7 ms·

It's about the scale of your app. If you are small fish, going to the press isn't going to accomplish anything. Spotify can afford to press the matter. What wor

It's about the scale of your app. If you are small fish, going to the press isn't going to accomplish anything. Spotify can afford to press the matter. What worse can Apple do to them? Remove their app from the store? Spotify can afford to litigate against that kind of anti-competition.

Longhanks 10y ago
It's not anti competition. There are app guidelines which say "you mustn't work around iTunes payments". They exist since many, many years. Spotify chose to comply with them. Apple didn't suddenly change them. It's not anti competitive from Apple if Spotify NOW chooses to call them unfair. Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS. You either comply with the rules or you don't get to put your app on the App Store.
- SamBam 10y ago
  Such an argument didn't help Microsoft in their anticompetition suits. If "your" store is directly tied to other companies' livelihoods, and design "your" rules deliberately to hamper competition, there can be a strong argument for an anticompetition suit.
  - redial 10y ago
    The Microsoft situation is rather different. At the time they didn't make hardware and they where forcing pc manufacturers to preinstall certain applications on their computers thus distorting some markets. Apple makes their own devices, they are not forcing any OEM to include the App Store on their phones, or Safari or even Apple Music. And they are not forcing consumers to use the App Store either as there are other more popular choices. Walmart is tied directly to many companies' livelihoods. They still have the option to charge for the privilege of selling thru their stores and those companies have the option to refuse.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      If Walmart started preventing their suppliers from advertising their other distribution channels besides Walmart, there would be a huge problem. It appears you misunderstand the complaint.
      - redial 10y ago
        If the suppliers were promoting their other distribution channels inside Walmart you may have the shadow of a point. And don't get me wrong, I think Apple should allow Spotify or any one else to tell the customer, inside the App, that there are other ways to pay. I think it will create a healthier environment for all, including Apple, but I was just responding to op's comment.
        type0 10y ago
        > Apple should allow Spotify or any one else to tell the customer, inside the App, that there are other ways to pay. So it is anti-competitive then. It is not transparent to the consumer, all they see is that Spotify price increased 30%, for them its cheaper to subscribe to Apple iStream or whatever that called.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It's absolutely anti-competitive when Apple imposes a 30% tax on services which compete with their own services. If Apple imposed 30% equally across the board it would be one thing, but they get 100% (minus credit card fees) of Apple Music subscription money. Spotify is just calling it unfair now because Apple has just now started to reject their updates on the basis of this rule, even though Spotify didn't change anything related to this in the update in question.
  - rck404 10y ago
    More specifically, Apple started competing in that specific service domain. Apple wasn't into streaming business but, saw Spotify and entered with a 30% price advantage.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    I am wondering - how can Apple be non competitive here? I mean if they charge 30% that money will end up back in their own pockets.
    - Vendan 10y ago
      By not forcing Spotify to use apple for the payments? By not saying "You aren't allowed to tell people to pay on your site"?
      - denzil_correa 10y ago
        I don"t think Apple is forcing Spotify to use Apple for payments. The "you are not allowed to tell" seems to be a relatively new thing.
        developer2 10y ago
        You are forced to use Apple for payments. It's entirely stupid to say "well you don't have to let users pay in the app". Every single user expects to be able to pay by credit card on their phone - the phone is a bloody computer. Imagine if your desktop PC only allowed payments via a Microsoft service that charged the application developer 30%. This would NEVER happen, as the very concept is absolutely ridiculous. There is no technical reason to not allow an app developer to use an alternative like Stripe as their payment processor. Apple tries to sugarcoat it by using phrases like "seamless integration" for end users, never having to enter their credit card number. The reality is, it has nothing to do with user experience. It is 100% about getting that 30%. Nothing else. I accept a certain level of a walled garden by buying into the Apple ecosystem. I absolutely do not condone charging developers 30% for payment processing. I buy apps from the store, and developers get shafted just for that. I have never, and will never, perform an in-app purchase without first checking whether I can pay the company directly. I don't care if it's $9.99 in-app, and $9.99 on an external web site. I will ensure that I pay outside the app whenever possible. The problem is that the majority of users do not do this. And they shouldn't have to.
- makecheck 10y ago
  It’s not as simple as that though. If Apple provided any other way to put content on the device that you purchased, then maybe Apple can run their own store any way they please. In reality though, you’re not choosing the App Store over other stores; you have to use the App Store. This allows Apple to put itself in the middle of a transaction that arguably it has no business being involved in. If a person wants to do X with the device that he or she purchased (in this case, installing a new version of Spotify), there should be a supported way to do that even if Apple does not want to bless that version in their own store.
  - redial 10y ago
    That is not true. The Play Store, the Amazon AppStore and other smaller stores are all choices the consumer has at the time of purchase, and second there is the Web. You can buy on almost any online retailer with an iOS device and in fact iOS users rank consistently among the top spenders on the mobile web. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-users-outspend-android-users-christmas-says-ibm/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-users-outspend-andro...
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      The problem seems to be that Apple is preventing Spotify from promoting its own method of payment outside the App Store. It certainly seems like bullying to me as it seems like Spotify's speech is being limited (I realize the App Store is not subject to the 1st amendment, but limiting speech still bothers me).
      - redial 10y ago
        I agree with you completely, I was just responding to the original comment which in my opinion made a poor case defending Spotify, arguing for a monopoly case against Apple. I think the more relatable case, and the one that should be compared to, is the case against credit card rules that retailers should charge the same price whether or not a credit card is used. There are laws in some countries (and I believe some states in the US but I'm not sure) that prohibit credit card companies to enforce that rule.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > It's not anti competition. There are app guidelines which say "you mustn't work around iTunes payments" How is ditching In App subscription working around iTunes payments? > Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS. They still have to abide to laws

Longhanks 10y ago

It's not anti competition. There are app guidelines which say "you mustn't work around iTunes payments". They exist since many, many years. Spotify chose to comply with them. Apple didn't suddenly change them. It's not anti competitive from Apple if Spotify NOW chooses to call them unfair. Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS. You either comply with the rules or you don't get to put your app on the App Store.

SamBam 10y ago
Such an argument didn't help Microsoft in their anticompetition suits. If "your" store is directly tied to other companies' livelihoods, and design "your" rules deliberately to hamper competition, there can be a strong argument for an anticompetition suit.
- redial 10y ago
  The Microsoft situation is rather different. At the time they didn't make hardware and they where forcing pc manufacturers to preinstall certain applications on their computers thus distorting some markets. Apple makes their own devices, they are not forcing any OEM to include the App Store on their phones, or Safari or even Apple Music. And they are not forcing consumers to use the App Store either as there are other more popular choices. Walmart is tied directly to many companies' livelihoods. They still have the option to charge for the privilege of selling thru their stores and those companies have the option to refuse.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    If Walmart started preventing their suppliers from advertising their other distribution channels besides Walmart, there would be a huge problem. It appears you misunderstand the complaint.
    - redial 10y ago
      If the suppliers were promoting their other distribution channels inside Walmart you may have the shadow of a point. And don't get me wrong, I think Apple should allow Spotify or any one else to tell the customer, inside the App, that there are other ways to pay. I think it will create a healthier environment for all, including Apple, but I was just responding to op's comment.
      - type0 10y ago
        > Apple should allow Spotify or any one else to tell the customer, inside the App, that there are other ways to pay. So it is anti-competitive then. It is not transparent to the consumer, all they see is that Spotify price increased 30%, for them its cheaper to subscribe to Apple iStream or whatever that called.
mikeash 10y ago
It's absolutely anti-competitive when Apple imposes a 30% tax on services which compete with their own services. If Apple imposed 30% equally across the board it would be one thing, but they get 100% (minus credit card fees) of Apple Music subscription money. Spotify is just calling it unfair now because Apple has just now started to reject their updates on the basis of this rule, even though Spotify didn't change anything related to this in the update in question.
- rck404 10y ago
  More specifically, Apple started competing in that specific service domain. Apple wasn't into streaming business but, saw Spotify and entered with a 30% price advantage.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  I am wondering - how can Apple be non competitive here? I mean if they charge 30% that money will end up back in their own pockets.
  - Vendan 10y ago
    By not forcing Spotify to use apple for the payments? By not saying "You aren't allowed to tell people to pay on your site"?
    - denzil_correa 10y ago
      I don"t think Apple is forcing Spotify to use Apple for payments. The "you are not allowed to tell" seems to be a relatively new thing.
      - developer2 10y ago
        You are forced to use Apple for payments. It's entirely stupid to say "well you don't have to let users pay in the app". Every single user expects to be able to pay by credit card on their phone - the phone is a bloody computer. Imagine if your desktop PC only allowed payments via a Microsoft service that charged the application developer 30%. This would NEVER happen, as the very concept is absolutely ridiculous. There is no technical reason to not allow an app developer to use an alternative like Stripe as their payment processor. Apple tries to sugarcoat it by using phrases like "seamless integration" for end users, never having to enter their credit card number. The reality is, it has nothing to do with user experience. It is 100% about getting that 30%. Nothing else. I accept a certain level of a walled garden by buying into the Apple ecosystem. I absolutely do not condone charging developers 30% for payment processing. I buy apps from the store, and developers get shafted just for that. I have never, and will never, perform an in-app purchase without first checking whether I can pay the company directly. I don't care if it's $9.99 in-app, and $9.99 on an external web site. I will ensure that I pay outside the app whenever possible. The problem is that the majority of users do not do this. And they shouldn't have to.
makecheck 10y ago
It’s not as simple as that though. If Apple provided any other way to put content on the device that you purchased, then maybe Apple can run their own store any way they please. In reality though, you’re not choosing the App Store over other stores; you have to use the App Store. This allows Apple to put itself in the middle of a transaction that arguably it has no business being involved in. If a person wants to do X with the device that he or she purchased (in this case, installing a new version of Spotify), there should be a supported way to do that even if Apple does not want to bless that version in their own store.
- redial 10y ago
  That is not true. The Play Store, the Amazon AppStore and other smaller stores are all choices the consumer has at the time of purchase, and second there is the Web. You can buy on almost any online retailer with an iOS device and in fact iOS users rank consistently among the top spenders on the mobile web. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-users-outspend-android-users-christmas-says-ibm/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-users-outspend-andro...
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    The problem seems to be that Apple is preventing Spotify from promoting its own method of payment outside the App Store. It certainly seems like bullying to me as it seems like Spotify's speech is being limited (I realize the App Store is not subject to the 1st amendment, but limiting speech still bothers me).
    - redial 10y ago
      I agree with you completely, I was just responding to the original comment which in my opinion made a poor case defending Spotify, arguing for a monopoly case against Apple. I think the more relatable case, and the one that should be compared to, is the case against credit card rules that retailers should charge the same price whether or not a credit card is used. There are laws in some countries (and I believe some states in the US but I'm not sure) that prohibit credit card companies to enforce that rule.
Oletros 10y ago
> It's not anti competition. There are app guidelines which say "you mustn't work around iTunes payments" How is ditching In App subscription working around iTunes payments? > Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS. They still have to abide to laws