Spotify makes an interesting argument. If HBO Now was downloaded from Apple (a fairly small service by Apple), does it mean Apple collects 30% of revenue for the first year and 15% thereafter? If so, that seems excessive, just for providing a download portal to its users. Apple could then compete with HBO on a lower cost structure and do its own shows, which apparently it is doing. Netflix, same? How about Amazon Prime revenue?
There is precedent to suggest that Apple can't simply charge a 30% toll on all the revenue producing activities that happen across iOS. Apple has some arguments that it created the platform. The literature on railroad competition provides many examples of monopolistic pricing that had to be made illegal. Usually the solution is to remove the barrier to entry, or if that is impractical (as building totally duplicate rail lines is somewhat impractical), to allow multiple carriers (= other App Stores) on the platform.
Spotify may be right that the current status quo on iOS App Store may be illegal. Just my opinion as a hobbyist on these topics, not a professional.
15% may seem high, until you start accounting for things like credit card processing, building a subscription service with user accounts, customer service staff for processing refunds, the marketing advantage of the App Store “storefront”, handling of international taxes and taxes in general. 15% is a steal. Now 30% a year wouldn’t be of course and Apple charges that once which is fair as a “finders fee”. 15% is the typical affiliate income anyway.
Why doesn’t Spotify make their own smart speaker or media player? My guess is that they will quickly find they can’t compete. Apple is giving app developers a chance to become something and give them a big opportunity. Apple is not responsible for the viability of your business model. You knew the game and you choose to play.
Better yet, why doesn’t Spotify create their own cell phone and App Store? It’s so easy, anyone could’ve done it!
... but Spotify should be ashamed of their actions.
They will probably be so ashamed they pull their app from the App store, together with Amazon Prime, HBO, Netflix and many others. Leaving Apple customers with one, curated, left leaning, family centric offering from – Apple.
I hope you realize that Apple's global marketshare is less than 10% in any category, so good luck with that strategy in the long run.
And why don't they?
Because most of these companies revenues come from APPLE. Spotify would collapse in a matter of months.
I say let the lawyers decide it. But I stand with apple over here. Apple doesn’t own a monopoly on any market. If you don’t like their rules don’t play in it. Funny enough ,Spotify’s iOS app is much better than the Droid version last time I checked.
Last time I checked there is one App Store on iOS. Their ecosystem is closed. Since 2007 Apple has become a dominant player. They practically invented the mobile phone as we know it today. They are more than a “vendor”, they are the true definition of a monopoly with the market share they have and their current practices should have been addressed a long time ago.
You should try to be more emphatic towards developers. Because “if you don’t like their rules don’t play in it” is a very simplistic, one-dimensional view on this matter. What is really the developers’ option here? That’s only Google Play, and they serve a different audience and also ask 30%. Those two are the true options here. If you think that’s healthy then sorry, I can’t take you seriously.
25 billion valuation, 5 billion in revenues and they still don’t make a profit. Yet somehow it’s Apple’s fault. Okay, then.
Spotify is not claiming they don’t make a profit as a company because of Apple. You just made that up. However they do have problems with Apple unfair business practices, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Fact is, the mobile market today consists of two dominant, monopolistic ecosystems, one serving Android users and one serving iOS users (assuming we ignore China). Both are beyond vendor status and have a vast market share. Developers are forced to publish through those two options, both taking 30%. Ecosystems of this size should be commercially open.
Fifteen years ago Microsoft was fined for pushing their browser product via their own operating system. Compared to this that was child’s play. Apple needs to change this and I hope the EU will start to break this idiotic system down.
Apple either needs to accept other commercial stores on iOS and/or lower their margins considerably so they are more cost based. Yes this comes with severe security concerns that need to be addressed technically, but at least it creates a fair market.
When it comes to distribution of applications for iOS Apple is a monopolist. You can't buy applications anywhere else. On the other hand, Spotify is not a monopolist, there are many music streaming services on the market, including Apple Music who are competing with Spotify. And currently i it is doubtful if you could charge more than $10 per month for music streaming.
When it comes to sell Big Mac in the McDonalds, it is a monopolist. By your logic. By 'correct' logic - McDonalds is the owner. Apple is the owner of their platform. It has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly.
You didn't get my point. There is no other way for Spotify to get there application on an iOS device than Apple's App Store. That is the monopoly part. This is also true for the Play Store on Android. Even though you could side load applications on Android, it is off by default and not recommended, so the Play Store is the only store for applications on Android and therefor a monopoly.
McDonald's is not a monopoly because there are other fast food chains and restaurants on the market. it would be different for example, if McDonald's had an exclusive contract with a mall and would be the only store on the food court.
Actually it’s very easy for them to get their app on the store for free. Do their own marketing in each country, direct customers to their website and sign them up. Then send them to the App Store to download the App. Apple makes zero and the have complete control of the subscription, customer data and relationship. This has been an option since day one and lots of companies use it. Apple doesn’t care. Bring Your Own Customers for free.
IOS is Apples platform. They control it 100% and do not license it out. If you want to look for existing examples of this then you can use Microsoft and the Xbox, Sony and the PlayStation and Nintendo.
If if you wish to ship your applications/games on these platforms you pay the platform owner, whether digital distribution or physical media, the platform owner collects a fee per title. You also have to have the title tested and passed before the platform owner allows it on their platform. IOS is no different.
if the EU were to rule against Apple it would open the door for attacks against the policies of the aforementioned companies and their monopolies on their own platforms.
A grocery store or any store analogy I would make is the existence of store brands. Apple Music is the iOS App Store offering just as I can by publix branded milk. One advantage that stores have in this is they compete on price by offering that milk for cheaper than a national brand. Since people always bash apple on the quality of their default iOS apps and services, many 3rd party developers have entered into the App Store and made money by selling for example a better email client that the default mail app. Spotify can make money by advertising that their service is better than the store brand and charge accordingly.
I don't know what Spotify would offer, however I personally do not find it fair that Spotify cannot mention that you could subscribe to Premium via the web and would like Apple to allow this.
I'm with you buddy. I'm also upset that when I walk into a Toyota dealer, I don't see any ads for Honda telling me what promotions and discounts they are offering and where their nearest dealer is. And then, when I go to Target, they never mention that the item I'm looking for is cheaper at Walmart. Bastards, all of them.
As I said before to someone making the exact same point, just throwing out an analogy which does not fit the Apple and Spotify situation and calling it a day is not a great argument. The App store isn't the same as a dealer. There are not two exactly the same stores competing here, there is an App store and a website where you can only sign up for Spotify. An App store lives on consumer devices and Apple benefits from selling phones with the app store on the device, how does this fit into your analogy? Instead of simply inventing another theoretical situation which is simply not similar I would like to argue about this situation and this situation alone.
I say let the lawyers decide it. But I stand with apple over here. Apple doesn’t own a monopoly on any market. If you don’t like their rules don’t play in it. Funny enough ,Spotify’s iOS app is much better than the Droid version last time I checked.
Last time I checked there is one App Store on iOS. Their ecosystem is closed. Since 2007 Apple has become a dominant player. They practically invented the mobile phone as we know it today. They are more than a “vendor”, they are the true definition of a monopoly with the market share they have and their current practices should have been addressed a long time ago.
You should try to be more emphatic towards developers. Because “if you don’t like their rules don’t play in it” is a very simplistic, one-dimensional view on this matter. What is really the developers’ option here? That’s only Google Play, and they serve a different audience and also ask 30%. Those two are the true options here. If you think that’s healthy then sorry, I can’t take you seriously.
25 billion valuation, 5 billion in revenues and they still don’t make a profit. Yet somehow it’s Apple’s fault. Okay, then.
Spotify is not claiming they don’t make a profit as a company because of Apple. You just made that up. However they do have problems with Apple unfair business practices, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Fact is, the mobile market today consists of two dominant, monopolistic ecosystems, one serving Android users and one serving iOS users (assuming we ignore China). Both are beyond vendor status and have a vast market share. Developers are forced to publish through those two options, both taking 30%. Ecosystems of this size should be commercially open.
Fifteen years ago Microsoft was fined for pushing their browser product via their own operating system. Compared to this that was child’s play. Apple needs to change this and I hope the EU will start to break this idiotic system down.
Apple either needs to accept other commercial stores on iOS and/or lower their margins considerably so they are more cost based. Yes this comes with severe security concerns that need to be addressed technically, but at least it creates a fair market.
Reading your comment some people might become convinced that you are smart and that’s why what you are rigging is correct.
I laughed at your words there are “two monopolistic...”. You are also claiming that Apple is a true definition of monopoly.
To correct that statement, I would like to point out that the true definition of monopoly emphasizes only ONE player!
So what you did: you sided with Spotify and than tried to find explanations for your biased view. While doing so you based your explanations on the incorrect definitions. But you wrapped in a well structured way to sound believable.
I say let the lawyers decide it. But I stand with apple over here. Apple doesn’t own a monopoly on any market. If you don’t like their rules don’t play in it. Funny enough ,Spotify’s iOS app is much better than the Droid version last time I checked.
Last time I checked there is one App Store on iOS. Their ecosystem is closed. Since 2007 Apple has become a dominant player. They practically invented the mobile phone as we know it today. They are more than a “vendor”, they are the true definition of a monopoly with the market share they have and their current practices should have been addressed a long time ago.
You should try to be more emphatic towards developers. Because “if you don’t like their rules don’t play in it” is a very simplistic, one-dimensional view on this matter. What is really the developers’ option here? That’s only Google Play, and they serve a different audience and also ask 30%. Those two are the true options here. If you think that’s healthy then sorry, I can’t take you seriously.
25 billion valuation, 5 billion in revenues and they still don’t make a profit. Yet somehow it’s Apple’s fault. Okay, then.
Spotify is not claiming they don’t make a profit as a company because of Apple. You just made that up. However they do have problems with Apple unfair business practices, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Fact is, the mobile market today consists of two dominant, monopolistic ecosystems, one serving Android users and one serving iOS users (assuming we ignore China). Both are beyond vendor status and have a vast market share. Developers are forced to publish through those two options, both taking 30%. Ecosystems of this size should be commercially open.
Fifteen years ago Microsoft was fined for pushing their browser product via their own operating system. Compared to this that was child’s play. Apple needs to change this and I hope the EU will start to break this idiotic system down.
Apple either needs to accept other commercial stores on iOS and/or lower their margins considerably so they are more cost based. Yes this comes with severe security concerns that need to be addressed technically, but at least it creates a fair market.
Reading your comment some people might become convinced that you are smart and that’s why what you are rigging is correct.
I laughed at your words there are “two monopolistic...”. You are also claiming that Apple is a true definition of monopoly.
To correct that statement, I would like to point out that the true definition of monopoly emphasizes only ONE player!
So what you did: you sided with Spotify and than tried to find explanations for your biased view. While doing so you based your explanations on the incorrect definitions. But you wrapped in a well structured way to sound believable.
You did not address any of the problems he lays out. You say only to have a problem with definitions after which you call the person baised (you are not?). What is your argument when we change the word to duopoly then?
IOS is Apples platform. They control it 100% and do not license it out. If you want to look for existing examples of this then you can use Microsoft and the Xbox, Sony and the PlayStation and Nintendo.
If if you wish to ship your applications/games on these platforms you pay the platform owner, whether digital distribution or physical media, the platform owner collects a fee per title. You also have to have the title tested and passed before the platform owner allows it on their platform. IOS is no different.
if the EU were to rule against Apple it would open the door for attacks against the policies of the aforementioned companies and their monopolies on their own platforms.
Good comment. You just need to correct the typo with “their monopolies on their own platforms”. As you are writing, it’s their own platforms. The are the owners. And it has nothing to do with the definition of what monopoly is.
To be the owner is not enough to become a monopolist.
I don’t know. I kind of think of it like a grocery store. If I want to sell my goods at a grocery store I have to pay. I have to pay slotting fees, pay-to-stay fees and display fees, etc. All the while the grocery store can sell their own brand of goods for less, right alongside mine, without paying the same fees. While they don’t pay the same fees as me, they have other cost associated with running the store that I don’t incure. Pretty reasonable business model that’s used all over. Idk...doesn’t seem unfair to me.
The drawback of analogies is that they do not always fit perfectly. How would the fact that iPhone users can only access the App Store fit into your analogy? Or Spotify not being allowed to mention the fact that they have set up their own 'store' on their own website?
Which stores can Android users access to download the apps?
Play Store, Amazon app store, Samsung app store, F-Droid and any application can be downloaded via a browser (see ApkMirror for example or Fortnite), which also means many online app stores
And that is the number 1 reason I avoid the security and privacy hell that is the Android ecosystem.
Isn't this however the exact same situation as on the Mac? Here I can also download applications from the internet or Steam, is the Mac therefore not secure?
I laughed at your words there are “two monopolistic...”. You are also claiming that Apple is a true definition of monopoly.
To correct that statement, I would like to point out that the true definition of monopoly emphasizes only ONE player!
So what you did: you sided with Spotify and than tried to find explanations for your biased view. While doing so you based your explanations on the incorrect definitions. But you wrapped in a well structured way to sound believable.
The problem is, that all what people call monopolistic about the App Store on iOS is also true for the Play Store on Android. So you have two monopolies. You can have multiple monopolies on one market, for example cable TV. There are multiple cable companies but for every house there is only one and changing is rarely practical. So every cable network is itself a monopoly.
That is why regulation is so important. When in Germany the telephone market was opened to competition, the former monopolist was heavily regulated to rent out the last mile to competitors for a fair price. The result is, you can get almost anywhere DSL from multiple companies over the same phone line.
Spotify makes an interesting argument. If HBO Now was downloaded from Apple (a fairly small service by Apple), does it mean Apple collects 30% of revenue for the first year and 15% thereafter? If so, that seems excessive, just for providing a download portal to its users.
There is precedent to suggest that Apple can't simply charge a 30% toll on all the revenue producing activities that happen across iOS.
It may not be intentional but you are downplaying what Apple does for in-app purchases. They aren’t simply providing a portal to download an app. There’s also the maintenance costs, ongoing development costs (of iOS and SDKs), the billing, bandwidth, etc.
To your second point, why not? Don’t railways charge me to ship something or travel on them? Would it be more fair if instead of requiring a portion of revenue generated they charged per download?
I bet Spotify also wouldn’t want to pay for every download each time they resubmit their app to address a bug fix or after there’s an iOS update or when someone restores their device/gets a new device. But would that be fair? Apple doesn’t charge them for that now.
About my second point, Apple charging 30% would be like AT&T looking at Denver and saying, the gross domestic product of Denver is around $400 billion. As the monopoly telecom provider to Denver, AT&T has decided the phone bill is $130 billion, a reasonable 30% of the area's total revenue. Please pay."
Meanwhile, the water company could also demand an unlimited price like $130 billion, *IF* they have legal exclusivity on the water consumption in Denver. Without water, everyone would die. The water company then owns practically 100% of Denver (and can sell that ownership back to people) because Denver is uninhabitable without water.
If the entire US economy runs on iOS (which it doesn't, but still a very very large amount of it does), that becomes a pernicious situation that falls under antitrust law. iOS is now a huge part of how Americans read news and shop and manage their finances. That doesn't mean Apple can suck all the value out of that. That isn't fair.
And specifically running the only iOS App Store and parlaying that into being a big record / movie company by owning the delivery platform probably isn't fair. Railroads tried to own everything too.
And... your entire argument falls to dust as soon as you consider that Apple already offers to Spotify FREE access to its platform, just not its customers.
Apple says, here, here is a huge base of users on iOS. Place your free app up here and then send all your customers who use iOS to it. They can download it and listen to your music service without you or them paying Apple a single dollar, or krona. But what we will NOT allow you to do is simply this: you are not allowed to stick that free app up there and use our App Store marketing to find new customers. For that, plus payment processing and a few other things, we demand 30%.
When it comes to distribution of applications for iOS Apple is a monopolist. You can't buy applications anywhere else. On the other hand, Spotify is not a monopolist, there are many music streaming services on the market, including Apple Music who are competing with Spotify. And currently i it is doubtful if you could charge more than $10 per month for music streaming.
When it comes to sell Big Mac in the McDonalds, it is a monopolist. By your logic. By 'correct' logic - McDonalds is the owner. Apple is the owner of their platform. It has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly.
You didn't get my point. There is no other way for Spotify to get there application on an iOS device than Apple's App Store. That is the monopoly part. This is also true for the Play Store on Android. Even though you could side load applications on Android, it is off by default and not recommended, so the Play Store is the only store for applications on Android and therefor a monopoly.
McDonald's is not a monopoly because there are other fast food chains and restaurants on the market. it would be different for example, if McDonald's had an exclusive contract with a mall and would be the only store on the food court.
Fraid not, as kids would say. Your argument about McDonald’s plays out like this... Hot dog shack (a fictional small restaurant) sees that MacDonalds has a huge number of customers attracted to their restaurants, and so goes to McD’s management and says, “how can we sell our dogs to your huge customer base, inside your stores?” And McD’s says, “just pay us 30% and you’re in.”
So for a while Hot Dog Shack does that and everyone is happy. But then one day MacDonald’s decides to start selling hot dogs too. Now HDS is pissed, and they want the government to step in and demand equal access. After all, MacDonald’s doesn’t have a 30% surcharge to make up when selling their own dogs.
But here’s the rub. For all the food sold inside the MacDonald’s restaurants, MacDonald’s is doing the marketing spend to pull in those customers. HDS might do its own marketing, to promote its own locations, but it doesn’t have to do any marketing to tell customers to come to a MacDonald’s, because plenty are already there, drawn in by MacDonald’s marketing efforts, which MacDonald’s pays for 100%.
So by demanding equal access, HDS is basically asking to have their kiosks selling their products in MacDonald’s restaurants without paying the 30% tariff that supports MacDonald’s rents, insurance, marketing, upkeep, etc.
Do you know what MacDonald’s is gonna do? Kick HDS out. Bye bye. I do wonder whether Apple has in its contract the ability to eject any app, for any reason or purpose it sees fit, from its platform. Bye bye, we no longer wish to do business with you!
So what solution does Spotify offers? And how they want to pay for selling their product through App Store?
I like Spotify app more than Apple's. but seriously, regarding this I am on the Apple's side.
I don't know what Spotify would offer, however I personally do not find it fair that Spotify cannot mention that you could subscribe to Premium via the web and would like Apple to allow this.
You should take Business 101. Business isn't about being fair. Business is Business, period. Yeah, so luring iOS customers out of the app and onto the Spotify website to sign up for a paid subscription in order to bypass Apple is "fair" huh? It's more like underhanded and unprofessional of Spotify.
Sorry, but just being snarky and saying that business is business is a pretty weak argument. There are also rules and regulations, it is not a free for all, and we will see if the regulators of the EU will take this up. What exactly is the problem with Spotify mentioning that signing up can be done on their website? The subscriptions from the website aren't the problem for Apple, only the mentioning of it in the app, why?
See my macDonald’s anology, above (my previous comment). That should explain it.
When it comes to distribution of applications for iOS Apple is a monopolist. You can't buy applications anywhere else. On the other hand, Spotify is not a monopolist, there are many music streaming services on the market, including Apple Music who are competing with Spotify. And currently i it is doubtful if you could charge more than $10 per month for music streaming.
When it comes to sell Big Mac in the McDonalds, it is a monopolist. By your logic. By 'correct' logic - McDonalds is the owner. Apple is the owner of their platform. It has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly.
You didn't get my point. There is no other way for Spotify to get there application on an iOS device than Apple's App Store. That is the monopoly part. This is also true for the Play Store on Android. Even though you could side load applications on Android, it is off by default and not recommended, so the Play Store is the only store for applications on Android and therefor a monopoly.
McDonald's is not a monopoly because there are other fast food chains and restaurants on the market. it would be different for example, if McDonald's had an exclusive contract with a mall and would be the only store on the food court.
Fraid not, as kids would say. Your argument about McDonald’s plays out like this... Hot dog shack (a fictional small restaurant) sees that MacDonalds has a huge number of customers attracted to their restaurants, and so goes to McD’s management and says, “how can we sell our dogs to your huge customer base, inside your stores?” And McD’s says, “just pay us 30% and you’re in.”
So for a while Hot Dog Shack does that and everyone is happy. But then one day MacDonald’s decides to start selling hot dogs too. Now HDS is pissed, and they want the government to step in and demand equal access. After all, MacDonald’s doesn’t have a 30% surcharge to make up when selling their own dogs.
But here’s the rub. For all the food sold inside the MacDonald’s restaurants, MacDonald’s is doing the marketing spend to pull in those customers. HDS might do its own marketing, to promote its own locations, but it doesn’t have to do any marketing to tell customers to come to a MacDonald’s, because plenty are already there, drawn in by MacDonald’s marketing efforts, which MacDonald’s pays for 100%.
So by demanding equal access, HDS is basically asking to have their kiosks selling their products in MacDonald’s restaurants without paying the 30% tariff that supports MacDonald’s rents, insurance, marketing, upkeep, etc.
Do you know what MacDonald’s is gonna do? Kick HDS out. Bye bye. I do wonder whether Apple has in its contract the ability to eject any app, for any reason or purpose it sees fit, from its platform. Bye bye, we no longer wish to do business with you!
Ugh, I hate these analogies that spin out of control. You are missing one notable thing however, hardware. The apps sold in the App Store can only run on Apple hardware, therefore a symbiotic relationship has developed, apps drive sales of hardware, and hardware drive sales of apps. And since Apple make the majority of their money from hardware, and the app store is effectively the only way to get apps on that hardware, the situation with the app store is far more complicated than fast food.
Even if Spotify aren't able to make anything of this legally, I think Apple are treating their developer community pretty badly here. Time to shape up.
Comments
And why don't they?
Because most of these companies revenues come from APPLE. Spotify would collapse in a matter of months.
Nice try though @ElCapitan ;
You should try to be more emphatic towards developers. Because “if you don’t like their rules don’t play in it” is a very simplistic, one-dimensional view on this matter. What is really the developers’ option here? That’s only Google Play, and they serve a different audience and also ask 30%. Those two are the true options here. If you think that’s healthy then sorry, I can’t take you seriously.
Spotify is not claiming they don’t make a profit as a company because of Apple. You just made that up. However they do have problems with Apple unfair business practices, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Fact is, the mobile market today consists of two dominant, monopolistic ecosystems, one serving Android users and one serving iOS users (assuming we ignore China). Both are beyond vendor status and have a vast market share. Developers are forced to publish through those two options, both taking 30%.
Ecosystems of this size should be commercially open.
Fifteen years ago Microsoft was fined for pushing their browser product via their own operating system. Compared to this that was child’s play. Apple needs to change this and I hope the EU will start to break this idiotic system down.
Apple either needs to accept other commercial stores on iOS and/or lower their margins considerably so they are more cost based. Yes this comes with severe security concerns that need to be addressed technically, but at least it creates a fair market.
If if you wish to ship your applications/games on these platforms you pay the platform owner, whether digital distribution or physical media, the platform owner collects a fee per title. You also have to have the title tested and passed before the platform owner allows it on their platform. IOS is no different.
if the EU were to rule against Apple it would open the door for attacks against the policies of the aforementioned companies and their monopolies on their own platforms.
Since people always bash apple on the quality of their default iOS apps and services, many 3rd party developers have entered into the App Store and made money by selling for example a better email client that the default mail app. Spotify can make money by advertising that their service is better than the store brand and charge accordingly.
I laughed at your words there are “two monopolistic...”. You are also claiming that Apple is a true definition of monopoly.
To correct that statement, I would like to point out that the true definition of monopoly emphasizes only ONE player!
So what you did: you sided with Spotify and than tried to find explanations for your biased view. While doing so you based your explanations on the incorrect definitions. But you wrapped in a well structured way to sound believable.
You just need to correct the typo with “their monopolies on their own platforms”.
As you are writing, it’s their own platforms. The are the owners. And it has nothing to do with the definition of what monopoly is.
To be the owner is not enough to become a monopolist.
That is why regulation is so important. When in Germany the telephone market was opened to competition, the former monopolist was heavily regulated to rent out the last mile to competitors for a fair price. The result is, you can get almost anywhere DSL from multiple companies over the same phone line.
Apple says, here, here is a huge base of users on iOS. Place your free app up here and then send all your customers who use iOS to it. They can download it and listen to your music service without you or them paying Apple a single dollar, or krona. But what we will NOT allow you to do is simply this: you are not allowed to stick that free app up there and use our App Store marketing to find new customers. For that, plus payment processing and a few other things, we demand 30%.
Now you see how this works?
So for a while Hot Dog Shack does that and everyone is happy. But then one day MacDonald’s decides to start selling hot dogs too. Now HDS is pissed, and they want the government to step in and demand equal access. After all, MacDonald’s doesn’t have a 30% surcharge to make up when selling their own dogs.
But here’s the rub. For all the food sold inside the MacDonald’s restaurants, MacDonald’s is doing the marketing spend to pull in those customers. HDS might do its own marketing, to promote its own locations, but it doesn’t have to do any marketing to tell customers to come to a MacDonald’s, because plenty are already there, drawn in by MacDonald’s marketing efforts, which MacDonald’s pays for 100%.
So by demanding equal access, HDS is basically asking to have their kiosks selling their products in MacDonald’s restaurants without paying the 30% tariff that supports MacDonald’s rents, insurance, marketing, upkeep, etc.
Do you know what MacDonald’s is gonna do? Kick HDS out. Bye bye. I do wonder whether Apple has in its contract the ability to eject any app, for any reason or purpose it sees fit, from its platform. Bye bye, we no longer wish to do business with you!
See my macDonald’s anology, above (my previous comment). That should explain it.
Even if Spotify aren't able to make anything of this legally, I think Apple are treating their developer community pretty badly here. Time to shape up.