Consumer advocacy group, Sen. Al Franken add to Apple Music antitrust clamor

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 69

    I spent quite a few hours today writing a letter to the Department of Justice against the Consumer Watchdog letter. The Consumer Watchdog letter dripped with corruption and collusion with Spotify and I decided to add my voice of support to Apple against the insidious behavior of Spotify and a supposed non-profit writing a letter on the behalf of consumers. Consumers who were not contacted to discover if they wanted a letter written.

     

    Consumer Watchdog's letter started with the tone of fact then jumped into alleged and purported tone. The organization wrote its letter with fear, uncertainty and doubt against Apple as if Spotify had not something similar and more illegal in its attempt to remain relevant.

     

    The thing that made me decide to write a long-winded letter was the 800 million credit cards worldwide Apple has. What makes Consumer Watchdog think that every one of those 800 million credit card holders is going to accept and pay for Apple Music? I am an undeniable Apple fan, but I have chosen not to sign up for the free three-month Apple Music plan because I do not want to pay a monthly fee for streamed music. My choice. And, Apple cannot force me to sign up.

     

    I will provide a link to my letter after I post it to my Web site. This is the first time I have written a letter to the Department of Justice! It is kind of exhilarating!!

     

    I guess a second letter will be written now that Franken has added his two cents to this circus act.

  • Reply 22 of 69
    toukaletoukale Posts: 37member

    Spotify is simply fighting for their survival here, which is why they are throwing everything against the wall to see if anything will stick.  The thing is I don't think anything can be done to stop their future slides in streaming.

  • Reply 23 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

    So basically Franken and his minions want Apple to haul Spotify’s freight for free. Does that about cover it?




    And I want to be able to bring my own food and drinks into a movie theater. 

  • Reply 24 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     



    Unfortunately these investigations are not bogus, they are quite real. The government apparently has targeted Apple for some reason on everything it does. That’s actually quite scary when you think of it. Amazon and Google are getting a pass while Apple has this huge target on its back.




    Which makes me wonder how much customer information Amazon and Google are providing the US government for the pass. Apple has been very vocal about not sharing customer information and about default encryption on iPhones. Google does not turn on encryption by default, which is strange. Or not so strange considering people who signed up for Google's free Photo storage service have to go through an undocumented second stop process to stop Google from automatically uploading pictures from Android smartphones. 

  • Reply 25 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

     



    Which makes me wonder how much customer information Amazon and Google are providing the US government for the pass. Apple has been very vocal about not sharing customer information and about default encryption on iPhones. Google does not turn on encryption by default, which is strange. Or not so strange considering people who signed up for Google's free Photo storage service have to go through an undocumented second stop process to stop Google from automatically uploading pictures from Android smartphones. 




    Part of the problem is Apple sits on a big pile of cash and doesn't do much lobbying in Washington. The rats smell the cheese and will gnaw at you until you give it up. 

  • Reply 26 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

     

    I spent quite a few hours today writing a letter to the Department of Justice against the Consumer Watchdog letter. The Consumer Watchdog letter dripped with corruption and collusion with Spotify and I decided to add my voice of support to Apple against the insidious behavior of Spotify and a supposed non-profit writing a letter on the behalf of consumers. Consumers who were not contacted to discover if they wanted a letter written.

     

    Consumer Watchdog's letter started with the tone of fact then jumped into alleged and purported tone. The organization wrote its letter with fear, uncertainty and doubt against Apple as if Spotify had not something similar and more illegal in its attempt to remain relevant.

     

    The thing that made me decide to write a long-winded letter was the 800 million credit cards worldwide Apple has. What makes Consumer Watchdog think that every one of those 800 million credit card holders is going to accept and pay for Apple Music? I am an undeniable Apple fan, but I have chosen not to sign up for the free three-month Apple Music plan because I do not want to pay a monthly fee for streamed music. My choice. And, Apple cannot force me to sign up.

     

    I will provide a link to my letter after I post it to my Web site. This is the first time I have written a letter to the Department of Justice! It is kind of exhilarating!!

     

    I guess a second letter will be written now that Franken has added his two cents to this circus act.




    The advantage of the 800 million + credit cards on file is that it reduces friction for buying apps and services. This is an advantage to Apple as signing up for their services is pretty frictionless if you already have payment info on file. However, Apple also offers this frictionless payment service to third parties to sell their apps, upgrades, digital services and subscriptions for a flat rate of 30% of the transaction. I don't know if it is worth exactly 30%, but I do know 99 times out of a 100 I will not think twice about hitting a buy button for something that I want in an app or the app store. If I have to fill out a web form and enter my own credit card info and billing address and manually deal with servicing that account outside of the app store, renewing, canceling, managing a separate login, etc... 99 times out of 100 I won't do it.

     

    Spotify may be paying 30% on app store subscriptions to Apple but that are probably gaining more than 30% more customers due to Apple reducing the friction of subscribing. 

  • Reply 27 of 69
    junior99junior99 Posts: 24member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    Stuart Smalley and the watchdog group has it all wrong... iPhone doesn't have a monopoly and spotify chose to sell at a higher rate. It's an opt in to Apple Music. Exclusives aren't illegal.

    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

     

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

     

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 

  • Reply 28 of 69
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    junior99 wrote: »
    jungmark wrote: »
    Stuart Smalley and the watchdog group has it all wrong... iPhone doesn't have a monopoly and spotify chose to sell at a higher rate. It's an opt in to Apple Music. Exclusives aren't illegal.
    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 

    Are you arguing that no company that owns a store should be allowed to sell its own goods in that store, because it gives them an unfair pricing advantage?
  • Reply 29 of 69
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,367member
    junior99 wrote: »
    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 

    You're clueless about what the word 'monopoly' means, aren't you?
  • Reply 30 of 69
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    junior99 wrote: »
    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 

    You're clueless about what the word 'monopoly' means, aren't you?
    junior99 wrote: »
    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 

    You're clueless about what the word 'monopoly' means, aren't you?

    Why write ten words when two will suffice?
  • Reply 31 of 69
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    junior99 wrote: »
    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 

    Is the App Store the only way to subscribe to spotify? Nope.
  • Reply 32 of 69
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,362member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by junior99 View Post

     

    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

     

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

     

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 


     

    That was..wow, my head hurts from the stupid. 

  • Reply 33 of 69
    jonljonl Posts: 210member

    And here he is, caught in the act of transmitting his message.

     

  • Reply 34 of 69
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by junior99 View Post

     

    Apple has an unfair advantage. They charge for a service then charge others to sell that service. They do have a monopoly for the app store.

     

    It's not good for consumers or competition for Apple to not charge itself 30% for services.

     

    They should have simply not gotten into services like streaming music. It's a conflict of interest. 


     

    Maybe its time you invest in a brain because it seems like yours is running on fumes.

    Apple has an advantage in its own store, its own site? Well, you betcha.

    Guess Amazon and Walmart should just close its doors because they also has an advantage.

  • Reply 35 of 69
    jakebjakeb Posts: 559member

    I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with Apple's unwillingness to provide access to user data and back doors to encryption. 

     

    I'm sure it's a perfectly normal thing for the senate to investigate a company that doesn't even have 50% of the the music streaming market share for antitrust/monopoly violations. 

  • Reply 36 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

    Maybe its time you invest in a brain because it seems like yours is running on fumes.

    Apple has an advantage in its own store, its own site? Well, you betcha.

    Guess Amazon and Walmart should just close its doors because they also has an advantage.


    I stand by what I say. I do need a brain because I question why to waste time here.

     

    Unfair advantage.

    Monopoly - Only one place to get apps. Sure, customers can get a web-app, but that's not the same thing. Even if it was the same thing, most average people would not know about the web app.

     

    What could happen is what happened to the phone companies - they had to allow competitors to sell DSL and phone services on the phone companies copper because they had a monopoly. And they had to fairly charge. This was a government step to create competition. Apple's day will come as they remain big and unfair.

     

    A lot of people here don't think in terms of what is good for the market. Okay, fine, put Spotify out of business and everyone else. Then Apple can collude (or on their own) jack up prices on streaming services. Why shouldn't they if they are the only game in town. In fact, I hope they do so, so people can cry fowl.

     

    Look at ATT and Verizon and their duopoly (yes, there are others, but this is the big boys oligopoly) - they keep jacking prices up. 

     

    There you go. Yes, I have no brain for wasting my time here.

  • Reply 37 of 69
    otacorbotacorb Posts: 20member

    Spotify needs to put up or shut up!  The real deal is release to the public how many subscribers are actually subscribing through the App Store.  Anyone stupid enough to do so, deserves to pay the 30% premium.  

     

    Now where I disagree with Apple is they really should allow apps to put links in them to go to these developers web sites to subscribe.  I think that is the one thing that is going to grab Tim Cook (Apple) by the balls!   If there is a web link and they still do an in-app subscription and pay the 30% then that is on the subscriber.  Apple has a right to charge the 30%. 

  • Reply 38 of 69
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    otacorb wrote: »
    Spotify needs to put up or shut up!  The real deal is release to the public how many subscribers are actually subscribing through the App Store.  Anyone stupid enough to do so, deserves to pay the 30% premium.  

    Now where I disagree with Apple is they really should allow apps to put links in them to go to these developers web sites to subscribe.  I think that is the one thing that is going to grab Tim Cook (Apple) by the balls!   If there is a web link and they still do an in-app subscription and pay the 30% then that is on the subscriber.  Apple has a right to charge the 30%. 

    No way. Apple must provide the competition a free parking spot and free advertising for their services? BALONEY!
  • Reply 39 of 69
    Senator Franken piles on a music law suit while the head of his party makes a suicidal deal with Iran. What priorities.
  • Reply 40 of 69
    lymflymf Posts: 65member
    junior99 wrote: »
    I stand by what I say. I do need a brain because I question why to waste time here.

    Unfair advantage.
    Monopoly - Only one place to get apps. Sure, customers can get a web-app, but that's not the same thing. Even if it was the same thing, most average people would not know about the web app.

    What could happen is what happened to the phone companies - they had to allow competitors to sell DSL and phone services on the phone companies copper because they had a monopoly. And they had to fairly charge. This was a government step to create competition. Apple's day will come as they remain big and unfair.

    A lot of people here don't think in terms of what is good for the market. Okay, fine, put Spotify out of business and everyone else. Then Apple can collude (or on their own) jack up prices on streaming services. Why shouldn't they if they are the only game in town. In fact, I hope they do so, so people can cry fowl.

    Look at ATT and Verizon and their duopoly (yes, there are others, but this is the big boys oligopoly) - they keep jacking prices up. 

    There you go. Yes, I have no brain for wasting my time here.
    I don't think people want apology to die. Competition is good. But what people here are complaining about is that spirit has no obligation to sell on the App Store. There are stores where you will only find Pepsi. Others where you will only find Coke. But I don't see trials about that kind of stuff. If Spotify decides to sell through the AppStore, it has to respect the AppStore rules, which impose amongst others a 30% fee. But isn't this 30% covered by the amount of people actually subscribing to the service? Google and Amazon have similar programs in place, but no one complains because as statistics show, android users are less likely to spend money on apps and everything. So of course they represent nothing money wise and it's not worth for Spotify to attack Google.

    That being said, I would agree that the subscription services could beneficiate of a discount in the fee, as the content is hosted by the streaming service or the newspaper or... Also each new added content (daily newspaper, new artists available, ...) are not reviewed by the AppStore team so it is in fact less work. In such case, Apple could revise their terms. Which would prop ably extinguish the fire. But again the terms were written before and spotified agreed to it. some didn't. And they're not on the AppStore with subscriptions. Their right. No one is forcing anyone.

    One other complain I hear is that Apple is not charging itself 30% for their subscription. It'd be fun to see in the numbers hat they actually give 30% to their own AppStore. That way they still get the money but they are legally covered with that...
Sign In or Register to comment.