4 ms·

From apples blog "And developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules." This is

From apples blog "And developers, from first-time engineers to larger companies, can rest assured that everyone is playing by the same set of rules." This is the key issue spotify has, Apple music is not playing by the same rules, in fact their monopoly on the app store its undermining Spotifies fair competition. Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple tax which makes it hugely cheaper. If Spotify dodge the tax to make it able to compete on price, then Apple then abuse the monopoly it has on the store to prevent Spotify from advertising a premium option, it prevents them from offering or completeing the upgrade, it prevents them from linking to a landing page to describe Spotify business model, it prevents them fron doing anything or Apple will pull the app off the store. The only way Spotify could "compete" if it takes the 30% on the chin, dramatically reduce its profits and investment it can make compared to Apple Music and it will be bullied down. There are other arguments here to with Apple slapping restrictions on Spotify, not allowing for years to release an Apple Watch app etc but they are grey.

xvector 8y ago
> Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple tax which makes it hugely cheaper. ...as is the case with every native app? Notes doesn't have to pay the same tax as paid notes apps, for example. The only solution here to establish "fairness" as you want it is to abolish any marketplace fees entirely, and that's pretty nonsensical, given that 15%/30% isn't a bad fee as far as middlemen go. > prevents them from linking to a landing page to describe Spotify business model, it prevents them fron doing anything or Apple will pull the app off the store. And so every single app would simply link to an external payment system. The App Store would cease to generate any meaningful revenue. Apps would freeload off of an expensive and involved review process, reaping all of their benefits, while not contributing back to the service or platform which allows them to exist in the first place.
- tasubotadas 8y ago
  > while not contributing back to the service or platform which allows them to exist in the first place. If that's such an unbearable burden, they are free to close it down. I am pretty sure that in no time we would see GetJar-like stores popping up.
- kelnos 8y ago
  Apple has chosen to be the sole gatekeeper of what runs on the phone. That choice has costs, costs which Apple should bear. Before Apple's IAP system existed, Apple didn't seem too worried about the App Store not generating enough revenue to keep them afloat. > reaping all of their benefits, while not contributing back to the service or platform which allows them to exist in the first place. Please, you're acting like Apple is providing the App Store out of the goodness of their hearts. No, they do it because a healthy app ecosystem drives iPhone sales, and the lack of such would destroy the iPhone's viability as a product. It's a symbiotic relationship: the app developers benefit by having a place to sell their wares, and Apple benefits by having apps that their users want and need available on their platform. Except that Apple is abusing their end of the deal by engaging in anti-competitive behavior in some app categories.
- life_of_sigh 8y ago
  > The only solution here to establish "fairness" as you want it is to abolish any marketplace fees entirely Or the owner + controller of a market place shouldn't be allowed to enter the market place and abuse their controlling position to surpress competition. Financial market places have many regulations like this. So perhaps the solution as some propose is that Apple Music should be broken off into a seperate company and then will have to pay the 30% charge and compete freely on the same grounds as spotify as Apple falsly protestest it does. Other one is that alowing alternative app store so that there is not a monopoly and that 30% price can actually have some competition to find a more realistic level. But Apple would never do any of those, they dont want fair competition and love their lockins. The alternative thought as well, I payed for a phone I should be able to buy aftermarket apps for it without having to give apple a 30% cut for everything I buy.

xvector 8y ago

> Its undermining it becuase Apple Music a direct competitor of Spotify effectivly doesnt pay the 30% Apple tax which makes it hugely cheaper. ...as is the case with every native app? Notes doesn't have to pay the same tax as paid notes apps, for example. The only solution here to establish "fairness" as you want it is to abolish any marketplace fees entirely, and that's pretty nonsensical, given that 15%/30% isn't a bad fee as far as middlemen go. > prevents them from linking to a landing page to describe Spotify business model, it prevents them fron doing anything or Apple will pull the app off the store. And so every single app would simply link to an external payment system. The App Store would cease to generate any meaningful revenue. Apps would freeload off of an expensive and involved review process, reaping all of their benefits, while not contributing back to the service or platform which allows them to exist in the first place.

tasubotadas 8y ago
> while not contributing back to the service or platform which allows them to exist in the first place. If that's such an unbearable burden, they are free to close it down. I am pretty sure that in no time we would see GetJar-like stores popping up.
kelnos 8y ago
Apple has chosen to be the sole gatekeeper of what runs on the phone. That choice has costs, costs which Apple should bear. Before Apple's IAP system existed, Apple didn't seem too worried about the App Store not generating enough revenue to keep them afloat. > reaping all of their benefits, while not contributing back to the service or platform which allows them to exist in the first place. Please, you're acting like Apple is providing the App Store out of the goodness of their hearts. No, they do it because a healthy app ecosystem drives iPhone sales, and the lack of such would destroy the iPhone's viability as a product. It's a symbiotic relationship: the app developers benefit by having a place to sell their wares, and Apple benefits by having apps that their users want and need available on their platform. Except that Apple is abusing their end of the deal by engaging in anti-competitive behavior in some app categories.
life_of_sigh 8y ago
> The only solution here to establish "fairness" as you want it is to abolish any marketplace fees entirely Or the owner + controller of a market place shouldn't be allowed to enter the market place and abuse their controlling position to surpress competition. Financial market places have many regulations like this. So perhaps the solution as some propose is that Apple Music should be broken off into a seperate company and then will have to pay the 30% charge and compete freely on the same grounds as spotify as Apple falsly protestest it does. Other one is that alowing alternative app store so that there is not a monopoly and that 30% price can actually have some competition to find a more realistic level. But Apple would never do any of those, they dont want fair competition and love their lockins. The alternative thought as well, I payed for a phone I should be able to buy aftermarket apps for it without having to give apple a 30% cut for everything I buy.