I'm glad Spotify is doing this. Apple should allow subscription apps to offer a redirect to the browser to sign up. There's no reason Apple should be taking 30% of someone's monthly Spotify fee. They're not hosting any content. And it certainly doesn't cost them $3 to process the credit card transaction. Google allows alternate payment methods. Apple should do the same. How hard would it be for Spotify to have a link in the app that takes you out to Safari to sign up? It wouldn't be. This is all about $$$ for Apple.
No shit that it's about $$$$ for Apple. Apple is a for profit corporation...what else should it be about? Peanuts? And why shouldn't Apple take a cut for providing a platform that allows Spotify to make money? Do you have an issues with eBay or Amazon taking a cut for allowing people to sell in their marketplace? Spotify should be kissing Apple's ass for providing them a lucrative marketplace instead of complaining. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Most of the apps on my iOS devices are free. So is CNN not 'selling' to me because they don't charge for their app or offer a subscription? You can say Spotify wouldn't exist if not for the App Store but one could also say Apple wouldn't be selling millions of iPhones every quarter if there weren't developers making apps to sell in the App Store. Also, after the first year Apple only takes 15% of subscription fees. You're defending 30%. Why is Apple reducing it to 15%? And why only after someone has been subscribed to a service for a year?
Apple pays rent to mall owners where it has an Apple Store in the mall. Should they be required to give 30% of store sales to the mall owner?
So many clueless, crazy people here. You loons need to start sending 30% checks to the manufacturers of your TVs, BD players, AVRs, etc, all devices that have apps that you use that are subscription-based. They're being ripped off, and they probably don't even know it! Think how happy they'll be to get your monthly checks!
All Spotify paying users should be questioning why Spotify needles its customers by forcing them to pay business operation expenses. That 30% fee is a business expense, one they can and I'm sure they do write off at tax time. BUT, not only do they write it off (so it doesn't cost them much or anything at all) but they force you, their customer, to pay more anyway. They're screwing you and any other dope who decides to believe this victim sob story.
Imagine if you went to a car dealer and looked at a new Ford Mustang and the dealer quoted you a price then got home and had an email from Ford saying if you went to their website and ordered it directly you could have it for 30% less and you could still go to the same dealership and pick it up. Great deal if you are a customer. Sucks if you are the guy that is spending all day showing cars to customers or the dealer that is expected to inventory and maintain the cars. I have never seen a business that considered their sales, marketing and distribution to be free. At least not a business that survived for very long.
there we go again w/ the misdirection about the credit card fee -- as if that was the purported reason for the 30%. nope. the 30% is rent to do busines in Apple's shopping mall, which they designed, built, and maintain with their own money. if you want to do business inside of it, you gotta pay rent. if apple didnt charge the fee for subscription apps, then all the other one-time-payment apps wouldnt instantly switch to subscription to avoid paying the 30% for their apps. that would be stupid.
its pretty clear. you cant walk into the Mall of America and sell magazine subscriptions for free, can you? same thing.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
Does Target sell free items in their store?
spotify can be downloaded for free with no subscription. Apple isn't a charity. The 30% cut helps support the free downloads.
You don't know retail. Apple pays rent on its mall locations. In addition, the mall gets a small percentage of sales after a "break-even" point.
I'm glad Spotify is doing this. Apple should allow subscription apps to offer a redirect to the browser to sign up. There's no reason Apple should be taking 30% of someone's monthly Spotify fee. They're not hosting any content. And it certainly doesn't cost them $3 to process the credit card transaction. Google allows alternate payment methods. Apple should do the same. How hard would it be for Spotify to have a link in the app that takes you out to Safari to sign up? It wouldn't be. This is all about $$$ for Apple.
there we go again w/ the misdirection about the credit card fee -- as if that was the purported reason for the 30%. nope. the 30% is rent to do busines in Apple's shopping mall, which they designed, built, and maintain with their own money. if you want to do business inside of it, you gotta pay rent. if apple didnt charge the fee for subscription apps, then all the other one-time-payment apps wouldnt instantly switch to subscription to avoid paying the 30% for their apps. that would be stupid.
its pretty clear. you cant walk into the Mall of America and sell magazine subscriptions for free, can you? same thing.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
Actually, typical stores* that are accepted to sell in exclusive, luxury malls normally pay a base rental and a percentage of sales.
* Apple and Microsoft included
I suspect that most here would consider the App Store to be comparable to an exclusive, luxury mall -- where Apple provides the environment to attract customers with money-to-spend and the infrastructure to satisfy their needs.
Those vendors willing to sell in Apple's store must play by the rules and have a business model that supports the costs of doing business in the App Store.
We call that the free market system.
Don't get me started of the self-entitled individuals and companies who demand that they get: everything they want; when they want it; free!
I fail to understand why Spotify thinks it's so difficult for a prospective subscriber to go to their website and sign up for an account there. Apple is under no legal obligation to facilitate the business of a competitor to one of their products. While I agree that they shouldn't unfairly obstruct their competition, I fail to see how Apple is doing this. They are not preventing users from signing up for an account on their website.
"grave harm", my ass. No sympathy for Spotify here, until I know the reason Spotify's update was rejected. I expect it was rejected for good reason, or else Spotify would have told us why. Until then, my assumption is it's all a ploy by Spotify. The app is still available to download and presumably still works, so I don't see how rejecting an app for specious reasons is an issue that anybody outside the company should be concerned about. What a waste of time.
My understanding is that Spotify submitted an app that opened a browser within the app for the user to register to and avoid paying the subscription fee to Apple. Once they registered it returned them back to the Spotify app. This has always been against Apple's app TOS policy and Spotify knew it. It was done knowing it would get rejected so that they could publicly raise this issue. Providing a copy of the letter to Elizabeth Warren was nothing but a publicity ploy knowing that she would admonish Apple publicly and make Spotify look like the underdog that is being crushed by the huge corporation with "a troubling pattern of behavior" that's anti-competitive.
Is it any wonder that Tim Cook is a supporter of both political parties? The shame that the Democrats have piled on him for hosting a Republican fundraiser (not for Donald Trump!) is unbelievable. I'm a Democrat but it makes me ill to see what Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren are doing publicly to a company and a successful CEO that have worked hard to be successful.
It's not a secret that Apple uses a closed system, not to stomp the competition but to provide the best products for their customers. The app store rules for app requirements are there for user and system security. The fees that Apple charges are to maintain the largest app store in the industry, which I'm sure is not an easy task. Apple is the most profitable company in the country (or is it the world?) and that's what will allow them to compete and keep the doors open for a long time. Companies don't stay in business by sacrificing profit for market share. The computer corporation, computer retailer, computer software graveyard are full of those that made the wrong choice.
"grave harm", my ass. No sympathy for Spotify here, until I know the reason Spotify's update was rejected. I expect it was rejected for good reason, or else Spotify would have told us why. Until then, my assumption is it's all a ploy by Spotify. The app is still available to download and presumably still works, so I don't see how rejecting an app for specious reasons is an issue that anybody outside the company should be concerned about. What a waste of time.
That's exactly right. If they were being honest they would disclose the entire rejection documentation and people could see if it was Apple being dicks or Spotify trying to sway opinion on an obvious App Store rule. Until they do that, it's just whining.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
You can't subscribe to a magazine in Target, last I checked. And if Target decided to do that, the magazine companies can always go to Walmart instead.
If I go to Spotify.com in Safari and sign up there Apple doesn't get a cut. What is the difference between signing up inside the app or via a browser outside of processing the credit card fee? Spotify is still using Apple's App Store to make money. But since there is no other way to distribute their app on iOS devices what choice do they have? Wouldn't the solution be for Apple to allow developers to re-direct signup to the browser or at least provide a note inside the app explaining how to subscribe? Apple doesn't force subscription apps to offer sign-up in app. Apple doesn't force Amazon or Barnes & Noble to sell books in their apps. If you want to buy a book you do it outside the app and Apple makes no money off that.
Spotify just needs to do what Amazon does with the kindle app. No purchases through the app just a message stating to use this app you need an account. User goes online makes an account then signs in.
As as others already do this its just Spotify being whiny little bitchies.
Apparently Spotify took out in-app subscription in their latest update and Apple has refused to approve the update.
If true, Apple had every right to do so -- Spotify were not following the rules of the App Store -- and trying to do an end-run around paying subscription fees as the cost of doing business in the App Store.
Wouldn't you?
As others have said, if Apple were to allow this, every developer would change his app to a free subscription app with user purchases made at an external web site*. The App Store would not be a viable investment for Apple and would, likely be discontinued.
If you block rogifan_new and not respond to any of his/her posts, we all can a lot happier.
Sorry that I don't drink the Apple kool-aid 100% of the time. Taking 30% cut of monthly subscriptions is ridiculous. Especially considering Apple can't force subscriptions to be in-app. So companies like Amazon and Barnes & Noble make money off iOS users but don't pay Apple a dime. Supposedly Spotify recently removed the in-app subscription option and now the app is being held up for approval.
there we go again w/ the misdirection about the credit card fee -- as if that was the purported reason for the 30%. nope. the 30% is rent to do busines in Apple's shopping mall, which they designed, built, and maintain with their own money. if you want to do business inside of it, you gotta pay rent. if apple didnt charge the fee for subscription apps, then all the other one-time-payment apps wouldnt instantly switch to subscription to avoid paying the 30% for their apps. that would be stupid.
its pretty clear. you cant walk into the Mall of America and sell magazine subscriptions for free, can you? same thing.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
Products sold in Target stores don't license IP from Target. Xcode, Apple's proprietary frameworks and APIs are not free. I'm not saying app developers don't do a lot of work, but Apple has also invested a great deal of time and money providing developers a foundation of tools and services to build on. Not to mention the IP and patents Apple had to license (or got sued over and had to settle) The App Store is one part but commercial utilization of patents, codecs, and libraries does have a cost associated with it.
To answer your question Target does not get 30% on every magazine subscription sold. They get more than 50%. When it comes to physical magazines even the publisher doesn't get to keep all the money (even if you mail in the card directly out of the magazine). They usually have to split it with a distributor that is actually going to print it and mail it to you.
Apparently Spotify took out in-app subscription in their latest update and Apple has refused to approve the update.
If true, Apple had every right to do so -- Spotify were not following the rules of the App Store -- and trying to do an end-run around paying subscription fees as the cost of doing business in the App Store.
Wouldn't you?
As others have said, if Apple were to allow this, every developer would change his app to a free subscription app with user purchases made at an external web site*. The App Store would not be a viable investment for Apple and would, likely be discontinued.
* Another cost of doing business
Is there some App Store rule that requires subscriptions to be purchased in-app? Amazon doesn't offer in-app subscription. You can't buy books from inside the Barnes & Noble or Kindle app. I thought the only rules were you couldn't provide a link for alternate payment method or verbiage providing people a url of where to go to sign up. Perhaps that's what Spotify did in their app update. But what's the difference between signing up via the web or signing up via the app? Either way Spotify is making money of someone using an iOS device. The only difference is if you're signing up via the app Apple is processing the credit card transaction.
You can't subscribe to a magazine in Target, last I checked. And if Target decided to do that, the magazine companies can always go to Walmart instead.
If I go to Spotify.com in Safari and sign up there Apple doesn't get a cut. What is the difference between signing up inside the app or via a browser outside of processing the credit card fee? Spotify is still using Apple's App Store to make money. But since there is no other way to distribute their app on iOS devices what choice do they have? Wouldn't the solution be for Apple to allow developers to re-direct signup to the browser or at least provide a note inside the app explaining how to subscribe? Apple doesn't force subscription apps to offer sign-up in app. Apple doesn't force Amazon or Barnes & Noble to sell books in their apps. If you want to buy a book you do it outside the app and Apple makes no money off that.
Should movie theaters put up signs to tell people how to sneak food in by hiding it in their handbags and coats? It's great that apple allows subscribers to use their subscription accounts on multiple platforms without requiring signup directly on the apps which is really what is allowing this end-around on the rule. I personally think is sucks when I can't use my iTunes account to pay for an app subscription.
If true, Apple had every right to do so -- Spotify were not following the rules of the App Store -- and trying to do an end-run around paying subscription fees as the cost of doing business in the App Store.
Wouldn't you?
As others have said, if Apple were to allow this, every developer would change his app to a free subscription app with user purchases made at an external web site*. The App Store would not be a viable investment for Apple and would, likely be discontinued.
* Another cost of doing business
Is there some App Store rule that requires subscriptions to be purchased in-app? Amazon doesn't offer in-app subscription. You can't buy books from inside the Barnes & Noble or Kindle app. I thought the only rules were you couldn't provide a link for alternate payment method or verbiage providing people a url of where to go to sign up. Perhaps that's what Spotify did in their app update. But what's the difference between signing up via the web or signing up via the app? Either way Spotify is making money of someone using an iOS device. The only difference is if you're signing up via the app Apple is processing the credit card transaction.
You don't have to force paid sign up through the app, but you can't provide an external link to sign up if you don't.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
Actually, typical stores* that are accepted to sell in exclusive, luxury malls normally pay a base rental and a percentage of sales.
* Apple and Microsoft included
I suspect that most here would consider the App Store to be comparable to an exclusive, luxury mall -- where Apple provides the environment to attract customers with money-to-spend and the infrastructure to satisfy their needs.
Those vendors willing to sell in Apple's store must play by the rules and have a business model that supports the costs of doing business in the App Store.
We call that the free market system.
Don't get me started of the self-entitled individuals and companies who demand that they get: everything they want; when they want it; free!
So is Apple paying a percentage of sales to the Mall of America (I'm genuinely curious as I have no idea)?
Apple can't stop people signing up for Spotify or Amazon Prime or whatever via browser in which case they don't get their 30% cut. You're still using the app that was 'sold' in the App Store. Since Apple can't prevent that the best thing from a user experience stand point would be allowing the app to re-direct to the browser or provide a view inside the app where the user could put in their Amazon or Spotify credentials and sign up that way. Or at least let them offer a message that says go to Spotify.com to sign up for service.
If I go to Spotify.com in Safari and sign up there Apple doesn't get a cut. What is the difference between signing up inside the app or via a browser outside of processing the credit card fee? Spotify is still using Apple's App Store to make money. But since there is no other way to distribute their app on iOS devices what choice do they have? Wouldn't the solution be for Apple to allow developers to re-direct signup to the browser or at least provide a note inside the app explaining how to subscribe? Apple doesn't force subscription apps to offer sign-up in app. Apple doesn't force Amazon or Barnes & Noble to sell books in their apps. If you want to buy a book you do it outside the app and Apple makes no money off that.
Should movie theaters put up signs to tell people how to sneak food in by hiding it in their handbags and coats? It's great that apple allows subscribers to use their subscription accounts on multiple platforms without requiring signup directly on the apps which is really what is allowing this end-round on the rule. I personally think is sucks when I can't use my iTunes account to pay for an app subscription.
Apple should just have reduced the 30% to 15% immediately and then said 'your move Spotify and Amazon'.
there we go again w/ the misdirection about the credit card fee -- as if that was the purported reason for the 30%. nope. the 30% is rent to do busines in Apple's shopping mall, which they designed, built, and maintain with their own money. if you want to do business inside of it, you gotta pay rent. if apple didnt charge the fee for subscription apps, then all the other one-time-payment apps wouldnt instantly switch to subscription to avoid paying the 30% for their apps. that would be stupid.
its pretty clear. you cant walk into the Mall of America and sell magazine subscriptions for free, can you? same thing.
Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?
youre mixing metaphors. magazines sold as SKUs have nothing to do w/ mag subscriptions. my example was that you cant be a guy off the street, wandering around the mall, selling magazine subscriptions to mall customers who pass you by. if you did that, security would kick you out -- because youre not paying rent to be in the mall, as a business. to hawk your wares.
and in actual malls, tenants such as Apple pay rent and often points on top. my metaphor was to the point that yes, merchants pay something to be a part of the walled garden that is the mall. but since its only a *metaphor*, im not suggesting theyre paying 30%. the rent & points is between them & the malls. but they pay rent to utilize the mall. thats the same as apple charging a % to app devs to utilize their "mall" -- the servers, backend, dev tools, power, apple developers, support people, marketing, legal, etc etc...30/15% is the number Apple chose for this virtual mall. to suggest its just for credit card processing is outright disingenuous of you since this has been explained before.
i can tell you, from having been a manufacturer who sold his products in retail stores such as World Market and grocery stores, that the retailers make much more on the product than i did. The distributor and retailer each put on their markup. My distributors were 25% alone. and World Market, who for example i sold to directly (cut out the middle-man, right!?), had a 100% markup on my goods. oops, so much for cutting the middle-man..and youre complaining about a 30% piece.
im sorry but its apparent you have very little clue as to how these things work in real life. step outside your domain sometime. (which is what, again?)
Comments
Apple pays rent to mall owners where it has an Apple Store in the mall. Should they be required to give 30% of store sales to the mall owner?
spotify can be downloaded for free with no subscription. Apple isn't a charity. The 30% cut helps support the free downloads.
You don't know retail. Apple pays rent on its mall locations. In addition, the mall gets a small percentage of sales after a "break-even" point.
* Apple and Microsoft included
I suspect that most here would consider the App Store to be comparable to an exclusive, luxury mall -- where Apple provides the environment to attract customers with money-to-spend and the infrastructure to satisfy their needs.
Those vendors willing to sell in Apple's store must play by the rules and have a business model that supports the costs of doing business in the App Store.
We call that the free market system.
Don't get me started of the self-entitled individuals and companies who demand that they get: everything they want; when they want it; free!
Is it any wonder that Tim Cook is a supporter of both political parties? The shame that the Democrats have piled on him for hosting a Republican fundraiser (not for Donald Trump!) is unbelievable. I'm a Democrat but it makes me ill to see what Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren are doing publicly to a company and a successful CEO that have worked hard to be successful.
It's not a secret that Apple uses a closed system, not to stomp the competition but to provide the best products for their customers. The app store rules for app requirements are there for user and system security. The fees that Apple charges are to maintain the largest app store in the industry, which I'm sure is not an easy task. Apple is the most profitable company in the country (or is it the world?) and that's what will allow them to compete and keep the doors open for a long time. Companies don't stay in business by sacrificing profit for market share. The computer corporation, computer retailer, computer software graveyard are full of those that made the wrong choice.
Wouldn't you?
As others have said, if Apple were to allow this, every developer would change his app to a free subscription app with user purchases made at an external web site*. The App Store would not be a viable investment for Apple and would, likely be discontinued.
* Another cost of doing business
To answer your question Target does not get 30% on every magazine subscription sold. They get more than 50%. When it comes to physical magazines even the publisher doesn't get to keep all the money (even if you mail in the card directly out of the magazine). They usually have to split it with a distributor that is actually going to print it and mail it to you.
Apple can't stop people signing up for Spotify or Amazon Prime or whatever via browser in which case they don't get their 30% cut. You're still using the app that was 'sold' in the App Store. Since Apple can't prevent that the best thing from a user experience stand point would be allowing the app to re-direct to the browser or provide a view inside the app where the user could put in their Amazon or Spotify credentials and sign up that way. Or at least let them offer a message that says go to Spotify.com to sign up for service.
and in actual malls, tenants such as Apple pay rent and often points on top. my metaphor was to the point that yes, merchants pay something to be a part of the walled garden that is the mall. but since its only a *metaphor*, im not suggesting theyre paying 30%. the rent & points is between them & the malls. but they pay rent to utilize the mall. thats the same as apple charging a % to app devs to utilize their "mall" -- the servers, backend, dev tools, power, apple developers, support people, marketing, legal, etc etc...30/15% is the number Apple chose for this virtual mall. to suggest its just for credit card processing is outright disingenuous of you since this has been explained before.
i can tell you, from having been a manufacturer who sold his products in retail stores such as World Market and grocery stores, that the retailers make much more on the product than i did. The distributor and retailer each put on their markup. My distributors were 25% alone. and World Market, who for example i sold to directly (cut out the middle-man, right!?), had a 100% markup on my goods. oops, so much for cutting the middle-man..and youre complaining about a 30% piece.
im sorry but its apparent you have very little clue as to how these things work in real life. step outside your domain sometime. (which is what, again?)