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
In theory there are many but in most cases it is only one, the Play Store isn't available on Amazon devices, the Samsung one is not available on Pixel devices. And side loading doesn't work by default. The practical consequence is, that the store for applications is essentially a monopoly you have to use, if you want to sell/offer your application to the consumer of that device. The grocery example therefor wrong.
There was simply asked if there are other app stores on Android. I agree that for most people there is only one store they go to. Not allowing Spotify to mention their own website for sign up is my main issue with Apple stance here, not the App store or the 30% cut. The grocery example isn't my idea, I also have problems with simple analogies to these discussions.
So address it directly. Is it fair to Apple to provide all the infrastructure, all the marketing that sells iOS devices and provide all its user base to a third party to gain from for free? Why should Spotify have access to all the marketing Apple does to acquire and retain customers? If you find the customer, then you did the work to onboard him/her, and then you can have all the revenue. That’s Apple’s stance. Isn’t that fair? My bank profits from me, they acquired me all by themselves. And Apple hosts a Bank of America app for free in the App Store, for me to download and continue my relationship with my bank. If Spotify onboards a customer through their own marketing costs, then they can control the communication with that customer and send them to download their app. This costs Spotify nothing more, no charge by Apple. Pretty decent of Apple.
But if you want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, where it will be exposed to hundreds of millions of Apple’s customers, then you are using Apple’s marketing dollars to acquire your customers. And you cannot expect Apple to then hand over those customers to you to bill, cutting Apple out of the loop and out of some of the benefit [revenue] from that customer Apple supplied. How would that be fair?
i recall back in the days of shrink wrap software when Kenfil, Ingram/Micro-D, Egghead and other distributors took 55%. They had the customers, we didn’t. And it was very expensive running direct marketing advertisements in PC Magazine and elsewhere. So we priced our titles (SmartNotes, SeeMORE, @Base, UltraVision, Monarch, etc) accordingly such that we could make a profit. We understood what they brought to the party. Spotify seems to have lost sight.
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.
It doesn't. And I feel like I keep repeating myself here, but analogies don't always fit. The App store lives on consumer devices and Apple benefits from selling phones with this App store, how does this fit into your analogy? Spotify is not allowed to mention in their own product that there is the possibility to sign up on their own website. You do not mention this in your analogy, though it was the main question in my post. Again, I have less of a problem with the 15/30% alone or the fact that Apple is competing, it's the overall set of rules Apple has created which I see as an unfair way of pushing people to Apple Music by only the fact that they control the platform.
... 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.
I think what you fail to realize is that google charges the same exact 30%. You already cannot buy anything digital or sign up for a prime membership on Amazon. They have done this for years to avoid the 30%. Apples global market share may be low, however, it is also true that many apps make more money from the App Store than from the play store. Android dominates market share in low income areas. These customers typically don’t pay $10 a month to listen to music.
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!
Sorry, you either didn't understand my argument or you don't understand how monopolies work. The McDonald's argument is completely BS. The analogy is more like this. HDS want to be in this huge mall, but the mall owner also has a hot dog business and put it in the mall. But while HDS has to include rent and other costs in the price for their hot dogs, the Mal hot dogs store does not. The result is, that the Mal hot dogs are cheaper. And this is unfair business practices. The fix could be, that the Mall hot dog store has to also calculate the rent and costs even though they not paying them.
Your last paragraph is also an indicator that the App Store is a monopoly, Apple runs the only App Store for iOS and if they can reject any application for any reason, you are as developer essentially dependent on Apple.
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
In theory there are many but in most cases it is only one, the Play Store isn't available on Amazon devices, the Samsung one is not available on Pixel devices. And side loading doesn't work by default. The practical consequence is, that the store for applications is essentially a monopoly you have to use, if you want to sell/offer your application to the consumer of that device. The grocery example therefor wrong.
There was simply asked if there are other app stores on Android. I agree that for most people there is only one store they go to. Not allowing Spotify to mention their own website for sign up is my main issue with Apple stance here, not the App store or the 30% cut. The grocery example isn't my idea, I also have problems with simple analogies to these discussions.
So address it directly. Is it fair to Apple to provide all the infrastructure, all the marketing that sells iOS devices and provide all its user base to a third party to gain from for free? Why should Spotify have access to all the marketing Apple does to acquire and retain customers? If you find the customer, then you did the work to onboard him/her, and then you can have all the revenue. That’s Apple’s stance. Isn’t that fair? My bank profits from me, they acquired me all by themselves. And Apple hosts a Bank of America app for free in the App Store, for me to download and continue my relationship with my bank. If Spotify onboards a customer through their own marketing costs, then they can control the communication with that customer and send them to download their app. This costs Spotify nothing more, no charge by Apple. Pretty decent of Apple.
But if you want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, where it will be exposed to hundreds of millions of Apple’s customers, then you are using Apple’s marketing dollars to acquire your customers. And you cannot expect Apple to then hand over those customers to you to bill, cutting Apple out of the loop and out of some of the benefit [revenue] from that customer Apple supplied. How would that be fair?
i recall back in the days of shrink wrap software when Kenfil, Ingram/Micro-D, Egghead and other distributors took 55%. They had the customers, we didn’t. And it was very expensive running direct marketing advertisements in PC Magazine and elsewhere. So we priced our titles (SmartNotes, SeeMORE, @Base, UltraVision, Monarch, etc) accordingly such that we could make a profit. We understood what they brought to the party. Spotify seems to have lost sight.
I do not think it is an one way street, as you are describing it. Having all these useful third party apps is also a benefit to Apple. A reason for me choosing Apple is the great third party app support. The infrastructure and marketing investment done by Apple is not done out of charity, it directly benefits Apple in the form of iPhone/iPad sales and even Apple Music subscriptions/ iCloud plans etc. As Crowley said, there is a symbiotic relationship between Apple and third party app development and you're only describing the benefits Apple brings to the table.
Who's to say that the App Store marketing is the reason that people found the Spotify app on iOS? If people see an advertisement from Spotify on the TV or the internet and download the app from the App store to try out or hear about Spotify from a friend, is this exclusively because of Apple providing the app in the App Store? Is the 30% justified here?
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.
It doesn't. And I feel like I keep repeating myself here, but analogies don't always fit. The App store lives on consumer devices and Apple benefits from selling phones with this App store, how does this fit into your analogy? Spotify is not allowed to mention in their own product that there is the possibility to sign up on their own website. You do not mention this in your analogy, though it was the main question in my post. Again, I have less of a problem with the 15/30% alone or the fact that Apple is competing, it's the overall set of rules Apple has created which I see as an unfair way of pushing people to Apple Music by only the fact that they control the platform.
I did away with all analogies and addressed it directly above. Couple comments back. Are we still in disagreement?
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
In theory there are many but in most cases it is only one, the Play Store isn't available on Amazon devices, the Samsung one is not available on Pixel devices. And side loading doesn't work by default. The practical consequence is, that the store for applications is essentially a monopoly you have to use, if you want to sell/offer your application to the consumer of that device. The grocery example therefor wrong.
There was simply asked if there are other app stores on Android. I agree that for most people there is only one store they go to. Not allowing Spotify to mention their own website for sign up is my main issue with Apple stance here, not the App store or the 30% cut. The grocery example isn't my idea, I also have problems with simple analogies to these discussions.
So address it directly. Is it fair to Apple to provide all the infrastructure, all the marketing that sells iOS devices and provide all its user base to a third party to gain from for free? Why should Spotify have access to all the marketing Apple does to acquire and retain customers? If you find the customer, then you did the work to onboard him/her, and then you can have all the revenue. That’s Apple’s stance. Isn’t that fair? My bank profits from me, they acquired me all by themselves. And Apple hosts a Bank of America app for free in the App Store, for me to download and continue my relationship with my bank. If Spotify onboards a customer through their own marketing costs, then they can control the communication with that customer and send them to download their app. This costs Spotify nothing more, no charge by Apple. Pretty decent of Apple.
But if you want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, where it will be exposed to hundreds of millions of Apple’s customers, then you are using Apple’s marketing dollars to acquire your customers. And you cannot expect Apple to then hand over those customers to you to bill, cutting Apple out of the loop and out of some of the benefit [revenue] from that customer Apple supplied. How would that be fair?
i recall back in the days of shrink wrap software when Kenfil, Ingram/Micro-D, Egghead and other distributors took 55%. They had the customers, we didn’t. And it was very expensive running direct marketing advertisements in PC Magazine and elsewhere. So we priced our titles (SmartNotes, SeeMORE, @Base, UltraVision, Monarch, etc) accordingly such that we could make a profit. We understood what they brought to the party. Spotify seems to have lost sight.
I do not think it is an one way street, as you are describing it. Having all these useful third party apps is also a benefit to Apple. A reason for me choosing Apple is the great third party app support. The infrastructure and marketing investment done by Apple is not done out of charity, it directly benefits Apple in the form of iPhone/iPad sales and even Apple Music subscriptions/ iCloud plans etc. As Crowley said, there is a symbiotic relationship between Apple and third party app development and you're only describing the benefits Apple brings to the table.
Who's to say that the App Store marketing is the reason that people found the Spotify app on iOS? If people see an advertisement from Spotify on the TV or the internet and download the app from the App store to try out or hear about Spotify from a friend, is this exclusively because of Apple providing the app in the App Store? Is the 30% justified here?
You don’t want to give credence to logical arguments that Apple itself is making. For that reason and only that reason, I’ll stop arguing with you.
On a German news site Spotify also mentions that Apple once used push notification to advertise their music service. Something no 3rd party developer is allowed to do. The statement by Apple is ridiculous, they don't even mention that they run a competitor to Spotify. I mean there are a lot of weird rules on the iOS App Store, for example, that the Chrome browser has an age restriction to 17, while every iPhone/iOS comes with a browser. Or that those 3rd party browsers can't use their own rendering engine but have to use an API from iOS.
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
In theory there are many but in most cases it is only one, the Play Store isn't available on Amazon devices, the Samsung one is not available on Pixel devices. And side loading doesn't work by default. The practical consequence is, that the store for applications is essentially a monopoly you have to use, if you want to sell/offer your application to the consumer of that device. The grocery example therefor wrong.
There was simply asked if there are other app stores on Android. I agree that for most people there is only one store they go to. Not allowing Spotify to mention their own website for sign up is my main issue with Apple stance here, not the App store or the 30% cut. The grocery example isn't my idea, I also have problems with simple analogies to these discussions.
So address it directly. Is it fair to Apple to provide all the infrastructure, all the marketing that sells iOS devices and provide all its user base to a third party to gain from for free? Why should Spotify have access to all the marketing Apple does to acquire and retain customers? If you find the customer, then you did the work to onboard him/her, and then you can have all the revenue. That’s Apple’s stance. Isn’t that fair? My bank profits from me, they acquired me all by themselves. And Apple hosts a Bank of America app for free in the App Store, for me to download and continue my relationship with my bank. If Spotify onboards a customer through their own marketing costs, then they can control the communication with that customer and send them to download their app. This costs Spotify nothing more, no charge by Apple. Pretty decent of Apple.
But if you want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, where it will be exposed to hundreds of millions of Apple’s customers, then you are using Apple’s marketing dollars to acquire your customers. And you cannot expect Apple to then hand over those customers to you to bill, cutting Apple out of the loop and out of some of the benefit [revenue] from that customer Apple supplied. How would that be fair?
i recall back in the days of shrink wrap software when Kenfil, Ingram/Micro-D, Egghead and other distributors took 55%. They had the customers, we didn’t. And it was very expensive running direct marketing advertisements in PC Magazine and elsewhere. So we priced our titles (SmartNotes, SeeMORE, @Base, UltraVision, Monarch, etc) accordingly such that we could make a profit. We understood what they brought to the party. Spotify seems to have lost sight.
I do not think it is an one way street, as you are describing it. Having all these useful third party apps is also a benefit to Apple. A reason for me choosing Apple is the great third party app support. The infrastructure and marketing investment done by Apple is not done out of charity, it directly benefits Apple in the form of iPhone/iPad sales and even Apple Music subscriptions/ iCloud plans etc. As Crowley said, there is a symbiotic relationship between Apple and third party app development and you're only describing the benefits Apple brings to the table.
Who's to say that the App Store marketing is the reason that people found the Spotify app on iOS? If people see an advertisement from Spotify on the TV or the internet and download the app from the App store to try out or hear about Spotify from a friend, is this exclusively because of Apple providing the app in the App Store? Is the 30% justified here?
So, in some posts you’re upset that Apple does not allow Spotify to have links to a website where people can sign up for Spotify outside of Apple, because how would people know they have that option. Now you’re saying that those same people would see an advertisement on TV or the internet and be led to the App Store (by Spotify, by the way) but still be completely unaware they could sign up on Spotify’s website?
Again, Apple gets no money from Spotify for people who have signed up for the free tier, only the paid tier through IAP. For anyone who signed up via means other than IAP Apple gets 0%, but still hosts the app, maintains the systems, maintains iOS and the App Store, provides updates to iOS and developer tools etc, and only asks for 30% of sales made through the app.
In your view, what is a fair way for Apple to be compensated for everything they provide to Spotify?
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.
I didn’t make up anything. Those are Spotify’s numbers, and and Spotify is demanding free access to Apple’s store. Pretty simple, really. Plenty of other developers have made a fortune with the current set up. There is no monopoly. There are more ways to access Spotify than I can count.
I manufacture products that we sell online and on Amazon, to be able to sell on Amazon we pay a fee then storage and approximately 50% of the final sale price to Amazon. 30% sounds like a drop dead bargain to me for access to Apple’s customers. What do they expect! What they want is for Apple to quit competing with them and they are jumping on the political bandwagon to pressure Apple. I can see the EU doing something but not here.
As I said it a reply to someone else? What about video game marketplaces? Should Playstation be forced to allow access to Xbox live on their hardware? No.
Plus, this kind of strays from the issue anyways. It’s not customers complaining they can only access Spotify via App Store, it’s the seller complaining they can’t direct customers away from the App Store. So I’m not sure why “being the only store” matters when that’s where customers want to shop. We made that choice when we purchase Apple hardware.
The stores on the PlayStation and Xbox can be monopolies if the customer can't easily access other stores. Customers might not complain but Spotify does, while they have to calculated the App Store charges into their price, Apple Music doesn't, which resulted in a higher price for Spotify than Apple Music on iOS. So if someone was looking for a music streaming service on their iPhone they would see that Spotify is more expensive than Apple Music and might because of that choose Apple Music over Spotify. That is the gist of it. And I think that Spotify has a point here.
Nothing prevents Spotify from selling its services elsewhere. They are not bound to AppStore. Apple would be a monopoly if it were preventing Spotify by all means, including selling elsewhere. If you sell in the competitor's brick & mortar store you pay at least a rent for that store. "You monopolist ! I will sell my legumes in your store, stay back !" Say that in one of your villages and see the outcome !
Expand on this. What other place can I download Spotify's iOS app and pay for its use?
Then go to the IOS App Store get the app and sign in with your credentials.
I do this with YouTube and Netflix as we speak. I pay for YouTube Red directly to Google via PayPal ( for $9.99 instead of $12.99 via the app and App Store ) and TMobile pays for my monthly Netflix subscription.
From what I understand the 30% fee applies only to content and features that are delivered as an in-app purchase.
As I said it a reply to someone else? What about video game marketplaces? Should Playstation be forced to allow access to Xbox live on their hardware? No.
Plus, this kind of strays from the issue anyways. It’s not customers complaining they can only access Spotify via App Store, it’s the seller complaining they can’t direct customers away from the App Store. So I’m not sure why “being the only store” matters when that’s where customers want to shop. We made that choice when we purchase Apple hardware.
The stores on the PlayStation and Xbox can be monopolies if the customer can't easily access other stores. Customers might not complain but Spotify does, while they have to calculated the App Store charges into their price, Apple Music doesn't, which resulted in a higher price for Spotify than Apple Music on iOS. So if someone was looking for a music streaming service on their iPhone they would see that Spotify is more expensive than Apple Music and might because of that choose Apple Music over Spotify. That is the gist of it. And I think that Spotify has a point here.
Nothing prevents Spotify from selling its services elsewhere. They are not bound to AppStore. Apple would be a monopoly if it were preventing Spotify by all means, including selling elsewhere. If you sell in the competitor's brick & mortar store you pay at least a rent for that store. "You monopolist ! I will sell my legumes in your store, stay back !" Say that in one of your villages and see the outcome !
Expand on this. What other place can I download Spotify's iOS app and pay for its use?
Then go to the IOS App Store get the app and sign in with your credentials.
I do this with YouTube and Netflix as we speak. I pay for YouTube Red directly to Google via PayPal ( for $9.99 instead of $12.99 via the app and App Store ) and TMobile pays for my monthly Netflix subscription.
From what I understand the 30% fee applies only to content and features that are delivered as an in-app purchase.
This is exactly the issue. You can sign up for Spotify outside the App Store but you can't get the application out side the App Store. Also this makes the subscription process more complicated than it for e.g. Apple Music.
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.
Developers are being treated badly? Developers are being treated like gods today, especially when compared to how they're treated when they had to sell their products in a box at stores. Even then, if you are a developer that makes an application for free, you're treated like royalty. You pay the developer fee to Apple, then you get access to hundreds of milions of people, you don't have to pay bandwidth costs or hosting to push the application out to customers, you don't have to worry about security concerns with hosting the application, you don't have to set up some review system or integrate one into your site. Then if you want to add an in app purchases to allow customers to support you, you don't have to set up a payment processor, you don't have to get your customers to input any payment information, you don't have to worry about international pricing or taxes, they just click on a button and pay.
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.
Developers are being treated badly? Developers are being treated like gods today, especially when compared to how they're treated when they had to sell their products in a box at stores. Even then, if you are a developer that makes an application for free, you're treated like royalty. You pay the developer fee to Apple, then you get access to hundreds of milions of people, you don't have to pay bandwidth costs or hosting to push the application out to customers, you don't have to worry about security concerns with hosting the application, you don't have to set up some review system or integrate one into your site. Then if you want to add an in app purchases to allow customers to support you, you don't have to set up a payment processor, you don't have to get your customers to input any payment information, you don't have to worry about international pricing or taxes, they just click on a button and pay.
But do you have choice when developing for iOS?
The entirety of your post avoids the central issue.
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!
Sorry, you either didn't understand my argument or you don't understand how monopolies work. The McDonald's argument is completely BS. The analogy is more like this. HDS want to be in this huge mall, but the mall owner also has a hot dog business and put it in the mall. But while HDS has to include rent and other costs in the price for their hot dogs, the Mal hot dogs store does not. The result is, that the Mal hot dogs are cheaper. And this is unfair business practices. The fix could be, that the Mall hot dog store has to also calculate the rent and costs even though they not paying them.
Your last paragraph is also an indicator that the App Store is a monopoly, Apple runs the only App Store for iOS and if they can reject any application for any reason, you are as developer essentially dependent on Apple.
Yeah your mall analogy makes no sense. So the mall’s owner decides to put his hotdog business in a store space in the mall. Is that space they occupy free, no. Does the maintenance/taxes/CAMs/mortgage all magically disappear, again no. Furthermore, the mall owner is giving up the gaurnteed profit from whatever business would otherwise occupy the leased space. If the mall owners hot dog place then sells hot dogs at a lower price than HDS, then they are marginalizing the potential profitability of the hot dog business (increasing risk) on top of taking the loss on the real estate, plus taking the risk of perhaps making no money if customer prefer HDS’s product. Additionally, the malls owner’s risk is heightened as he is entering a market (the hotdog business located in the mall in this case) with an already established competitor who has an existing presence. Basically, your anology only works if you pretend that the space the mall owners store occupies has no cost associated with it. Now if the mall owner cancelled HDS’s lease or if they increased the lease cost above that of other leasee’s that could be grounds for anti competitive claims.
Your viewpoint is Apple could abuse the control of the App Store to give them a dominant position in apps. If they did this we would end up with an App Store primarily composed of Apple branded apps. That the App Store literally has millions of apps from thousands developers serves as proof that this is not happening. That it could happen is not enough to make anti competitive claims, in theory the fact that you could commit a crime does not give the authorities the right to punish you or limit your freedoms. If that was the case, the fact a person could commit a murder would itself be justification for their imprisonment.
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.
So using your logic. All stores, services and products should allow the vendor to mention where you could buy the product for a better price.
I think Spotify would be better off spending what's left of their VC account trying to see how to actually make money using the methods provided to them than waste money on a court case that may not end up in their favor.
Apple may or may not be a monopoly, but even if they aren't they (Spotify) has to prove Apple is using that monopoly against Spotify to shove them out of the music space. Its not illegal to have a monopoly and I think some here just think monopolies are illegal in every definition of the word. Thats simply not true.
Comments
the marketing that sells iOS devices and provide all its user base to a third party to gain from for free? Why should Spotify have access to all the marketing Apple does to acquire and retain customers? If you find the customer, then you did the work to onboard him/her, and then you can have all the revenue. That’s Apple’s stance. Isn’t that fair? My bank profits from me, they acquired me all by themselves. And Apple hosts a Bank of America app for free in the App Store, for me to download and continue my relationship with my bank. If Spotify onboards a customer through their own marketing costs, then they can control the communication with that customer and send them to download their app. This costs Spotify nothing more, no charge by Apple. Pretty decent of Apple.
But if you want to place a free app in Apple’s App Store, where it will be exposed to hundreds of millions of Apple’s customers, then you are using Apple’s marketing dollars to acquire your customers. And you cannot expect Apple to then hand over those customers to you to bill, cutting Apple out of the loop and out of some of the benefit [revenue] from that customer Apple supplied. How would that be fair?
i recall back in the days of shrink wrap software when Kenfil, Ingram/Micro-D, Egghead and other distributors took 55%. They had the customers, we didn’t. And it was very expensive running direct marketing advertisements in PC Magazine and elsewhere. So we priced our titles (SmartNotes, SeeMORE, @Base, UltraVision, Monarch, etc) accordingly such that we could make a profit. We understood what they brought to the party. Spotify seems to have lost sight.
With the AppleTV service coming online soon, Spotify is toast and they know it.
Your last paragraph is also an indicator that the App Store is a monopoly, Apple runs the only App Store for iOS and if they can reject any application for any reason, you are as developer essentially dependent on Apple.
Who's to say that the App Store marketing is the reason that people found the Spotify app on iOS? If people see an advertisement from Spotify on the TV or the internet and download the app from the App store to try out or hear about Spotify from a friend, is this exclusively because of Apple providing the app in the App Store? Is the 30% justified here?
You don’t want to give credence to logical arguments that Apple itself is making. For that reason and only that reason, I’ll stop arguing with you.
Again, Apple gets no money from Spotify for people who have signed up for the free tier, only the paid tier through IAP. For anyone who signed up via means other than IAP Apple gets 0%, but still hosts the app, maintains the systems, maintains iOS and the App Store, provides updates to iOS and developer tools etc, and only asks for 30% of sales made through the app.
In your view, what is a fair way for Apple to be compensated for everything they provide to Spotify?
https://accounts.spotify.com/en/login/?_locale=en-US&continue=https:%2F%2Fwww.spotify.com%2Fus%2Fcheckout%2Fpremium%2Ffamily%2F
Then go to the IOS App Store get the app and sign in with your credentials.
I do this with YouTube and Netflix as we speak. I pay for YouTube Red directly to Google via PayPal ( for $9.99 instead of $12.99 via the app and App Store ) and TMobile pays for my monthly Netflix subscription.
From what I understand the 30% fee applies only to content and features that are delivered as an in-app purchase.
The entirety of your post avoids the central issue.
Your viewpoint is Apple could abuse the control of the App Store to give them a dominant position in apps. If they did this we would end up with an App Store primarily composed of Apple branded apps. That the App Store literally has millions of apps from thousands developers serves as proof that this is not happening. That it could happen is not enough to make anti competitive claims, in theory the fact that you could commit a crime does not give the authorities the right to punish you or limit your freedoms. If that was the case, the fact a person could commit a murder would itself be justification for their imprisonment.
Apple may or may not be a monopoly, but even if they aren't they (Spotify) has to prove Apple is using that monopoly against Spotify to shove them out of the music space. Its not illegal to have a monopoly and I think some here just think monopolies are illegal in every definition of the word. Thats simply not true.