Abalos65

ihatescreennames said:

Abalos65 said:

radarthekat said:

Abalos65 said:

tehabe said:

Abalos65 said:

urahara said:

Abalos65 said:

supadav03 said:

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?

IAP purchases could also be brought back, though it should clearly state that $3 would go to Apple. But at the very least it should be possible for Spotify to mention in the app that it is possible to sign up on their website. 

radarthekat said:

Abalos65 said:

tehabe said:

Abalos65 said:

urahara said:

Abalos65 said:

supadav03 said:

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.   

tundraboy said:

Abalos65 said:

urahara said:

Abalos65 said:

supadav03 said:

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.

urahara said:

Abalos65 said:

supadav03 said:

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?

urahara said:

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.