Considering that this is in the EU which has different views on "unfair" competition than the US I would not discount the possibility of the EU Commission stepping in with a formal investigation on Apple's App Store. Whatever decision would be reached would of course apply to Google Play as well.
There is a small but fundamental difference between Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. Google does allow the app developers to make buttons in the apps opening a website where the user can buy/extend subscriptions, thereby legally bypassing the 30% (or 15%) cut. Apple does not allow this. Looking at how the EU commission has handled similar cases in the past, this difference might be crucial
And this is big one. Basicly in App Store apps you're not even allowed to tell where to buy your service if you aren't using App Store payment. Also I'm Apple fanboy but taking 30% of recurring payments is too much. Of course Apple should get something but apps that are allowed to use Apple Pay get ~0,15% of purchase so there's huge difference between different categories of apps.
You’re comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended. Apple Pay has nothing to do with this. Apple is not acting as the payment processor with Apple Pay. Nor is Apple acting as a retailer with Apple Pay. With Apple Pay Apple is merely providing a payment method to a third party retailer’s third party payment processor. In the case of the App Store Apple is acting as both the retailer and the payment processor.
this could literally open Pandora's box (sorry for the pun). This could result in an investigation into the streaming services themselves and how much or rather how little services like Spotify pay the artists and publishers for the music they use.
AFAIK, Apple pays more than Spotify.
It would be kind of ironic if Spotify is forced to pay more for the music they use after making this complaint.
Here's an interesting "what if" to consider: what if Apple removed their 1st party apps from the App Store entirely and made them available for download in a different way? Would it be realistic to think Spotify would drop their price from $12.99 simply because a 1st party competitor was no longer in the store? Probably not, because the initial year of 30% would still apply. If that's true, then is Spotify really concerned with anti-competitive behavior? There are definitely a lot of odd angles to this type of complaint.
rotateleftbyte said: This could result in an investigation into the streaming services themselves and how much or rather how little services like Spotify pay the artists and publishers for the music they use.
Spotify and the rest will have to pay the new royalty rates that have been established. They're contesting those, but it's highly unlikely that they can win. It is ironic that they're trying to argue that they should be allowed to pay less, as that certainly isn't "fair" to the artists.
Then the company wants users to have a choice of being able to pay subscriptions directly to Spotify through the App Store, yet without Apple's cut.
Yeah, Apple should absorb all the costs for handling subscription payments every month and pass all the money onto Spotify, while Spotify has to pay payment processing itself for their customers who choose to pay outside of the App Store.
I guess I should be able to use that lovely gym equipment in the gym, and not pay for it?
/s
The market price for the payment processor service you are describing, is around 2.5%. Apple charges 30% and any app developer is forced to use it. Spotify does not ask to have a free lunch but a fair lunch
Apple owns the OS, upon which all apps run. It’s licensed to end users. End user owns the hardware. Toss it from a bridge if you like. Or blend it; it’s yours. But the OS and all those APIs the apps utilize to access that hardware, all belong to Apple. It’s Apple’s Theater. You can’t bring in outside food, not without paying the corkage fees. Don’t have to like it. Good luck proving it’s illegal or that Apple shouldn’t have the right to recoup developnent costs and make a nice profit, what the market will bear. It’s about much more that payment processing fees.
Spotify's costs are, 1. developing the app 2. running the service
Apple's costs are, 1. developing the developer tools 2. developing the operating system 3. developing the hardware 4. manufacturing the hardware 5. running the data centers 6. promoting the platform 7. developing the app 8. running the service
It takes a lot more effort and money for Apple to make Apple Music available than it does Spotify to make their service available. Apple's costs to run Apple Music are the same as Spotify's plus all the cost to keep the platform viable. Sorry, but if you stand to profit from utilizing Apple's platform, then you should absolutely pay a "tax".
Too many people assume the 30% cut is too much because it doesn't cost Apple that much to run the App Store... As pointed out above, that's NOT their only cost to make the App Store available to both developers and users.
Then the company wants users to have a choice of being able to pay subscriptions directly to Spotify through the App Store, yet without Apple's cut.
Yeah, Apple should absorb all the costs for handling subscription payments every month and pass all the money onto Spotify, while Spotify has to pay payment processing itself for their customers who choose to pay outside of the App Store.
I guess I should be able to use that lovely gym equipment in the gym, and not pay for it?
/s
The market price for the payment processor service you are describing, is around 2.5%. Apple charges 30% and any app developer is forced to use it. Spotify does not ask to have a free lunch but a fair lunch
Apple owns the OS, upon which all apps run. It’s licensee to end users. End user owns the hardware. It’s it from a bridge if you like. Or blend it; it’s yours. But the OS and all those APIs the apps utilize to access that hardware, all belong to Apple. It’s Aplke’s Theater. You can’t bring in outside food, not without paying the corkage fees. Don’t have to like it. Good luck proving it’s illwgal or that Apple should t have the right to recoup developnent costs and make a nice profit, what the market will bear. It’s about much more that payment processing fees.
Here's an interesting "what if" to consider: what if Apple removed their 1st party apps from the App Store entirely and made them available for download in a different way? Would it be realistic to think Spotify would drop their price from $12.99 simply because a 1st party competitor was no longer in the store? Probably not, because the initial year of 30% would still apply. If that's true, then is Spotify really concerned with anti-competitive behavior? There are definitely a lot of odd angles to this type of complaint.
Actually that would be worse and even more unfair to 3rd party developers.
Imagine if Windows shipped with a "Microsoft Software" button that only directed users to Microsoft's software store and all other Windows software had to be searched for and purchased else where. That would be a huge anti-competitive advantage for Microsoft.
By including their software side by side with 3rd developers, Apple is encouraging a more fair environment because it allows users to compare apps. And Apple does not favor their own apps in search results. If you type "Word processor" or "spreadsheet", both of Apple's offerings Pages and Numbers are no where near the top of the results.
Then the company wants users to have a choice of being able to pay subscriptions directly to Spotify through the App Store, yet without Apple's cut.
Yeah, Apple should absorb all the costs for handling subscription payments every month and pass all the money onto Spotify, while Spotify has to pay payment processing itself for their customers who choose to pay outside of the App Store.
I guess I should be able to use that lovely gym equipment in the gym, and not pay for it?
/s
The market price for the payment processor service you are describing, is around 2.5%. Apple charges 30% and any app developer is forced to use it. Spotify does not ask to have a free lunch but a fair lunch
Apple owns the OS, upon which all apps run. It’s licensee to end users. End user owns the hardware. It’s it from a bridge if you like. Or blend it; it’s yours. But the OS and all those APIs the apps utilize to access that hardware, all belong to Apple. It’s Aplke’s Theater. You can’t bring in outside food, not without paying the corkage fees. Don’t have to like it. Good luck proving it’s illwgal or that Apple should t have the right to recoup developnent costs and make a nice profit, what the market will bear. It’s about much more that payment processing fees.
Come on Gator... you don’t think Spotify loses their argument as soon as they make this statement?
“Apple requires that certain apps pay a 30% fee for use of their in-app purchase system (IAP) – as is their prerogative.”
Spotify is actually trying to characterize what Apple brings to the party as merely an in-app payment system? Really? And you go along with that characterization? I assert that my movie theater characterization is much more on point. So I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. The legal system will sort it out. But I’d hate to be a movie theater or a department store if the ruling goes Spotify’s way; they’ll stand to lose control of their real estate, as people will be able to set up kiosks selling whatever they want inside the stores and theaters. Crazy!
mjtomlin said: If you type "Word processor" or "spreadsheet", both of Apple's offerings Pages and Numbers are no where near the top of the results.
Try typing in 'Music'. Sometimes you get an Ad for Apple Music in the first slot, followed by iTunes Store, The Daily List, Apple Music, and Garage Band.
Here's an interesting "what if" to consider: what if Apple removed their 1st party apps from the App Store entirely and made them available for download in a different way? Would it be realistic to think Spotify would drop their price from $12.99 simply because a 1st party competitor was no longer in the store? Probably not, because the initial year of 30% would still apply. If that's true, then is Spotify really concerned with anti-competitive behavior? There are definitely a lot of odd angles to this type of complaint.
Actually that would be worse and even more unfair to 3rd party developers.
Imagine if Windows shipped with a "Microsoft Software" button that only directed users to Microsoft's software store and all other Windows software had to be searched for and purchased else where. That would be a huge anti-competitive advantage for Microsoft.
In a way they do. Whenever I install updates or plug-ins or new software on my photography-focused laptop I get a Microsoft warning about the software's security, that the program may not be safe, and that I should buy it from the Microsoft Store instead.
mjtomlin said: If you type "Word processor" or "spreadsheet", both of Apple's offerings Pages and Numbers are no where near the top of the results.
Try typing in 'Music'. Sometimes you get an Ad for Apple Music in the first slot, followed by iTunes Store, The Daily List, Apple Music, and Garage Band.
When I search for “music” on the App Store the very first thing I see is an ad sponsored link for Spotify. Talk about biting the hand ...
I do not understand. Is Apple being accused of doing something illegal or do people simply have a issue with the business model?
Pretty much yes, "something illegal". Spotify (not the only one but the first one to go formal) is accusing Apple of illegally restraining competition via their business model combined with platform control. https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/
Apple charged the same 30% before Apple Music even existed..correct? So Spotify was good with the 30% fee prior to Apple Music, but now that Apple has a competing service it illegally restraining competition. Interesting...
My personal opinion aside ( I think 30% is high, and 15% going forward yearly is just crazy ) don't you think the timing of Spotify is a little obvious here? They are feeling the heat and they are showing it.
Then the company wants users to have a choice of being able to pay subscriptions directly to Spotify through the App Store, yet without Apple's cut.
Yeah, Apple should absorb all the costs for handling subscription payments every month and pass all the money onto Spotify, while Spotify has to pay payment processing itself for their customers who choose to pay outside of the App Store.
I guess I should be able to use that lovely gym equipment in the gym, and not pay for it?
/s
The market price for the payment processor service you are describing, is around 2.5%. Apple charges 30% and any app developer is forced to use it. Spotify does not ask to have a free lunch but a fair lunch
Apple owns the OS, upon which all apps run. It’s licensee to end users. End user owns the hardware. It’s it from a bridge if you like. Or blend it; it’s yours. But the OS and all those APIs the apps utilize to access that hardware, all belong to Apple. It’s Aplke’s Theater. You can’t bring in outside food, not without paying the corkage fees. Don’t have to like it. Good luck proving it’s illwgal or that Apple should t have the right to recoup developnent costs and make a nice profit, what the market will bear. It’s about much more that payment processing fees.
Then those 3rd party apps can abandon Apple’s platform. Apple doesn’t hold a dominant market position. Spotify can say we will only support Android, which holds a majority of the market share anyway. What Spotify is admitting here is that they need Apple more than Apple needs them. That is not Apple’s problem.
So ... Apple invests many billions of dollars (or Euros), over a decade of calendar time, many millions of worker hours, and mortgages the future of their company in building out a massive infrastructure of technology, products, and services needed to support an ecosystem for their products to deliver a premium set of services to their paying customers.
Now Spotify jumps in with blather about "an ecosystem in which fair competition is not only encouraged, but guaranteed."
Whose and what "ecosystem" is this guy talking about? Some magical ecosystem that fell like manna from heaven for the benefit of everyone in this highly competitive market struggling to win over the same set of customers? Business ecosystems don't just happen like, they are complex systems that are purpose-built, and at great expense. Ecosystems are not the same as "markets" either. Apple is in the streaming music market just like Spotify is in the music streaming market. But Apple has built a massive ecosystem to support their foray into this market - but only after they effectively rescued the whole music industry with 99 cent music purchases on iTuness.
Spotify has created nothing. They are simply leeches who suck profits from the creativity of others at the lowest possible cost to themselves.
I'll have to issue the Total BS card to this guy. Apple bought and paid for their "ecosystem." If Spotify wants to play in Apple's ecosystem they have to pay-to-play to enjoy the fruits of Apple's labor. Or they can build their own ecosystem. Get to work Spotify. Send the lawyers packing and hire some engineers. Create something.
Literally everything you said is wrong. Congratulations.
Spotify's costs are, 1. developing the app 2. running the service
Apple's costs are, 1. developing the developer tools 2. developing the operating system 3. developing the hardware 4. manufacturing the hardware 5. running the data centers 6. promoting the platform 7. developing the app 8. running the service
It takes a lot more effort and money for Apple to make Apple Music available than it does Spotify to make their service available. Apple's costs to run Apple Music are the same as Spotify's plus all the cost to keep the platform viable. Sorry, but if you stand to profit from utilizing Apple's platform, then you should absolutely pay a "tax".
Too many people assume the 30% cut is too much because it doesn't cost Apple that much to run the App Store... As pointed out above, that's NOT their only cost to make the App Store available to both developers and users.
Because Apple designed it that way to have a monopoly. I don’t think you have a clear grasp of what the issue is.
I don't know about their complaints on their Time to Play Fair site.
1. 30%, good or bad? A lot of good arguments here either way. personally I tend to side with Apple on their right to charge it, but it would be interesting to see the real profit margin after all their expenses. 2. Can't Spotify just lower the price on the monthly charges if they want to give people a deal? Or do they want to pick and choose between all their customers? If it's a pick and choose thing, I can kind of see where Apple may have an issue with this, charging some customers less than others. I believe users can gift in app purchases to others. Could Spotify just gift the users they want to target with free months of service if they want this? If that is against App Store rules, I can see where that should maybe change. 3. Downloaded the app again just to check this out. As far as I can tell, the only reason users can't upgrade to premium is because they choose not to implement it. Probably because of 1, or more likely they wanted to make it a point on this list. This is their choice, not some bullshit rule by Apple. I know Apple doesn't allow them to put in a URL, but they can just say visit our site for more info? HAHA! I just switched back to the app. Hit a full screen popup ad that opens up a link to Spotify Premium. Got it twice out of three switches to Spotify. Talk about cheesy, and annoying. 4. Seriously? No one can take that vague explantation seriously. I think Netflix has updated their app thee times in the last four days. Give us some specifics. 5. Siri, ok, Music isn't one of the SiriKit domains yet. On the other hand Spotify hasn't implemented Siri Shortcuts yet. That would give easy access to Starting, Stoping music and playing playlists. Difficult to take them seriously if they aren't even taking advantages of the features they are available. I use Siri Shortcuts on Outcast and it works great. As far as the watch, they ARE on the watch. Recent Playlists, currently playing and playlist info. They certainly could do more if they wanted. Outcast also allows me to see everything on my phone. And it auto syncs recently downloaded podcasts to the app. I'm sure Spotify could do something similar with often played playlists and rotating the music stored not he phone.
I half expected agree with more of Spoify's points, but these seem pretty poorly thought out and Apple taking 30% on the first year of subscriptions might be the best point, especially considering that Apple halves that to 15% later. Apple would almost have to justify that supporting users in the first year requires enough support to justify the extra expense.
Considering Spotify is on Sonos, Alexa, Google Home, Denon, Bose and maybe others, it doesn't seem like the HomePod is exactly holding Spotify back, and Airplay still works fine.
Spotify's costs are, 1. developing the app 2. running the service
Apple's costs are, 1. developing the developer tools 2. developing the operating system 3. developing the hardware 4. manufacturing the hardware 5. running the data centers 6. promoting the platform 7. developing the app 8. running the service
It takes a lot more effort and money for Apple to make Apple Music available than it does Spotify to make their service available. Apple's costs to run Apple Music are the same as Spotify's plus all the cost to keep the platform viable. Sorry, but if you stand to profit from utilizing Apple's platform, then you should absolutely pay a "tax".
Too many people assume the 30% cut is too much because it doesn't cost Apple that much to run the App Store... As pointed out above, that's NOT their only cost to make the App Store available to both developers and users.
Because Apple designed it that way to have a monopoly. I don’t think you have a clear grasp of what the issue is.
Doesn’t sound like you do either. Apple can have a monopoly over their own store just like a supermarket can have a monopoly over what they choose to carry and charge in their own store. The only instance they couldn’t do this is if they were only one supermarket. If Apple was the only smart phone manufacturer Spotify would definitely have an argument. However Apple isn’t so Spotify doesn’t. If Spotify doesn’t like Apple’s terms they can refuse to sell their product on Apple’s platform.
The kicker here is that Apple doesn’t allow any app developer to add links (to circumvent in-app purchases) to premium services. Stinks like anti-competitive, monopolistic behavior.
Spotify's costs are, 1. developing the app 2. running the service
Apple's costs are, 1. developing the developer tools 2. developing the operating system 3. developing the hardware 4. manufacturing the hardware 5. running the data centers 6. promoting the platform 7. developing the app 8. running the service
It takes a lot more effort and money for Apple to make Apple Music available than it does Spotify to make their service available. Apple's costs to run Apple Music are the same as Spotify's plus all the cost to keep the platform viable. Sorry, but if you stand to profit from utilizing Apple's platform, then you should absolutely pay a "tax".
Too many people assume the 30% cut is too much because it doesn't cost Apple that much to run the App Store... As pointed out above, that's NOT their only cost to make the App Store available to both developers and users.
Because Apple designed it that way to have a monopoly. I don’t think you have a clear grasp of what the issue is.
Uhm, Apple is not a monopoly, by any definition.
The problem for Spotify is that they are selling a mostly generic service. Even given that the EU might force Apple to a maximum 15% subscription rate, Spotify still won't have the financial wherewithal to expand its subscription service in music alone to become profitable in the long term. So Spotify will end up entering other generic markets, like video, by adding someone else's service, also known as aggregation. Again, no different that Apple, Amazon, or Google.
This is not a sustainable business model, and whinging about Apple isn't going to solve that. The truth is that Apple users trust Apple's ecosystem, and that is a preference that Spotify isn't going to be able to change.
Comments
1. developing the app
2. running the service
Apple's costs are,
1. developing the developer tools
2. developing the operating system
3. developing the hardware
4. manufacturing the hardware
5. running the data centers
6. promoting the platform
7. developing the app
8. running the service
It takes a lot more effort and money for Apple to make Apple Music available than it does Spotify to make their service available. Apple's costs to run Apple Music are the same as Spotify's plus all the cost to keep the platform viable. Sorry, but if you stand to profit from utilizing Apple's platform, then you should absolutely pay a "tax".
Too many people assume the 30% cut is too much because it doesn't cost Apple that much to run the App Store... As pointed out above, that's NOT their only cost to make the App Store available to both developers and users.
https://timetoplayfair.com/facts/
Actually that would be worse and even more unfair to 3rd party developers.
Imagine if Windows shipped with a "Microsoft Software" button that only directed users to Microsoft's software store and all other Windows software had to be searched for and purchased else where. That would be a huge anti-competitive advantage for Microsoft.
By including their software side by side with 3rd developers, Apple is encouraging a more fair environment because it allows users to compare apps. And Apple does not favor their own apps in search results. If you type "Word processor" or "spreadsheet", both of Apple's offerings Pages and Numbers are no where near the top of the results.
“Apple requires that certain apps pay a 30% fee for use of their in-app purchase system (IAP) – as is their prerogative.”
Spotify is actually trying to characterize what Apple brings to the party as merely an in-app payment system? Really? And you go along with that characterization? I assert that my movie theater characterization is much more on point. So I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. The legal system will sort it out. But I’d hate to be a movie theater or a department store if the ruling goes Spotify’s way; they’ll stand to lose control of their real estate, as people will be able to set up kiosks selling whatever they want inside the stores and theaters. Crazy!
1. 30%, good or bad? A lot of good arguments here either way. personally I tend to side with Apple on their right to charge it, but it would be interesting to see the real profit margin after all their expenses.
2. Can't Spotify just lower the price on the monthly charges if they want to give people a deal? Or do they want to pick and choose between all their customers? If it's a pick and choose thing, I can kind of see where Apple may have an issue with this, charging some customers less than others. I believe users can gift in app purchases to others. Could Spotify just gift the users they want to target with free months of service if they want this? If that is against App Store rules, I can see where that should maybe change.
3. Downloaded the app again just to check this out. As far as I can tell, the only reason users can't upgrade to premium is because they choose not to implement it. Probably because of 1, or more likely they wanted to make it a point on this list. This is their choice, not some bullshit rule by Apple. I know Apple doesn't allow them to put in a URL, but they can just say visit our site for more info? HAHA! I just switched back to the app. Hit a full screen popup ad that opens up a link to Spotify Premium. Got it twice out of three switches to Spotify. Talk about cheesy, and annoying.
4. Seriously? No one can take that vague explantation seriously. I think Netflix has updated their app thee times in the last four days. Give us some specifics.
5. Siri, ok, Music isn't one of the SiriKit domains yet. On the other hand Spotify hasn't implemented Siri Shortcuts yet. That would give easy access to Starting, Stoping music and playing playlists. Difficult to take them seriously if they aren't even taking advantages of the features they are available. I use Siri Shortcuts on Outcast and it works great. As far as the watch, they ARE on the watch. Recent Playlists, currently playing and playlist info. They certainly could do more if they wanted. Outcast also allows me to see everything on my phone. And it auto syncs recently downloaded podcasts to the app. I'm sure Spotify could do something similar with often played playlists and rotating the music stored not he phone.
I half expected agree with more of Spoify's points, but these seem pretty poorly thought out and Apple taking 30% on the first year of subscriptions might be the best point, especially considering that Apple halves that to 15% later. Apple would almost have to justify that supporting users in the first year requires enough support to justify the extra expense.
Considering Spotify is on Sonos, Alexa, Google Home, Denon, Bose and maybe others, it doesn't seem like the HomePod is exactly holding Spotify back, and Airplay still works fine.
The problem for Spotify is that they are selling a mostly generic service. Even given that the EU might force Apple to a maximum 15% subscription rate, Spotify still won't have the financial wherewithal to expand its subscription service in music alone to become profitable in the long term. So Spotify will end up entering other generic markets, like video, by adding someone else's service, also known as aggregation. Again, no different that Apple, Amazon, or Google.
This is not a sustainable business model, and whinging about Apple isn't going to solve that. The truth is that Apple users trust Apple's ecosystem, and that is a preference that Spotify isn't going to be able to change.