9 ms·
Holding Apple Accountable: The Future of the Internet Economy Depends on It
- whiddershins 3y agoI don’t see Spotify making any suggestion of a solution that addresses their concerns without boxing Apple out of the payment process entirely. I get why what Apple has in place is onerous. I also see that Apple needs to get paid somehow. So what’s the third option? Edit: My vote for the third option has always been, and remains, allowing of side loading apps. And this can be only for users who enable it. But it seems like this solves every complaint people have about the App Store.
- _the_inflator 3y agoI side with you. A bit tongue in cheek, the 3rd option will probably this here: sooner or later this is going to end in another anti-trust trial or at least here in Europe, in a another regulation attempt.
- sleepybrett 3y agoMaybe they can look at how much spotify pays the artists who are literally their only product as well. They want to complain about apple rent seeking with part of their businees when their entire business is rent seeking. They can fuck off.
- Veuxdo 3y ago> I also see that Apple needs to get paid somehow. What makes Apple entitled to a cut of Spotify's revenue?
- etchalon 3y agoWhat makes Walmart entitled to a cut of General Mills revenue?
- Veuxdo 3y agoThey're a retailer...?
- etchalon 3y agoAnd what do you think the App Store is?
- Veuxdo 3y agoIt's not a retail store. The App Store does not purchase, hold, and resell inventory from wholesalers. These are necessary functions to be considered retail.
- etchalon 3y agoYou do not seem to know how retail works, and have created an arbitrary definition of it to exclude the App Store.
- menus 3y agoWhat is your definition of retail?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoI checked Wikipedia and it had a pretty terse definition: the sale of goods and services to consumers. I have to agree with GP that another definition seems to have been selected for the sake of excluding the App Store. Whether or not one thinks they deserve a 30% cut, Apple definitely works to make sure the App Store can at least deliver the application to the hardware and their interfaces ultimately bring Spotify's interface to the user. That fairly reasonably fits in with "the sale of goods and services to consumers". In-app purchases are more arguable (keep in mind it necessarily uses Apple Pay) but this thinking that the App Store is not comparable to retail seems to be a little narrow-minded.
- 3y ago
- whiddershins 3y agoWhat makes Spotify entitled to be on Apple’s App Store? I think the third way is to allow side loading apps.
- doctorpangloss 3y agoBecause they do the expensive work of marketing and making a phone that appeals to rich people, who actually spend money on stuff. Spotify isn’t giving Apple a cut of revenue per se, so much as it’s spending money on ads for a specific audience in a specific way. I suppose Google too could make Android phones more attractive.
- Veuxdo 3y agoI had no idea Apple advertises on behalf of Spotify. Thanks for this. Do you have any examples?
- danans 3y agoI think the parent was implying that they advertise for Spotify in the same way that your local grocery advertises bags of Doritos, not that there is some explicit advertising relationship going on.
- blibble 3y agodon't really see how spotify are different to apple it's another middleman taking a cut
- fipar 3y agoThey're not entitled, and neither is Spotify entitled to sell on the app store on terms they want. It's just a business transaction. It either works for both sides, or it doesn't. It's understandable that Spotify doesn't want to pay that cut, and they can try what they're trying, or also just leave the app store. Speaking of entitlements, they're also not entitled to influence on small countries law makers, but they can try what they're trying with that too: https://www.bloomberglinea.com/english/spotify-threatens-to-pull-out-of-uruguay-if-changes-to-copyright-law-proceed/ https://www.bloomberglinea.com/english/spotify-threatens-to-...
- zshrc 3y agoSounds like a lot of complaining. For the record, Apple Music pays artist more.
- menus 3y agohttps://www.macworld.com/article/225763/how-taylor-swift-convinced-apple-to-switch-gears-on-music-streaming.html https://www.macworld.com/article/225763/how-taylor-swift-con...
- nerdo 3y agoWas the 30% of everyone's revenue ever explained? Why not 90%? Were they looking at common tax fractions, Laffer curve, etc?
- doctorpangloss 3y agoI don’t know. Everyone wants the good audience, aka the audience that spends money, aka the iOS audience, but for cheaper. It used to be that you got to that audience by doing something deplorable for a Hollywood film producer or a newspaper publisher in New York. Now you “just” have to pay a 30% fee. It turns out that deplorable acts scale a lot worse than eCommerce. And in my opinion, the deplorable approach denied us a lot more unique creative output than the 30% model does. Spotify is right, sure. But these sorts of monopolies on audiences have existed forever.
- freejazz 3y ago>-Tell customers what our prices are to upgrade Premium membership options; surely if I upgrade it tells me the price before I purchase the upgrade? they are complaining that they can't advertise it in the app? >-Let our customers request an email or other communication telling them about the ways they can save money; seems like "let our customers request" is doing a lot of work here >-Provide our customers with different payment options beyond what Apple mandates (e.g. a credit card or PayPal, etc.); or ah, so no crypto? >-Deliver new product enhancements or introduce new features to our customers without Apple’s explicit approval. so they don't want to have to be approved to be on the app store... aside from the fee, these are the fundamental complaints they list. seems a bit whiny imo.
- johneth 3y ago> surely if I upgrade it tells me the price before I purchase the upgrade? they are complaining that they can't advertise it in the app? You're basically not allowed to list your prices or describe how to subscribe (unless it's via Apple's in-app purchases, where they take 30% for doing nothing). > ah, so no crypto? No, and no credit/debit cards, PayPal, etc. either. Only Apple's in-app purchases are allowed on Apple platforms. You're not allowed to hint that other payment options are available, either.
- freejazz 3y ago>You're basically not allowed to list your prices or describe how to subscribe (unless it's via Apple's in-app purchases, where they take 30% for doing nothing). I'm not here to argue the app store pricing, it's been discussed to death. that being said, I disagree with you that they do nothing. >No, and no credit/debit cards, PayPal, etc. either. Only Apple's in-app purchases are allowed on Apple platforms. You're not allowed to hint that other payment options are available, either. How do you think people pay for things on the app store if not with a credit or debit card? You can also use paypal (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202631 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202631). Seems like you are just going off your own misunderstanding of Spotify's phrasing. As to the other options, that seems consistent with not being able to market off-app purchase options. What would those other payment options be, btw? I just checked and on their website they only take credit cards and paypal...
- ecshafer 3y agoIf I write an app for the app store and sell it for $10, apple gets $3. If I sell it for $5, apple gets $1.5. If I sell a subscription for $10/month they get $3 a month. Apple's work is the same for all of these. Their monopolistic position is how they can demand a pretty exorbitant 30% cut. Walmart, Costco, et al wish they had a 30% profit on everything the sold. For the record I don't even really like Spotify that much, I don't use the app nor am I subscribed. I do like my iphone but Apple is in the wrong here.
- supportengineer 3y agoAren't you free to use Android instead?
- realusername 3y agoWhich has the exact same pricing structure?
- aaroninsf 3y agoWhich suggests it is not in fact an Apple problem.
- realusername 3y agoWell no, it's a duopoly problem.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoSort of. One can use an alternate store on Android. Otherwise I would see google in the same boat. Apple could allow such side-loading but I kinda get the feeling they don't want to take the revenue hit. (I know arguments appealing to user security; it's hard to ignore the convenience of these arguments with regard to them retaining revenue.)
- goosedragons 3y agoJust potentially throw away hundreds or thousands of dollars in purchases for apps/IAPs and related things! FFS there isn't even a way to watch videos purchased on iTunes on Android so if I want to watch my copy of Futurama on a phone, it has to be an iPhone ( and for those in the U.S, "Movies Anywhere" doesn't exist outside it and I have no idea if that even applies to TV).
- sleepybrett 3y agoWait is this seriously spotify complaining? Spotify who is fucked every band and musical act on the planet. They can fuck, and I mean this, all the way off.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago> Spotify who is fucked every band and musical act on the planet. I have not really thought about this much until you brought it up, could you share some data in this regard? How much has the revenue of record labels declined since Spotify became prominent? I can't find good stats about that, I can just see the recorded music industry revenue has grown quite substantially and consistently since they came on the market, and was in decline before they came on the market [1]. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272305/global-revenue-of-the-music-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272305/global-revenue-of...
- freejazz 3y agoThe labels aren't the musicians
- flanked-evergl 3y agoThey are not Spotify either though and I am not sure how Spotify is responsible for their relationship with musicians.
- jannw 3y agoLabels ARE shareholders in Spotify. There is absolutely a conflict of interest regarding how Spotify handles its rights/royalties negotiations when the licensees are an oligopoly, who derive value from both sides of the transaction, and represent downstream beneficiaries who have no say in the deal struck or prices paid. Spotify and Labels together screw musicians, acting separately, and together.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
- baz00 3y agoCorporate tears are so salty.
- karaterobot 3y agoIt would be wrong to dismiss an argument just because of who is making it. Spotify's argument here has merit. It is also wrong—though in a different sense—for Spotify not to acknowledge the irony of them complaining about Apple being a middleman who takes a cut of the work of creative people when that is also their own business model.
- aaroninsf 3y agoSomething something Joe Rogan.
- drcongo 3y agoPay the artists properly, stop spending money on military tech, then I might listen. I release music on every platform except Spotify, they're a nasty, grubby little company.
- redleggedfrog 3y agoOh what? Pot meet kettle. Pretending to not be in it for the dough is ingenuous. They don't pay artists well and they have a near monopoly hold on music streaming such that they have no impetus to fix their abysmal software. Just admit you want a bigger slice of the pie and not like you're saving the internet.
- nektro 3y ago[flagged]
- mjamesaustin 3y agoThe biggest issue is that Apple can compete directly with companies like Spotify without playing by any of the rules they force on their competitors. The owner of a marketplace should not be able to compete on that marketplace without strict separation of power. Apple has huge advantages compared to Spotify when it can advertise any way it wants, doesn't pay commission fees, and can give itself priority for integration with systems like Siri.
- imchillyb 3y agoYou’re treading on thin ice here. Every retail chain has in house brands. Your rule change would affect every retailer, grocer, technology company in the USA; negatively. Profits in other areas don’t come close to profits from their own brands.
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoYet when you go to your local Walmart you don't need to go through extra hoops to buy non-house brand stuff. In fact, the non-house brand stuff is actually displayed MORE prominently.
- imchillyb 3y agoBecause, and hear me out here, those companies /pay$/ Wally for that opportunity, that end cap, that big glowing sign… Which do you think nets them more money in that case? The one time Wally- tissue purchase, oooor…. The contract with Charmin? See, Wally gets to feed from both troughs. Oink oink.
- imchillyb 3y agoSpotify… poor, we don’t fairly pay the artists, Spotify. Don’t like the market? Build one. Don’t like the devices? Build one. Don’t like Apple’s walled garden? Build your own. Just like the federal judge told Epic: ‘The marketplace allows you to build a competing service, do so. Also, you signed a contract. Heed it.’
- rumori 3y agoSpotify does the exact same thing to its third party developers. They took away the possibility to play their content in third party apps without having to bounce back and forth to the Spotify app. That too is a horrible user experience, yet they didn't have any problem with it. They also leave reasonable questions and bug reports unanswered on their developer forums for _years_. While I agree with some of their points, it really is hard to root for them as a company.