minisu1980

tehabe said:

minisu1980 said:

tehabe said:

jcs2305 said:

bwik said:

macplusplus said:

tehabe said:

supadav03 said:

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?  

You can sign up for Spotify premium here 

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. 

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.

Yeah, but it’s free to download the Spotify app from the App Store and sign in to your Spotify account, you could even say Apple is absorbing the hosting cost for Spotify, since it this instance Apple gets 0% of that users Spotify subscription. More complicated, let’s face it if signing up for a service on a website then downloading a free app is beyond your capabilities, chance are you don’t possess the mental faculties to use a smartphone in the first place. It seems like all Netflix numerous users both understand and manage this just fine. I guess the big difference is Netflix spent the money to build both it brand and value proposition to the world at large, perhaps Spotify should have done the same. It probably also helps Netflix had a sustainable business model vs Spotify’s plan of hoping they might one day figure it out.

All you are explaining might be true but it is not the issue. The issue is, that Spotify can't distribute their application outside of the control of Apple. And therefore Spotify depends to be treated fairly. When Apple starts its video streaming service this year, we will see how Netflix and Amazon will react. There are many things how Apple can make its own service be better on iOS than the one of the competition. And not many people will switch to Android because they can't use Netflix or Spotify anymore. That the application is free on the App Store is simply irrelevant for this discussion.

There is no “might be true”, it takes less time than you spent writing you post to verify this as fact. As long as Spotify is not actively being denied “free” distribution of the app your point of where the actual app is obtained is irrelevant. Should Apple be upset that the Spotify, who by far has the largest marketshare, doesn’t allow Apple to advertise Apple Music on their website? If Apple charged the 30% for all of Spotify’s users to download/install/use the app, no matter where they subscribed to the service you might have a point, but that simply isn’t reality. 

Are you one of the soon to be laid off employees of Spotify?

tehabe said:

jcs2305 said:

bwik said:

macplusplus said:

tehabe said:

supadav03 said:

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?  

You can sign up for Spotify premium here 

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. 

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.

Yeah, but it’s free to download the Spotify app from the App Store and sign in to your Spotify account, you could even say Apple is absorbing the hosting cost for Spotify, since it this instance Apple gets 0% of that users Spotify subscription. More complicated, let’s face it if signing up for a service on a website then downloading a free app is beyond your capabilities, chance are you don’t possess the mental faculties to use a smartphone in the first place. It seems like all Netflix numerous users both understand and manage this just fine. I guess the big difference is Netflix spent the money to build both it brand and value proposition to the world at large, perhaps Spotify should have done the same. It probably also helps Netflix had a sustainable business model vs Spotify’s plan of hoping they might one day figure it out.

tehabe said:

radarthekat said:

tehabe said:

urahara said:

tehabe said:

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.

bulk001 said:

Apple is trying to be disingenuous on several fronts:
1. If they allowed Spotify to let customers download their app directly from Spotify’s website and process their own payments then the cost to Apple would be virtually zero. There is only a cost here as Apple forced them to use the App Store. This goes to the heart of Warren’s desire to break up large tech companies.
2. Apple makes money from the sale of devices that have apps that people want. People apparently want Spotify on their iOS devices. Apps help Apple sell hardware so there is a symbiotic relationship, and it is not all one sided in favor of Apple. If there was no Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube etc on iOS there would be fewer iPhone sales. 
3. Apple is trying to muddy the water with the claim about Spotify paying artists. This is a valid issue that needs to be addressed. But, considering that Apple apparently tries to pay creatives with goods instead of cash it is the pot calling the kettle black. 

hucom2000 said:

Apple is great in portraying itself as the „good guy“ or „victim“. Excellent press department.

I’m not saying they are the bad guy in this context. However, given the ludicrous amounts of cash they are accumulating (with margins most other businesses can only dream of), I do wonder if 30% are necessary or greedy.

It would be interesting to see calculations of what it actually costs Apple to render these services to app makers - but of course we‘ll never ever get that...

A better question is what would it cost Spotify to sell their product in the abscence of the App Store. Legacy methods of selling software cost far more than 30%.