4 ms·
> only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users. That's the point. This is clearly because they removed the ability to subscribe in the app to avoid paying tho
by benhurmarcel 6y ago
> only paid the 15% on 0.5% of the App's users.
That's the point.
This is clearly because they removed the ability to subscribe in the app to avoid paying those 15%. So the rule imposed by Apple is costing them subscribers, all those who would have subscribed if it was available in the app (or even just if they could be informed about how to subscribe).
The fact that Spotify has barely no customer who subscribe through their app is showing that there's anticompetitive behavior. In a healthy market they would have a share there.
- rstupek 6y agoOr most of Spotify's users want the free ad supported version?
- halostatue 6y agoI don’t necessarily think that’s the case. I haven’t ever subscribed to Spotify because I don’t see any _value_ in Spotify as opposed to what I get from Apple Music. I’m smart enough to know how to subscribe to Spotify from the web. (There are other services like Pandora I would have paid for, in or out of the App Store, had they been available in my jurisdiction. Spotify just never interested me.) I know that makes me an outlier, but it seems to me that Spotify has a much heftier case to make that they’re _missing_ customers because of Apple’s payment rules. I personally don’t want alternative app stores; they will reduce the security and trustworthiness of the iOS platform. I do think that Apple should be reviewing its app / in-app purchase pricing, and I do think that there is a market access concern problem. I don’t have any good answers for it, because I _do_ think that some of the actions criticized have been net positives.