I agree. Whether it be Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft or Apple, things get problematic when your company has created a marketplace / platform, but is also competing within that marketplace / platform. You can tweak the rules or and your positioning within the marketplace / platform in order to maintain a competitive advantage. This stifles innovation and it often results in crappier experiences for the customer.
The problem with your post is, Apple didn't "tweak" any rules.
What's also funny is, we don't see calculator apps, Weather or calendar apps bitc*ing at Apple.
I think this is the same issue as net neutrality. If you are a dominant platform on the internet, there should be rules about not favoring your own content. I actually think it's short sighted of Apple to take such a large cut from major services that enhance their devices. For example, not being able to buy Kindle books in the Kindle App just makes the iPhone that much less useful. Perhaps a solution would be for Apple to tier its subscription revenue, so that when services grow large enough they take a much smaller cut.
So going to the Amazon app is too much work for you? 😢
Apple does take a smaller cut after the account has been active for a certain period. It goes from 30% to 15%.
I think this is the same issue as net neutrality. If you are a dominant platform on the internet, there should be rules about not favoring your own content. I actually think it's short sighted of Apple to take such a large cut from major services that enhance their devices. For example, not being able to buy Kindle books in the Kindle App just makes the iPhone that much less useful. Perhaps a solution would be for Apple to tier its subscription revenue, so that when services grow large enough they take a much smaller cut.
The thing is, Apple Music isn't favored. If you count it being installed on the device as being "favored" then the only solution is to not allow device manufacturers to pre-install apps on their devices.
That's something the EU has historically shown they have an issue with.
I agree. Whether it be Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft or Apple, things get problematic when your company has created a marketplace / platform, but is also competing within that marketplace / platform. You can tweak the rules or and your positioning within the marketplace / platform in order to maintain a competitive advantage. This stifles innovation and it often results in crappier experiences for the customer.
Nonsense. Please enlighten us all how "innovation" was blossoming prior to the App Store. *chirp* *chirp*
Apple created an ecosystem for its own devices, and developers profited handsomely. Prior to the App Store, developers had to create, market, sell their software independently and were lucky to get a smidgen of publicity. With the App Store, they get access to countless iOS users, and don't have to do anything but upload their app and have apple's ecosystem sell it, and manage it for you.
Quit your whining. You do a disservice to us real developers that know how hard it was to do this on our own time. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to sell your app for Android and have access to even more people... assuming they even pay for anything.
I agree. Whether it be Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft or Apple, things get problematic when your company has created a marketplace / platform, but is also competing within that marketplace / platform. You can tweak the rules or and your positioning within the marketplace / platform in order to maintain a competitive advantage. This stifles innovation and it often results in crappier experiences for the customer.
Nonsense. Please enlighten us all how "innovation" was blossoming prior to the App Store. *chirp* *chirp*
Apple created an ecosystem for its own devices, and developers profited handsomely. Prior to the App Store, developers had to create, market, sell their software independently and were lucky to get a smidgen of publicity. With the App Store, they get access to countless iOS users, and don't have to do anything but upload their app and have apple's ecosystem sell it, and manage it for you.
Quit your whining. You do a disservice to us real developers that know how hard it was to do this on our own time. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to sell your app for Android and have access to even more people... assuming they even pay for anything.
Agreed......go beautify your Spotify apps and make an apps store....remember thats apps store is not Apple or Amazon only maniker anymore. Quit whining...if you cant compete then you must quit...
The app store revolutionized the third-party software market. Prior to the app store, mainstream software applications mostly came on physical media in boxes with thick instruction manuals and cost a lot of money. Some software was already downloadable, but that market was sketchy at best, carrying likely risks of malware and bloatware. Outside of the world of nothing should ever cost money freeware technohippies, cheap or free apps weren't a thing. Applications cost money, and updates cost more money. (Except for all those AOL discs, of course.)
The app store created the market for standardized-UI, vetted, inexpensive apps seamlessly delivered to a ready-made customer base. Yes, Apple charges a cut for apps that charge their customers, but they don't charge vendors for free apps. Yes, Apple charges a cut for in-app sales processed through the app store, but they don't prevent anyone from conducting in-app validation of external sales transactions, from which Apple has taken no cut. So Spotify gets access to Apple's customer base, benefitting -for free- from the reasonably assumed security of the App Store's malware/bloatware vetting process, and can sell subscriptions via their website, and validate those subscriptions in the iOS Spotify app, again for free.
Without Apple establishing the entire market for these things, Spotify might not even have a functional business model to exist at all. Prior to the iPhone and App Store, cellphones, PDAs, and smartphones, along with wireless, portable internet were all an incongruous, inconsistent mess. Undoubtedly something would have developed over the last dozen years, but without Apple's innovations that advanced simplicity and consistency, it's unlikely something with the app store's ability to drive customers to services like Spotify would even exist.
I agree. Whether it be Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft or Apple, things get problematic when your company has created a marketplace / platform, but is also competing within that marketplace / platform. You can tweak the rules or and your positioning within the marketplace / platform in order to maintain a competitive advantage. This stifles innovation and it often results in crappier experiences for the customer.
Nonsense. Please enlighten us all how "innovation" was blossoming prior to the App Store. *chirp* *chirp*
Apple created an ecosystem for its own devices, and developers profited handsomely. Prior to the App Store, developers had to create, market, sell their software independently and were lucky to get a smidgen of publicity. With the App Store, they get access to countless iOS users, and don't have to do anything but upload their app and have apple's ecosystem sell it, and manage it for you.
Quit your whining. You do a disservice to us real developers that know how hard it was to do this on our own time. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to sell your app for Android and have access to even more people... assuming they even pay for anything.
The crappy "competition makes innovation" meme is repeated for anti-Apple purposes. Apple didn't need any competition for their innovations.
The app store revolutionized the third-party software market. Prior to the app store, mainstream software applications mostly came on physical media in boxes with thick instruction manuals and cost a lot of money. Some software was already downloadable, but that market was sketchy at best, carrying likely risks of malware and bloatware. Outside of the world of nothing should ever cost money freeware technohippies, cheap or free apps weren't a thing. Applications cost money, and updates cost more money. (Except for all those AOL discs, of course.)
The app store created the market for standardized-UI, vetted, inexpensive apps seamlessly delivered to a ready-made customer base. Yes, Apple charges a cut for apps that charge their customers, but they don't charge vendors for free apps. Yes, Apple charges a cut for in-app sales processed through the app store, but they don't prevent anyone from conducting in-app validation of external sales transactions, from which Apple has taken no cut. So Spotify gets access to Apple's customer base, benefitting -for free- from the reasonably assumed security of the App Store's malware/bloatware vetting process, and can sell subscriptions via their website, and validate those subscriptions in the iOS Spotify app, again for free.
Without Apple establishing the entire market for these things, Spotify might not even have a functional business model to exist at all. Prior to the iPhone and App Store, cellphones, PDAs, and smartphones, along with wireless, portable internet were all an incongruous, inconsistent mess. Undoubtedly something would have developed over the last dozen years, but without Apple's innovations that advanced simplicity and consistency, it's unlikely something with the app store's ability to drive customers to services like Spotify would even exist.
You're repeating the obvious but most people don't want the truth. I think Apple SHOULD charge an annual fee for apps that use their ecosystem for profit but skip in-app purchases like Uber.
Probably true. Did you know that Google includes DuckDuckGo as a default search option on Chrome? No doubt a surprise to many.
I did not know that. Apparently it's a new thing. I would not be surprised, however, if I were to also learn that Chrome would itself harvest much of the data one might otherwise assume is lost to google when using DuckDuckGo inside that browser.
Wahhhh, waaaahhhhh. Oh sorry, did my sobbing upset you. Go create your own market place for streaming music and leave Apple’s. Done, no longer an issue and you can later whine that the 15%-30% you’ve saved isn’t enough to pay for your new ecosystem competing with Apple. Truly a shame.
By the way I’m not here to defend Apple because frankly I’ve walked a bit away from the platform. A large part of this is Apples excessively high prices which is kinda related to the subject. But an equally large part of not buying an iPad this year is that Apple has so locked down the platform that it doesn’t fit my needs anymore.
Here in lies my point, nobody is forcing me or anybody else for that matter, to buy Apple products. Likewise nobody forces me to write software for Apples platforms.
As for streaming music i still think it is beyond stupid as a technology wasting huge amounts of bandwidth. So I really don’t care if this guy fells butt hurt over Apples policies, in the end all streaming services should just collapse
I think the question of how big Apple‘s cut needs/should be is worth asking. Where the line between running a business in a profitable way and being greedy should be drawn.
Sure, it's a question worth asking. But how should it be answered?
The market is quite capable of answering it. And the market is, I think, better suited to answer it than any other method might be.
Apple can decide what share it wants and under what circumstances it wants it, and developers can decide whether giving Apple that share is worth it. If doing whatever it is that Apple would charge them a share for isn't still, in their assessment, value positive then they shouldn't do it. In other words, if they're paying Apple 30% they must think whatever they are getting in return is worth that much or more. Otherwise, why would they pay it? Apple already offers them a lot for essentially no charge, save a modest annual developer program fee.
Developers shouldn't feel entitled to use Apple IP or distribute iOS apps through the App Store. That is something Apple allows them to do. They, hopefully, get value out of doing it just as Apple gets value out of letting them do it. Both parties are free to decide whether the deal on the table is acceptable.
How is this different than the Microsoft IE vs Netscape battles of the 90's. I think in Europe today Apple is even more likely to come out on the bottom here but I may be missing something.
Comments
The problem with your post is, Apple didn't "tweak" any rules.
What's also funny is, we don't see calculator apps, Weather or calendar apps bitc*ing at Apple.
The app store revolutionized the third-party software market. Prior to the app store, mainstream software applications mostly came on physical media in boxes with thick instruction manuals and cost a lot of money. Some software was already downloadable, but that market was sketchy at best, carrying likely risks of malware and bloatware. Outside of the world of nothing should ever cost money freeware technohippies, cheap or free apps weren't a thing. Applications cost money, and updates cost more money. (Except for all those AOL discs, of course.)
The app store created the market for standardized-UI, vetted, inexpensive apps seamlessly delivered to a ready-made customer base. Yes, Apple charges a cut for apps that charge their customers, but they don't charge vendors for free apps. Yes, Apple charges a cut for in-app sales processed through the app store, but they don't prevent anyone from conducting in-app validation of external sales transactions, from which Apple has taken no cut. So Spotify gets access to Apple's customer base, benefitting -for free- from the reasonably assumed security of the App Store's malware/bloatware vetting process, and can sell subscriptions via their website, and validate those subscriptions in the iOS Spotify app, again for free.
Without Apple establishing the entire market for these things, Spotify might not even have a functional business model to exist at all. Prior to the iPhone and App Store, cellphones, PDAs, and smartphones, along with wireless, portable internet were all an incongruous, inconsistent mess. Undoubtedly something would have developed over the last dozen years, but without Apple's innovations that advanced simplicity and consistency, it's unlikely something with the app store's ability to drive customers to services like Spotify would even exist.
The crappy "competition makes innovation" meme is repeated for anti-Apple purposes. Apple didn't need any competition for their innovations.
You're repeating the obvious but most people don't want the truth. I think Apple SHOULD charge an annual fee for apps that use their ecosystem for profit but skip in-app purchases like Uber.
By the way I’m not here to defend Apple because frankly I’ve walked a bit away from the platform. A large part of this is Apples excessively high prices which is kinda related to the subject. But an equally large part of not buying an iPad this year is that Apple has so locked down the platform that it doesn’t fit my needs anymore.
Here in lies my point, nobody is forcing me or anybody else for that matter, to buy Apple products. Likewise nobody forces me to write software for Apples platforms.
As for streaming music i still think it is beyond stupid as a technology wasting huge amounts of bandwidth. So I really don’t care if this guy fells butt hurt over Apples policies, in the end all streaming services should just collapse
The market is quite capable of answering it. And the market is, I think, better suited to answer it than any other method might be.
Apple can decide what share it wants and under what circumstances it wants it, and developers can decide whether giving Apple that share is worth it. If doing whatever it is that Apple would charge them a share for isn't still, in their assessment, value positive then they shouldn't do it. In other words, if they're paying Apple 30% they must think whatever they are getting in return is worth that much or more. Otherwise, why would they pay it? Apple already offers them a lot for essentially no charge, save a modest annual developer program fee.
Developers shouldn't feel entitled to use Apple IP or distribute iOS apps through the App Store. That is something Apple allows them to do. They, hopefully, get value out of doing it just as Apple gets value out of letting them do it. Both parties are free to decide whether the deal on the table is acceptable.
Unless that’s a lie. Which is about to be exposed. And Spotify is scared.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-claims/?1552629491