't have a problem with this. I'm also never going to sign up to Spotify. I think at some point they are going to file for Chapter 11. They are a bottomless pit. At some point, there will be no one left to give them money to keep their doors open. They have nothing else to fall back on. Their whole business relies on the Music Industry whims.
I don't have a problem with Apple charging a percentage for things hosted on their App Store, and 30% isn't extortionate, but I think wanting a 30% cut of subs etc bought through apps sold on the App Store is extortionate. Why should Apple take another 30% of something they have no part in (see Steam Link), short of selling the device to purchase on? I don't expect 30% of the purchase price of things bought in Safari on my Mac or iOS to go to Apple, so why should it for app store hosted apps?
So when you use your vehicle for business, 30% of all revenue you generate using that vehicle should go to the manufacturer of the vehicle? You use fuel too, so 30% of the revenue should go to the gas company?
This is not that dissimilar to the Qualcomm suit, why should Qualcomm get a percentage of the cost of the iPhone and not a fixed amount per chip? What's the value of the final product got to do with anything.
Also, I'm not sure why so many people think that someone agreeing to something in a contract makes it legal. It doesn't. A company could have in their T&C's that you agree they they can take your kidney as payment-in-kind if you get into debt. That doesn't make it legal, whether someone has agreed to it or not.
I've on more than several occasion bought items I saw advertised on Amazon, for a lower price on eBay. And when the item is delivered, it comes in an Amazon box, from an Amazon warehouse. Evidently, the seller sells his stuff on Amazon Marketplace and eBay, with eBay being lower in price because eBay takes less of a cut. But you wouldn't know that the seller is also selling on eBay, because they are not allowed to advertise their eBay prices on Amazon. Nor can they provide a link for you to pay for the item sold through the Marketplace, outside of Amazon. Even though they can handle the payment without Amazon.
With Amazon Marketplace sellers, sellers pays Amazon 15% to 20% of the sale pice plus a $.99 listing fee of each item sold. Unless the seller pays a monthly fee of $40. There by they don't have to pay the $.99 listing fee but have to sell over 40 items a month to make up for the fee. So if a seller sells a $10 item and have to pay 15% of it to Amazon plus the $.99 listing fee, that's 25%. Of course the percent goes up and down depending on the price of the item sold, as the $.99 becomes more or less a factor.
But there's no way to list and advertise an item on Amazon, sell it and not pay Amazon a percentage. Where as with the App Store, developers can advertise their app in the App store and not have to pay Apple anything on a sale, by making it possible to pay for it, outside the App Store.
I've also bought items on eBay that shipped from an Amazon warehouse, without ever realizing that the seller is also sell the same item on Amazon, because they are not allowed to advertise that. And I had to pay with PayPal. I would love to had pay for those eBay items using my reward dollars from my Amazon CC, if i knew the seller also sold on Amazon. But neither eBay or Amazon would allow the sellers to provide such links on their sites or even mention that they also sell the same items on each others site.
If I'm shopping at a Target and just happens to see a TV on display, that got my interest, do Target allow BestBuy to advertise that they sell the same TV and provide a map to the nearest BestBuy, with a flyer right next to the TV?
Netflix had no problem with following Apple App Store rules and they still ended up being one largest video streaming service. Larger that Apple streaming service itself. And Netflix still follows the rules.
It's your thinking that is flawed.
Walk into any store and tell them they don't deserve profits.
What gets me with Spotify argument is that they claim Apple has an unfair advantage in regards to pricing because they don't have to pay the "Apple tax." But how is that an unfair advantage when Apple charge their customers the same price for streaming music as Spotify? I could see Apple having an unfair competitive edge if they were to charge 30% less for their music streaming service. Just because it cost Spotify more to access Apple customer base doesn't mean Apple has an unfair advantage. It's the cost of doing business. No where in that argument does it mean that Apple makes 30% more profit from an iOS user than Spotify. Apple pays out more royalty to the music owners than Spotify thus Apple makes less profit per subscriber, than Spotify, when all things are equal.