battiato1981

hoobitron said:

So basically...Waze. They should have bought Waze when they had the chance. 

I tried Waze a few times a few years ago and couldn't understand why some people thought that Apple missed a change there. I found it a hot, annoying mess of an app. I do think that Apple will eventually implement some more crowd sourced incident reports, or at least I hope for that, but Waze is a cluster-clutter.

crowley said:

rogifan_new said:

What marketing does Apple do for Spotify?

Or distribution and fulfilment for that matter.

Apple only handles the payment processing, all of the content comes from Spotify.

If that is indeed all that Apple provides, it does seem rather simple, except you have to put a value on the venue itself, which of course is valuable. On one hand, the upcoming system is a step in the right direction of fairness for the consumer (the 15% mark-up for subscribers who come via the app-store), perhaps there can be more descending tiers if that customer is in fact continuously loyal (next year 10%, next year 5%, then done - zeroed out). That would be another improvement. If there was a way for there to be a rebate for the first year on half of that 30%, once you hit the mark, that would be even better. 

This is such a hot button issue and I admit that I hadn't thought much about it before this recent kerfuffle. I don't think that a company with a questionable business model should be rewarded much, especially if it's true that they totally lowball their content providers (i.e. - the musicians), but I think Apple has to stay ahead of the game and not be seen as gouging. 

I still think that if I was in Spotifys shoes I would do what someone said Amazon has done and offer the Kindle app, which when opened informs the new customer that they need an account to use it. The customer goes to their website, signs away their privacy and then returns to the app and logs in. Spotify gets it all, Apple gets nothing. Everyone is happy. 

radarthekat said:

 .... This seems unfair to the Spotify Candy Co, because the theater chain seems to have an unfair advantage.  But Spotify neglects to account for the initial and ongoing costs, and business risks, of establishing and running a chain of theaters.  If Spotify Candy Co created their own theaters, then they could sell their candies and chocolates at retail prices direct to consumers.  Poor, sad Spotify Candy Company.  Life is so unfair. 

And if Spotify Candy Company can differentiate its candy, make it somehow more awesome, then some of the clientele of this particular chain, who apparently likes all manner of candy, will probably be quite interested. 

rogifan_new said:

So let's say Apple can successfully argue that Spotify has paying customers in large part because of access to the iOS install base. Is that something Apple should get a fee for (outside of cc processing) for the life that someone is a Spotify customer? Or should it be a one time fee they get for every new customer?

For an ongoing subscription (one year +), 15% sounds about right, 30% sounds high. A one time fee of $1.50 (at the new upcoming 15% rate) is rather low when a long time customer might be spending hundreds of dollars. And at the same time, if a customer should establish an account directly with Spotifys site, and just use the app downloaded at the AppStore to log in to that account, Apple would get bupkis.

rogifan_new said:

Does Target get 30% of every magazine subscription for magazines it sells in its stores? Should Apple pay 30% of stores sales to every mall owner where they have a store located? Most of the apps on my iOS devices I downloaded for free. Should there be no free apps on the App Store? Is Apple's support for CNN's free app different than their support for the Spotify app (other than the credit card transaction for Spotify's service)?

Hmm, where to start here ... 
I have a few magazine subs that I read on my phone and iPad. I bought all of them individually, through the magazine directly, and Apple gets zero for my sub. If you buy a magazine at Target and subscribe, you would do that most likely by taking the trouble to go to the mags website. If Target signed you up, you bet they would take a cut for that, they're in business. (And Apple does pay a percentage of sales to mall owners, pretty standard stuff for high end retailers, not close to 30% though ...). Hosting apps that allow a user free ad-supported service is a great thing for the consumer of course. Allowing a user to establish an account, outside of the app on their own as apparently Amazon does, seems like an easy, no hassle work around for Spotify. They are grandstanding, and more than a bit worried about their business model, for which they only have themselves to blame. And that's the danger of a politician offering an opinion before they know much about the issue. Businesses based on bad models with razor thin margins don't deserve to be propped up, they should fade away.