Apple Fires Back at Spotify in official press release

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, harryk said:

If Spotify can't produce a better product to compete then too bad; that is the definition of a free market.

Not really a free market when Apple imposes fees on Spotify, which Apple themselves doesn't have to pay, no? 

 

It's kind of like if your ISP started charging extra for Netflix, which would result in either the ISP just taking a cut from Netflix profits, or Netflix having to raise the prise which would make the ISPs TV subscription more appealing. 

 

 

It's not a free market when one company can directly make a competing product/service worse. 

[FlappyBoobs]

4 hours ago, harryk said:

Except this will result in harm to the consumer. Spinning off Apple Music in to its own entity will ultimately cost more and thus as a consumer I would have to pay more. Part of Apple's mission is to use vertical integration to build a vast ecosystem for maximum efficiency and the best consumer experience. If Spotify can't produce a better product to compete then too bad; that is the definition of a free market.

The app store is not a free market at all, and that's the point. If apple can make their apps more attractive than competitors there would be no point in not using apple Apps on apple devices, which I would have no issue with if Microsoft hadn't been forced to be split up for the exact same reasons. Spotify cannot compete on price if they have a 30% initial overhead by default. 

 

And to the people saying that there are alternatives to apple on the mobile market, well there were also alternatives to Microsoft on the PC market, and they were still forced to seperate. 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, FlappyBoobs said:

Spotify cannot compete on price if they have a 30% initial overhead by default. 

Except that Spotify is literally competing on price without any issues, considering their premium plan is the same cost as the default plan of Apple and Google, the companies that charge them for processing payments on Spotify's behalf.

5 minutes ago, FlappyBoobs said:

well there were also alternatives to Microsoft on the PC market, and they were still forced to seperate. 

Not much point in using a shitty decision from the past to justify a shitty decision now.

[FlappyBoobs]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

That's a load of shit. Spotify wants to maximize profits by not honoring conditions that they agreed to.

 

Also, Apple charges $10/month for their service. Google charges $10/month. Spotify Premium? Again, $10/month. They're all serving the same price point.

Spotify want to compete on a level playing field, not on one slanted in apples favour. Of course its about profit, but on the app store Spotify are at a 15-30% disadvantage before they've even started. 

 

And like I said apple surpress the ability for them to advertise signing up on their website. 

[Drak3]

Just now, FlappyBoobs said:

And like I said apple surpress the ability for them to advertise signing up on their website. 

And can you actually prove that?

 

Because they don't impose that claimed limitation on Microsoft's office apps.

2 minutes ago, FlappyBoobs said:

Spotify want to compete on a level playing field

Then they should create their own store, OS, and hardware. But until then, they're piggy backing on Apple's work, and as such, they should be required to pay Apple the fees that they agreed to.

 

Because guess what, Apple takes parts of what they make from services like Apple Music, and put it back into maintaining services like the App Store. That's how companies work.

[S w a t s o n]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

I'm not sure if I'd say "most," but piracy is much more of a problem on Android than it is on iOS.  You see some apps (games in particular) that are paid but ad-free on iOS, but are strictly ad-supported on Android because the developers know there will be pirated Android copies available within hours.

I would definitely say most, anyone's reasonable definition of most would work. You think most normies are doing anything?

[AntonChigurh]

As much as I hate to say it, Apple's in the right here. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Spotify.

[YaBoiWill]

1 hour ago, FlappyBoobs said:

15-30% disadvantage before they've even started. 

Only if it's done through apple through, Not all subscriptions will be done through this, some might be done through spotify itself, through their phone contract (Like me as its included), and though google.

IMO it sounds like everyone is just thinking that they have one income stream, which is £7 per subscription after apple takes its cut. But its not, as many customers are not doing it though the App Store. 

Something to bear in mind

[ARikozuM]

On 3/15/2019 at 3:52 AM, mr moose said:

 Is there a way to offer the sub to apple users without going through the app store?

On the Spotify website. 

[harryk]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not really a free market when Apple imposes fees on Spotify, which Apple themselves doesn't have to pay, no? 

It costs Apple money to host, serve, and advertise Apple Music or any other first party app. This is equivalent to charging Spotify fees to be available on the app store. The exact fair percentage to be cut is another question. 30/15% may or may not be reasonable, we'd have to see some detailed numbers to determine this, but I doubt it was chosen arbitrarily.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's kind of like if your ISP started charging extra for Netflix, which would result in either the ISP just taking a cut from Netflix profits, or Netflix having to raise the prise which would make the ISPs TV subscription more appealing. 

Heck, if my ISP can provide an equivalent or better streaming service than Netflix for cheaper then I'd subscribe

 

Netflix pays their internet bill like every other Tom, Dick, and Harry. The ISP's have overhead to cover for as well as the long term investment in infrastructure. This is analogous to Apple running the app store, selling iPhones, and essentially building a market for developers to sell their wares. There are overhead and regulation fees associated with every marketplace. If Apple were to ban Spotify from the App Store outright, that would be a huge issue, but asking them to pay their share of overhead is not.

 

2 hours ago, FlappyBoobs said:

The app store is not a free market at all, and that's the point. If apple can make their apps more attractive than competitors there would be no point in not using apple Apps on apple devices, which I would have no issue with if Microsoft hadn't been forced to be split up for the exact same reasons. Spotify cannot compete on price if they have a 30% initial overhead by default. 

 

And to the people saying that there are alternatives to apple on the mobile market, well there were also alternatives to Microsoft on the PC market, and they were still forced to seperate. 

Everyone keeps referring to Microsoft being split up but this never happened. The initial ruling was appealed and Microsoft settled with the DOJ. Besides some bruises and legal fees, Microsoft lost very little. The controversy and ruling didn't even have much of an impact. Every OS comes with a bundled web browser and has for a long time now.

[kirashi]

On 3/15/2019 at 12:52 AM, mr moose said:

The issue I have is that in order too offer a sub service on the app store they have to increase the cost of the sub to cover the apple charges.  This is like an extra tax just for being an apple customer.  Is there a way to offer the sub to apple users without going through the app store?

Spotify actually stopped allowing new subscriptions through the iTunes Store a long time ago for this very reason.

https://support.spotify.com/account_payment_help/subscription_information/spotify-through-the-app-store/