7 ms·

> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining t

by exwiki 8y ago

> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs. We think that’s wrong. I think that's a very hypothetical claim. > Let’s be clear about what that means. Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update their app. We share critical software development tools to support Spotify’s app building. And we built a secure payment system — no small undertaking — which allows users to have faith in in-app transactions. Spotify is asking to keep all those benefits while also retaining 100 percent of the revenue. I think we should be clear that Apple built the app-store ecosystem to improve its iPhone adoption and lock-in. And Spotify isn't asking to keep 100% of the revenue. Spotify is asking for a choice of letting users pay how they wish. The problem really is Apple wants to milk its App store ecosystem now that its popular and 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss for any significant player in that eco-system. And FWIW, Google provides a similar App store service, while also allowing users to what they choose with their phones (i.e., install side-loaded Apps).

zaidf 8y ago
> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, Apple makes Microsoft look like an angel. Using this argument, Microsoft could claim they could have made hundreds of billions if they got a cut out of every Windows app sale. Oh, and that those companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Windows.
- bad_user 8y ago
  Apple popularized trusted computing. And yes, it's as bad as we feared it would be back in the '90s.
  - nolok 8y ago
    Ehhh I feel like Unix/Linux popularized trusted computing, Apple merely added a price tag on it. But I may be blinded by my techie point of view about "popularized".
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > I may be blinded by my techie point of view about "popularized" Yeah, unfortunately it seems like we're still in the state where UNIX/Linux can't popularize anything, especially themselves, unless they're repackaged by someone else :(
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Apple popularized me not spending hours of time troubleshooting and restarting and letting me do what I want to do.
    - jeremy7600 8y ago
      Sad/angry/sick macs the world over would like a word with you.
- paavoova 8y ago
  Look at what Apple is doing to native integration [1]: Because it uses these deep integration APIs, we're only allowed to distribute the application using the macOS App Store (whose rejections, appeals, and eventual acceptance made for quite the stressful saga over the last week and a half) Imagine having to get certified by the Linux Foundation, under distribution clause, to access native Linux kernel APIs. But that's what the developer of Wiregaurd has to do to gain access to native macOS integration. [1] https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/003853.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/00...
  - zx2c4 8y ago
    In addition, Windows 10 requires that Microsoft approve and sign each kernel driver that's loaded, actually. https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/windows-driver-docs/blob/HEAD/windows-driver-docs-pr/install/kernel-mode-code-signing-policy--windows-vista-and-later-.md https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/windows-driver-docs/blob/HE...
- 013a 8y ago
  It doesn't seem like Apple said that Spotify wouldn't exist. Just that they wouldn't be the business they are today. Which is absolutely true of Microsoft as well. The sheer productivity boon that Office has added to businesses around the world is unmatched by practically any other piece of software ever written. Most of the businesses would still exist, but they wouldn't be the same business. Excel, Powerpoint, and Word are ridiculously important software.
nikanj 8y ago
I think Spotify was quite happy with _not_ keeping the in-app transactions, in exchange of paying a smaller cut to Apple.
taurath 8y ago
They can fuck right off with that rhetoric - businesses built and popular before the App Store get strongarmed in the same way.
RayVR 8y ago
They’re not milking anything. Apple has, as far as I know, always charged 30%. What has changed is the way we buy and pay for apps and services. Everyone wants to move to the subscription service model and Apple has developed rules accordingly.
- jraedisch 8y ago
  I thought the problem was, that their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own, if they choose to.
  - ulfw 8y ago
    But that's a too simple way to look at it. I am not trying to defend the 30%, but just saying 'their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own' doesn't go far enough. They got two options: a) make a 30% on $10/month from Spotify -> $3 in Apple's bag for no work or effort at all. Almost pure profit. b) sell their own music solution for $10/month (INSTEAD of that customer going to Spotify) and have to pay out X to musicians, companies, younameit. Higher hosting and streaming costs too. If X>$7/month Apple loses. If it's $7 Apple earns as much but no more than with option a), if it's less than $7/month only then Apple wins.
    - Sholmesy 8y ago
      $3 in Apple's bag for no work or effort at all I agree with most of what you said, but come on. Running (one of?) the biggest software distribution and payment processing systems on the planet is hardly "no work or effort at all". This is the same sort of rhetoric that calls dropbox a weekend project.
      - ulfw 8y ago
        True that. I agree with you. I overstated. There's credit card costs etc associated with that as well. Doubt it's $3/user per month though and the distribution costs are minimal (only downloads of app updates) compared to the streaming costs (which could be multiple GBs every month).
chj 8y ago
We can also say Apple Music wouldn't be the business today had Spotify not explored the business of music streaming years ahead. Now they just took the idea themselves and pretend that Spotify contributes nothing.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Realising you can make a great inexpensive product by paying a minuscule fraction for the content isn't exactly business innovation. The innovation was paving the way for artists to be stiffed; Apple had no choice but to compete in order to stay viable.
jhanschoo 8y ago
> And Spotify isn't asking to keep 100% of the revenue. Spotify is asking for a choice of letting users pay how they wish. But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams. I agree that Apple's article is more hostile than it needed to be, but it is only in response to an unreasonable attack by Spotify on Apple's IAP policies. Regarding the walled-garden App Store policies of Apple, it's not friendly to enthusiasts and some developers, but it is good for most Apple consumers, and helps less tech-savvy users trust Apple's App Store. Android has freer permissions on installing apps, because that is necessary for vendor adoption. However, it is unclear if this is still ultimately a better decision for consumers on aggregate.
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  > as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams And, just coincidentally, that 'protection' is very lucrative for Apple.
- abalone 8y ago
  > But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams. Give me a break. It doesn’t take 15-30% to implement a secure payment system. This is proven by Apple itself: Apple Pay charges very little for secure payments for physical goods.
  - Khanhanhan 8y ago
    Nothing stops you from implementing a secure payment system, installing it on devices bought by millions of wealthy consumers, making them trust you with their credit cards and... charging less.
  - mrunkel 8y ago
jbverschoor 8y ago
Have you ever tried getting a subscription with Spotify on an account linked to facebook, where the facebook account was disconnected? It is impossible to stop the subscription. No thank you, I will trust my payments with Apple.. Esp. subscriptions.
- matwood 8y ago
  This is something I think people miss. Almost every other company I have subscriptions with make them a pain to cancel. Subs through the App Store are easy to find and cancel. It's very consumer friendly. Plus as you said, I'm not a fan of giving every service I want to use my CC. Is that worth 30%/15%? I don't know. The fact that 15% exists shows that Apple is thinking about the pricing and adjusting. Apple just doesn't do anything quickly.
xvector 8y ago
> I think that's a very hypothetical claim. How is this is a hypothetical claim? It is blatantly obvious. Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace. Even now, desktop use constitutes a tiny fraction of their total users. It's not a hypothetical claim at all, really. > 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss Source? Because 30% / 15% is a common middleman commision for most platforms. > Google provides a similar App store service This is ridiculously far from the truth. Google's Play Store isn't curated in the least. Malware regularly pops up, the review process is effectively nonexistent, and the quality of apps on the Play Store is thus far below what one can get from the App Store. There are costs to reviewing every app. I don't think it's fair for you to say 30% is unfair unless you (a) compare the costs to other middlemen, and (b) figure out how expensive the review process and other infrastructure is. In general, all you really seem to be doing is promoting freeloading off the App Store. Utilize the benefits it provides, but have users pay for your service via a side-channel so you don't have to contribute back to the ecosystem.
- 00deadbeef 8y ago
  > Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace Spotify's earliest days were before smartphones. I had Spotify on my computers before they'd even released an iPhone app.
  - manojlds 8y ago
    This is response to Spotify's site which has the timeline - https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ Spotify launched on Desktop after the App Store launched.
    - patrickmcnamara 8y ago
      > Spotify launched on Desktop after the App Store launched. Your link seems to say the opposite.
      - manojlds 8y ago
shrimpx 8y ago
> Apple connects Spotify to our users. This is a bit of a ridiculous claim. From another perspective, an iPhone is just another way to access your favorite apps and content. Taken to more of an extreme, imagine Comcast or T-Mobile claiming that they provide users to Spotify... Apple is easily just a middle man here but they make themselves sound like the entity that owns the users and plugs them into apps. It's not like people buy iPhones just because they're shiny pieces of aluminum and glass, and using apps is secondary to that.
- nathan_long 8y ago
  This reminds me of the ISPs getting upset about the bandwidth they have to deliver on behalf of Netflix. "Our platform enables your app" is true in both cases. But so is "our app brings people to your platform." The power imbalance is that it's easier to build a competing app than a competing app store or ISP.
- have_faith 8y ago
  The 'our users' bit is actually one of the most annoying bits. As if anyone that uses iOS is under Apple's control as to what they are or aren't allowed to do or be exposed to. It reveals a lot about how they view their position in the relationship. Between them and users. As if when I download an app or game, Apple is bestowing me to the app developer.
- SilasX 8y ago
  That's right back to the net neutrality debate and the claim that ISP should charge prices that scale with customer profitability rather than network load.
damontal 8y ago
> Let’s be clear about what that means Is anyone else bugged by the "Let's be clear/To be clear" prefix that gets thrown around a lot these days? It seems unnecessary. If you're being clear then that will be self-evident. It seems like a way to preemptively trick the reader in to taking whatever follows as correct and authoritative.
- julianozen 8y ago
  I wonder if this is why it has become so popular https://www.politico.com/story/2009/08/obamas-catch-phrase-lets-be-clear-025675 https://www.politico.com/story/2009/08/obamas-catch-phrase-l...
kevin_b_er 8y ago
> And we built a secure payment system — no small undertaking — which allows users to have faith in in-app transactions. Which you mandate Spotify uses. This isn't an enumerable benefit to Spotify, it is the lock-in mechanism that makes the Apple Tax work.

by exwiki 8y ago

zaidf 8y ago

> Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, Apple makes Microsoft look like an angel. Using this argument, Microsoft could claim they could have made hundreds of billions if they got a cut out of every Windows app sale. Oh, and that those companies wouldn't exist if it weren't for Windows.

bad_user 8y ago
Apple popularized trusted computing. And yes, it's as bad as we feared it would be back in the '90s.
- nolok 8y ago
  Ehhh I feel like Unix/Linux popularized trusted computing, Apple merely added a price tag on it. But I may be blinded by my techie point of view about "popularized".
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > I may be blinded by my techie point of view about "popularized" Yeah, unfortunately it seems like we're still in the state where UNIX/Linux can't popularize anything, especially themselves, unless they're repackaged by someone else :(
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Apple popularized me not spending hours of time troubleshooting and restarting and letting me do what I want to do.
  - jeremy7600 8y ago
    Sad/angry/sick macs the world over would like a word with you.
paavoova 8y ago
Look at what Apple is doing to native integration [1]: Because it uses these deep integration APIs, we're only allowed to distribute the application using the macOS App Store (whose rejections, appeals, and eventual acceptance made for quite the stressful saga over the last week and a half) Imagine having to get certified by the Linux Foundation, under distribution clause, to access native Linux kernel APIs. But that's what the developer of Wiregaurd has to do to gain access to native macOS integration. [1] https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/003853.html https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-February/00...
- zx2c4 8y ago
  In addition, Windows 10 requires that Microsoft approve and sign each kernel driver that's loaded, actually. https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/windows-driver-docs/blob/HEAD/windows-driver-docs-pr/install/kernel-mode-code-signing-policy--windows-vista-and-later-.md https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/windows-driver-docs/blob/HE...
013a 8y ago
It doesn't seem like Apple said that Spotify wouldn't exist. Just that they wouldn't be the business they are today. Which is absolutely true of Microsoft as well. The sheer productivity boon that Office has added to businesses around the world is unmatched by practically any other piece of software ever written. Most of the businesses would still exist, but they wouldn't be the same business. Excel, Powerpoint, and Word are ridiculously important software.

nikanj 8y ago

I think Spotify was quite happy with _not_ keeping the in-app transactions, in exchange of paying a smaller cut to Apple.

taurath 8y ago

They can fuck right off with that rhetoric - businesses built and popular before the App Store get strongarmed in the same way.

RayVR 8y ago

They’re not milking anything. Apple has, as far as I know, always charged 30%. What has changed is the way we buy and pay for apps and services. Everyone wants to move to the subscription service model and Apple has developed rules accordingly.

jraedisch 8y ago
I thought the problem was, that their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own, if they choose to.
- ulfw 8y ago
  But that's a too simple way to look at it. I am not trying to defend the 30%, but just saying 'their own apps do not have to pay 30%, so they can easily replace any app with their own' doesn't go far enough. They got two options: a) make a 30% on $10/month from Spotify -> $3 in Apple's bag for no work or effort at all. Almost pure profit. b) sell their own music solution for $10/month (INSTEAD of that customer going to Spotify) and have to pay out X to musicians, companies, younameit. Higher hosting and streaming costs too. If X>$7/month Apple loses. If it's $7 Apple earns as much but no more than with option a), if it's less than $7/month only then Apple wins.
  - Sholmesy 8y ago
    $3 in Apple's bag for no work or effort at all I agree with most of what you said, but come on. Running (one of?) the biggest software distribution and payment processing systems on the planet is hardly "no work or effort at all". This is the same sort of rhetoric that calls dropbox a weekend project.
    - ulfw 8y ago
      True that. I agree with you. I overstated. There's credit card costs etc associated with that as well. Doubt it's $3/user per month though and the distribution costs are minimal (only downloads of app updates) compared to the streaming costs (which could be multiple GBs every month).

chj 8y ago

We can also say Apple Music wouldn't be the business today had Spotify not explored the business of music streaming years ahead. Now they just took the idea themselves and pretend that Spotify contributes nothing.

sjwright 8y ago
Realising you can make a great inexpensive product by paying a minuscule fraction for the content isn't exactly business innovation. The innovation was paving the way for artists to be stiffed; Apple had no choice but to compete in order to stay viable.

jhanschoo 8y ago

> And Spotify isn't asking to keep 100% of the revenue. Spotify is asking for a choice of letting users pay how they wish. But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams. I agree that Apple's article is more hostile than it needed to be, but it is only in response to an unreasonable attack by Spotify on Apple's IAP policies. Regarding the walled-garden App Store policies of Apple, it's not friendly to enthusiasts and some developers, but it is good for most Apple consumers, and helps less tech-savvy users trust Apple's App Store. Android has freer permissions on installing apps, because that is necessary for vendor adoption. However, it is unclear if this is still ultimately a better decision for consumers on aggregate.

spiderfarmer 8y ago
> as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams And, just coincidentally, that 'protection' is very lucrative for Apple.
abalone 8y ago
> But users can pay how they wish, if Spotify didn't mind the 30%/15% cut. Spotify simply can't direct users to use their website to use an alternative payment system. I think that is a very reasonable policy for an app store, as it protects its users from poorly implemented financial info handling and scams. Give me a break. It doesn’t take 15-30% to implement a secure payment system. This is proven by Apple itself: Apple Pay charges very little for secure payments for physical goods.
- Khanhanhan 8y ago
  Nothing stops you from implementing a secure payment system, installing it on devices bought by millions of wealthy consumers, making them trust you with their credit cards and... charging less.
- mrunkel 8y ago

jbverschoor 8y ago

Have you ever tried getting a subscription with Spotify on an account linked to facebook, where the facebook account was disconnected? It is impossible to stop the subscription. No thank you, I will trust my payments with Apple.. Esp. subscriptions.

matwood 8y ago
This is something I think people miss. Almost every other company I have subscriptions with make them a pain to cancel. Subs through the App Store are easy to find and cancel. It's very consumer friendly. Plus as you said, I'm not a fan of giving every service I want to use my CC. Is that worth 30%/15%? I don't know. The fact that 15% exists shows that Apple is thinking about the pricing and adjusting. Apple just doesn't do anything quickly.

xvector 8y ago

> I think that's a very hypothetical claim. How is this is a hypothetical claim? It is blatantly obvious. Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace. Even now, desktop use constitutes a tiny fraction of their total users. It's not a hypothetical claim at all, really. > 30% / 15% is a very steep price / revenue loss Source? Because 30% / 15% is a common middleman commision for most platforms. > Google provides a similar App store service This is ridiculously far from the truth. Google's Play Store isn't curated in the least. Malware regularly pops up, the review process is effectively nonexistent, and the quality of apps on the Play Store is thus far below what one can get from the App Store. There are costs to reviewing every app. I don't think it's fair for you to say 30% is unfair unless you (a) compare the costs to other middlemen, and (b) figure out how expensive the review process and other infrastructure is. In general, all you really seem to be doing is promoting freeloading off the App Store. Utilize the benefits it provides, but have users pay for your service via a side-channel so you don't have to contribute back to the ecosystem.

00deadbeef 8y ago
> Spotify's early days were entirely dependent on the mobile marketplace Spotify's earliest days were before smartphones. I had Spotify on my computers before they'd even released an iPhone app.
- manojlds 8y ago
  This is response to Spotify's site which has the timeline - https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ Spotify launched on Desktop after the App Store launched.
  - patrickmcnamara 8y ago
    > Spotify launched on Desktop after the App Store launched. Your link seems to say the opposite.
    - manojlds 8y ago

shrimpx 8y ago

> Apple connects Spotify to our users. This is a bit of a ridiculous claim. From another perspective, an iPhone is just another way to access your favorite apps and content. Taken to more of an extreme, imagine Comcast or T-Mobile claiming that they provide users to Spotify... Apple is easily just a middle man here but they make themselves sound like the entity that owns the users and plugs them into apps. It's not like people buy iPhones just because they're shiny pieces of aluminum and glass, and using apps is secondary to that.

nathan_long 8y ago
This reminds me of the ISPs getting upset about the bandwidth they have to deliver on behalf of Netflix. "Our platform enables your app" is true in both cases. But so is "our app brings people to your platform." The power imbalance is that it's easier to build a competing app than a competing app store or ISP.
have_faith 8y ago
The 'our users' bit is actually one of the most annoying bits. As if anyone that uses iOS is under Apple's control as to what they are or aren't allowed to do or be exposed to. It reveals a lot about how they view their position in the relationship. Between them and users. As if when I download an app or game, Apple is bestowing me to the app developer.
SilasX 8y ago
That's right back to the net neutrality debate and the claim that ISP should charge prices that scale with customer profitability rather than network load.

damontal 8y ago

> Let’s be clear about what that means Is anyone else bugged by the "Let's be clear/To be clear" prefix that gets thrown around a lot these days? It seems unnecessary. If you're being clear then that will be self-evident. It seems like a way to preemptively trick the reader in to taking whatever follows as correct and authoritative.

julianozen 8y ago
I wonder if this is why it has become so popular https://www.politico.com/story/2009/08/obamas-catch-phrase-lets-be-clear-025675 https://www.politico.com/story/2009/08/obamas-catch-phrase-l...

kevin_b_er 8y ago

> And we built a secure payment system — no small undertaking — which allows users to have faith in in-app transactions. Which you mandate Spotify uses. This isn't an enumerable benefit to Spotify, it is the lock-in mechanism that makes the Apple Tax work.