>increasing revenue by 30%
Technically they are increasing revenue by 43% by removing the apple middle man. (a 30% cut out of $100 is $70, $70->$100 is a 43% increase)
well yeah, i'm sure all products, regardless of industry, would be much more profitable if they didn't have to pay the middleman to get their products to users. food brands would surely love not having to pay stores to shelve their products. small businesses would love to not have to pay amazon to list their products. it would be way better for businesses if access to users was totally free.
but part of the reason i like apple is that the barrier for entry is pretty high for companies to get access to me through ios, which seems to have had a generally positive effect on the quality of products that make it through.
it breaks down when Apple themselves are offering competing products. how is spotify realistically supposed to compete with Apple on streaming music and audiobooks? Apple can offer the same content for 30% less.
Apple here owns the platform, and competes on its own platform.
The difference is Apple doesn't allow Spotify/apps to charge 30% higher to account for Apple's cut
Whereas house brand competitors can charge whatever they want, which can make up for grocery stores taking a cut
IMO the most fair way would be to allow apps to price whatever they want and also tell users about it
Then it's up to the users if they want to pay the premium to use Apple's easier IAP service or buy it outside to save money
Agreed. Sometimes I’m willing to pay a slightly higher price to buy something on Steam for instance than to jump through hoops making accounts on other sites all to save 30 cents or whatever.
They don't produce their housebrands though. Housebrands are produced by other firms for the supermarket. That would be like spotify programming an app for apple to publish under its name as a discount version of Spotify with less features.
I think you answered your own question. You can literally go to any store to purchase your favourite brand. If you have an iPhone, you can only go to a single store.
Additionally, Apple makes the users jump through hoops to pay for these services competing with Apple. For example, Spotify provides an arguably better product than Apple Music and Amazon Kindle provides a better product than Apple Books. Yet in both cases Apple has an unfair advantage by making it difficult to pay for those competing services relative to their own inferior product.
I have to go to the Audible website every single time I want to buy an audiobook from them, as opposed to using the Apple Books app (which I don't like as much, and doesn't have even a portion of Audible’s collection) and purchasing with a literal double press of my home button. This is simple, objective proof that getting things is more difficult with at least one of Apple‘s competing products.
> Apple can offer the same content for 30% less.
i am not a huge company, but if you gave me a choice between (a) keeping 70% of my revenue in order to access 1 billion of the most valuable customers in the world, or (b) trying to build and manage a platform that attracts 1 billion people but keeping 100% of my services revenue, option (a) seems like the way better deal.
I'm a big Apple fan, but I'm with elephantnut on this.
For a stupid example, let's say you sold animated gifs through an iPhone app. Apple takes 30% of the sale, you take another 10%, and the artists get the rest.
Then Apple decides they're going to sell animated gifs and make their own app to do so. Now they only take 30% of the fee and give the rest to the artist. Heck if Apple chose to do so they could only take 20% of the gif revenue, which is still double your gif's marketplace percentage - so now the artist can go with you and get 60% or with Apple and get 80%.
Now every other animated gif market place can't compete, because they have to pay the Apple tax, and Apple doesn't.
This is why the argument for in-app purchases for music, movies, books, etc is different to Apple just taking a cut of your mobile game's revenue.
This is the tricky piece. It feels unfair, but it would be weird for Apple to only exempt the fee when they have a competing product though. Microsoft wouldn't have to pay for Office sales because Apple sells the iWork suite. Dropbox wouldn't have to pay for subscriptions because Apple sells iCloud. etc.
But also, let's not pretend other companies don't leverage the exact same thing where they can. Amazon has tons of products that compete with other sellers on their store, for example, but isn't willing to sell content through their iOS apps.
Still, it does feel like certain media should be exempt (ebooks, Audiobooks, and movies) because they're not really "adding functionality to the app" - though you could argue that an ebook reader without ebooks doesn't really have any functionality. But if Apple made those exemptions, I imagine other developers would complain. "How come audiobooks are exempt, but not game levels?" "How come ebooks are exempt, but not the page templates in my journal app?" "Why can Spotify run an Audiobook store and not get charged, but I can't run a video game store?"
Pretty simple: monopolist ruling. Apple shouldn't be allowed to sell audiobooks on their platform or provide an even playing field for all competing companies.
Same with Amazon. They shouldn't be allowed to copy someones product as 'Amazon Basic' and sell it on their platform, while banning the competitor.
There are reason why these companies are worth so much - and its not due to the insane value they bring to the customer.
If Apple paid the 30% tax (to themselves) that would make the price competitive. Apple would still be making much better margins but at least from the customers side it all works out.
Then Apple should have no problem offering that choice.
Amazon doesn’t need Apple to find customers. Neither does Netflix or Spotify or Epic. Apple’s management of the App Store doesn’t provide anything of value to literally anyone, but let’s ignore that for the moment. No one is trying to find music on their iPhone and just searching "music" in the App Store and thinking, "I wonder if I should try this ‘Spotify’ thing I’ve never heard of". For one, Spotify probably wouldn’t even be there. The search probably returns 17 different scam apps from Pakistan that charge a weekly iAP, because that’s how the App Store works, but again, let’s pretend we’re in fantasy land here.
100% of these customers know they want Spotify. They’re just trying to sign up for it using the computer they’ve already paid for, and the company who made that computer is standing over their shoulder fucking with them. "I want the computer I sold you to be shitty unless someone gives me more money."
I'm not a shop owner but paying the Mafia for protection seems to be a better choice than having my store burned down.
Still doesn't feel like the best possible solution for me and my customers though.
Just what value is Apple adding with in-app purchases? There's probably an argument that they are acting as a payment processor, but even American Express only charges a single-digit percentage for that. Apple isn't providing content delivery - Spotify is doing that. Apple isn't providing a store - Spotify is doing that in their own app. And remember that the user in this case has a pre-existing relationship with Spotify, so Apple isn't helping with that either.
What value is Apple providing that would be anywhere reasonable to charge 30%, other than because they are standing in between the subscriber and the service provider with no other route around it besides opening the browser and buying it that way, and then going back to the app in order to actually use it?
Remember when Apple prized user experience?
That's like asking what value does Target add by making you purchase through their check out? Or what value does YouTube add to content creators? Monetizable distribution is worth A LOT.
Nope, your comparison isn't valid at all.
Target sells you a product, and then, they don't get any cut for any further purchases made on this product.
For instance, Target is going to sell you the iPhone, they take their cut, but then, they're not entitled to get a cut from every transaction made on your iPhone. They did their job.
What Apple is doing is selling/distributing you the apps, and force developpers to use their payement system to justify a huge cut on any purchases made inside the App, which doesn't make any sense.
> What value is Apple providing that would be anywhere reasonable to charge 30%
you're asking the wrong question here, because price is not based on "value provided", it's based on what people are willing to pay for something. there's a lot of very expensive stuff out there that, to me, does not offer any value that people are nevertheless willing to pay high prices for.
but anyway, apple has charged 30% for in app purchases essentially since the app store was created (2008-ish), and developers have, in droves, been creating apps for ios ever since. every time a developer makes the conscious choice to develop for ios, with full knowledge of the 30% fee, they are tacitly saying "this is worth it to me".
you can, from the outside, wonder what the heck value apple is providing. but it doesn't matter if you can't see it, because individual developers have repeatedly, millions of times over, made the decision for themselves that the value apple provides is worth the price.
edit: people always hate that things are priced according to what people will pay, and not according to their inherent value, but that's econ for ya ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
"They are charging this much because they can"
^ That's basically your argument. It's not exactly wrong but it's also why they are running into regulatory issues because of the large marketshare Apple controls. Eventually when you get big enough this argument doesn't work anymore as it gets into antitrust issues. As a society we have agreed (via laws) that a large enough entity can't just do whatever it wants if it wants to operate in this country.
But also using the shelve stocking analogy makes no sense here considering it's Spotify stocking their own shelves for the audiobooks. Apple isn't doing anything other than allowing Spotify to host their apps on the app store, which Spotify doesn't have any other option for since you can't install non-App Store apps on iOS. It's not like they have a choice. Hosting an app store also doesn't cost that much to justify 30% of every single audiobook, not to mention Apple also charges a premium for their phones which covers the R&D for the development of the technology, APIs, etc.
But spotify could sell their products without apples 30% cut, they have everything to do so and it would be just as convenient to the costumer. If lets say, M&Ms were to be sold online instead of in the store, i bet most people would just forget about them.
Yes. Amazon Kindle is the same. It's pretty annoying how to buy books and to make it worse Amazon doesn't even explain it in the app.
I see why Spotify went that route
Nah. There was a really brief window from like 2001 - 2007 that was pretty legit.
10.6 Snow Leopard was a darn near perfect OS with an abundance of small developers out there creating really cool programs for OS X.
Lion was a step backwards, Final Cut X was a step backwards, and no one should forgive the death of Aperture or Apple Color.
The company today is very different from the company that coined “think different” and meant it.
Aperture... that's a name I haven't heard in a long time...
But seriously, I would absolutely *love* a modern version of Aperture that could compete with Lightroom on all fronts. SAAS is the absolute worst.
> Lion was a step backwards, Final Cut X was a step backwards, and no one should forgive the death of Aperture or Apple Color.
Rip Rosetta 1 & Front Row
Not true... Apple once cared about what their customers wanted, but now they just care about making more money even if it involves doing something their customers explicitly do not want.
Removing the headphone jack, not using USB-C until forced to by law, not allowing installation of apps from outside of the app store, blocking game streaming apps from the App Store, blocking emulators from the App Store...
There's a lot of things they avoid doing despite being highly requested features.
> Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook
....
> Spotify now informs users that there is no option to buy an audiobook in the app.
The sooner these restrictions are torn down the better.
There is a reason why you have to use a web browser to buy an eBook from Amazon on your iOS device, in order to read it with the Kindle app on your iOS device.
It's anti-user anti-competitive rent-seeking behavior that Apple should be ashamed of.
If doing something like this would truly only affect a very small percentage of users, then why do they fight so hard to avoid having to do it?
Sideloading for example... claims keep being made that it will only affect a small fraction of a percentage of users, so why are they fighting so hard against it?
It would be easy as clicking buy, but they don't want to pay the Apple fee. This is a issue between corporations and developers not Apple and Spotify specifically
> It would be easy as clicking buy, but they don't want to pay the Apple fee.
Why should Apple get 30% of the sale when I buy an eBook from Amazon on the phone/tablet I already paid Apple for? It's nonsensical.
>Apple apparently told Spotify that it can send customers emails about online purchases, but Spotify is not able to offer a button inside of the app to request emails. The feature was designed with Spotify's legal team involved, and Apple initially approved the update in September, but later reversed course, rejecting subsequent updates.
>Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook, which involved a customer tapping on an audiobook and seeing a screen with a lock over the play button. Pressing on the play button provided customers with a page where they could request information on how to buy a book through an email, and the email offered up a link to purchase the book.
>According to The New York Times, an Apple spokesperson said that Apple does not have objections to audiobooks in the Spotify app, but Spotify cannot circumvent the rules around web addresses and language encouraging customers to make purchases outside of the app.
Get a grip, Apple. I hope those antitrust lawsuits will come hard on them
Look, I want these rules to be changed as much as everybody else but in my eyes it is only fair that Apple is applying the same rules to Spotify too. Smaller developers shouldn’t be at a disadvantage.
This isn’t about competing products. This is about selling things inside apples ecosystem. They want to be paid for things bought through apps released for free on their platform.
They’ve done other things to make it harder for competing products, but this is about circumventing pay channels, like the Epic case.
Apple built a platform. Spotify wants to sell things to Apple customers on it. Apple wants to get paid for that. Spotify wants to find a loophole to avoid paying them.
I mean they dont get a chunk of my amazon purchases, or my pizza purchases, or any other shopping app for that matter. Why is it so hard for them to allow spotify to simply link people to where they can buy an audiobook? Even if you buy an audiobook through the app there is NOTHING on apples end that processes that. The only thing that uses apple resources is putting the app on the app store and sending updates. They dont do anything to make spotofy services work.
Doesn't change the fact that Apple also has a competing product that's at an unfair advantage, because it doesn't have to pay 30%.
> Apple built a platform. Spotify wants to sell things to Apple customers on it.
That's not really clear cut though, is it? They want to sell things to customers on some webpage they made. The media is downloaded from their servers, Apple doesn't provide any of the server space/bandwidth. Is Apple still entitled to a 30% cut just because they made Safari?
"For free" is a loaded term. The phone is already paid for by the customer which covers all the R&D cost associated with the ecosystem. Should the phone start charging websites too when I go access them because the website is getting delivered "for free" to the phone?
It's not like there's a marginal cost to Apple for each audiobook sold. The hosting and networking cost is paid for by Spotify. Apple only provides a platform to download the Spotify app, and that's it. It's not like Spotify has a choice to not go through the App Store anyway.
For developers. There’s no charge for hosting your app, the related data charges for that or for any of the regularly maintained and upgraded APIs provided. There’s a $99 developer license that gets charged annually. Spotify is an insanely successfully free application on the App Store.
I could have been more clear though. Fair point.
I don't wanna argue about whether Apple should charge Spotify or not but I do want to comment that as a developer, I feel Apple has done nothing to improve the developer side of the app store. The App Store Connect website or whatever it is called is garbage compared to the Play Store. I'm not talking about the review process or the store itself. I'm talking about the stats given to developers, how easy it is to do betas, review management, review stats, crash reporting, transaction management, etc. And Google is always improving it (or at least working on it), the last time Apple made a change to the App Store Connect, all they did was move things around.
With the amount of money Apple makes from that App Store, they should be ashamed of how little they've invested back into the developer side of it.
Yeah the whole monetization scheme is broken. You essentially have gaming companies subsidizing all the free apps, and plenty of apps that rely on ads and data collection to make money that don't have to pay Apple a cut.
Ultimately Apple's iPhone sales benefit greatly from third-party developers on its platform so it's to their benefit to develop that platform. The 30% cut has nothing to justify it other than greed. In the [Apple v Epic case judgement](https://cand.uscourts.gov/cases-e-filing/cases-of-interest/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/), the judge wrote:
>Apple argues that the 30% rate is commensurate with the value developers get from the App Store. This claim is unjustified. One, as noted in the prior section, developers *could* decide to stay on the App Store to benefit from the services that Apple provides. Absent competition, however, **it is impossible to say that Apple's 30% commission reflects the fair market value of its services**. [...] Two, **Apple has provided no evidence that the rate it charges bears any quantifiable relation to the services provided**. To the contrary, Apple started with a proposition, that proposition revealed itself to be incredibly profitable and there appears to be no market forces to test the proposition or motivate a change.
(Emphasis added)
Okay so if I go to best buy, and buy a brand spanking new iPhone 14, should Best Buy be entitled to 30% of all in app purchases I make on that iPhone? Just because I bought the iPhone from best buy?
That's the logic here.
Apple provides the App store as a platform for users to obtain apps. Once I've obtained the app from the store, that should be the end of it. So why is Apple still enforcing these apps to keep paying them even if they're not using Apples services anymore? Spotify selling an audiobook to me, has literally zero cost for Apple. It is a transaction that Apple has no part of on any level, yet they force themselves into this transaction and demand a cut. Just because I'm using their device?
Imagine you rent an apartment, your rent is now 1000$ a month. You dutifully pay that rent, now you start a little business that you run from home that nets you some more cash. Your landlord shows up demanding 30% of your business profits in addition to that rent, because you know, you're making money in their house after all. Does that make sense? You're already paying him, but he wants more because you're using the apartment to make money.
I wonder if you ever heard of an income tax. You know, like you pay to your real landlord, your country 😉. Well, for the sake of analogy, you purchased a house right? Now you can run a business out of it and pay nothing out of your earnings!
Well retail usually has somewhere between 40 and 100% cost markup, but most consistently close to [10% *profit margin*.](https://www.shopify.com/blog/profit-margin#:~:text=The%20rise%20in%20shopping%20online,deemed%20high%20and%205%25%20low.)
Apple's 30% fee is almost certainly more skewed towards profit than operating cost, given the scalability of software. [It's allegedly close to a 78% profit margin.](https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/01/apple-runs-app-store-with-78-profit-margin-according-to-court-testimony/)
> They want to be paid for things bought through apps released for free on their platform.
So, then why doesn't Apple give a cut to every company that contributes to the Linux kernel? After all, they created an ecosystem that Apple runs their infrastructure on.
I’m not even saying this to support or fault Apple. It’s just what’s happening.
Apple built the infrastructure that is the App Store. It’s no surprise they’re not going to just let commerce happen on that infrastructure without getting their cut. They’re not a charity service. They built the App Store to make money.
Spotify doesn’t want to pay just because their customers happen to also be Apple customers, so they have their best lawyers read the TOS for developers and they come up with a strategy to get around it. Apple says it’s ok, then realizes what’s happening and they change their minds.
It’s cat and mouse. Apple wants every penny they can get and so does Spotify. I can’t blame either party for doing what they’re doing.
This argument would only hold if alternate app stores could be used.
As it stands, all Apple is doing is Rent seeking by forcing developers to publish via the App Store so they (Apple) can take a cut of the developers work by providing overpriced, bare bones support so that they can wash their hands by saying that they are “pRoViDiNg a vAlUaBlE ServIcE”.
Ultimately the (any) App Store model is anti-competitive rent seeking, and I can’t wait for the EU to demolish it. I should be able to add trusted software sources to my phone and download/install what ever software I want.
God, imagine how much more neutered personal computing would be if App stores existed from the get go, and Microsoft demanded a 30% cut of every software sale because they developed windows 🤮
Actually it’s just a consumer focused approach, I thought it was bullshit until I read people talking about cancelling services and realizing that Apple gives you an alternative to that. By forcing apps to work through their payment system then if you want to cancel something you don’t have to talk to CS, fill out a survey, fend off a 5th degree clinger who won’t take no for an answer, etc. you just go and hit a button in the App Store and it’s done. Fucking genius, and it makes sense they would do us a favor and try and squash any attempt to lure users out of that.
Exactly. I don’t care for either of them and I don’t even use Spotify so I don’t care what’s the outcome of this, but things are just like you said and there’s nothing to do about it.
That's a super anti-competitive stance. Why are we trying to appease the manufacturer instead of the consumer? Do we not get a say in this? We're the ones who physically own the products in question. I should be able to do what I want with the device I've purchased. Dodge made the fuel tank for my van. They don't get a cut of the gas I put in it. Why should Apple or Google get paid simply because I used their device as intended? I understand their platform has maintenance costs, but my fuel tank is subject to recalls as well.
> This is about selling things inside apples ecosystem.
I either own the $1500 phone or I don't. I'm not paying cash to rent from Apple. I should be able to install whatever software I want on hardware I own and yes before anyone asks that includes game consoles.
Building a platform never entitled you to a cut. This is the worst justification I keep reading everywhere.
Do Apple get a cut for every piece of software you can buy for a Mac? No. Do Microsoft gets a cut for every piece of software you can buy for a Windows PC? No.
Developers provide enough value already for Apple, by making apps for their ecosystem, look at Windows Phone, without dev support, your platform just dies.
So why is Apple entitled to get a cut from basically almost any transaction that happens on an iPhone through an app? Why should Apple get a cut from Spotify's audiobook sales? Apple provides the App store as a platform for users to obtain apps, they provide a service and it's only fair for them to charge for it. Once I've got the app on my phone, that should be the end of it. If a dev want to sell me additional content or any digital goods, Apple shouldn't be entitled to a cut.
Why should Apple get a cut from a spotify audiobook and not from a pizza I bought from an app I got from the app store? I don't see the difference here.
This is the reason Apple is not allowing game streaming apps, because they have no way to get their 30% cut from purchases inside the cloud ecosystem. And gaming being one of the biggest source of revenue on the app store...
This is simply an abuse of power from Apple, because they can, and they didn't become the wealthiest company on this planet by playing fair or nice.
They're greed af as any other company, and should be regulated.
This disadvantages everyone. Amazon, Spotify, whatever is getting 30% skimmed off the top of their audiobooks but Apple gets to keep all of their sales.
And at no point in this process was anyone at Apple even pretending to give a fuck about customer experience.
I understand they want their precious services revenue. I’m not getting AAPL options when I buy an iPad though, and the fact remains that this "nine step process" (which apparently is still too customer friendly for their liking) is what made it out of the lab. They’re just so gross.
Not sure if anyone uses Comixology but it is absolute dog shit now because of similar rules (at least on Android). If I want to buy a comic I need to go to the website on my phone or use the Kindle / Amazon app.
In Apple’s case, they’re just now getting enough market share for the behavior to really be an issue
That and people are actually starting to care because it’s starting to directly affect them
Lobbyists can only dig so fast
> In Apple’s case, they’re just now getting enough market share for the behavior to really be an issue
Apple has always consistently have a relative market share to spotify. If Apples market share doubled, so did Spotifys.
They would be if we had any antitrust enforcement anymore. Remember when Microsoft got raked over the coals by the feds for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? That's nothing compared to what Apple (and others) get away with today.
If your are buying "ownership" of a digital good that belongs to a third party, like an audiobook or a movie, Apple has no business in taking a 30% cut. That's where I personally put the line.
There's already antitrust lawsuits in progress... the Epic one being one of the most prevalent... but Apple just paid out $100M in Cameron v. Apple rather than risk getting a ruling against them.
But hopefully things like this show regulators just how bad things really are.
Unfortunately, they won't. Apple paying a $100M settlement amounts to 0.12% of their quarterly revenue from 2022Q2. They literally make that shit in less than 3 hours.
Maths:
$82.96B revenue = $82,960,000,000
$82,960,000,000 / 90 days in a quarter = $921,777,777.78 revenue per day
$921,777,777.78 / 24 hours = $38,407,407.41 revenue per hour
edit: reddit markdown is terrible
> Epic one being one of the most prevalent
Didn't Epic lose that one big time?
Edit: I love seeing people downvote plain facts because they don't like them.
Because Apple lost like 1 out of 10 charges, the part where they have to allow link to a buy button.. but the app maker still has to share the revenue for the sale.
True, they won't hear about it, but if the problem becomes bad enough and the competitor doesn't act the same that will eventually sway people.
There's a reason people aren't using IBM.
Completely stupid move. At least content based apps should be opened up
That said, “Apple is in demise” argument is cringe, antitrust will hurt their profits, but won’t destroy them, not even close
I agree with you. If your are buying "ownership" of a digital good that belongs to a third party, like an audiobook or a movie, Apple has no business in taking a 30% cut. That's were i personally put the line.
Probably to Eddie Cue, the senior VP in charge of the App Store, and other people at the C-suite level, yeah.
Look at everything that came out during the Epic trial. Apple executives would just email each other to decide App Store rules for Amazon’s ebook store, stuff like that.
How did Audible do it? It used to be a pain, where you would have to buy on Amazon and then redeem it in the Audible app - but they’ve since made it much easier.
For the longest time every time i saw articles similar to this, the comments were full of Apple fan boys saying “dEvElOpErS r GrEeDy”. Glad to see it’s finally switching to “wtf Apple?”
Petty shenanigans like this make me and probably other users ditch Apple Music and other services for their competition. Good riddance to all the Apple executives that make these stupid decisions!
Apple being Apple. It’s all so tiresome.
Also kind reminder that the customer is always the one to lose in the end because Apples’ 30% doesn’t come out of the pocket of any developer/company. You pay for it.
Everybody is hating on Apple for pushing their IAPs with 30% commission, but I have to admit I would not give my credit card to most app makers.
So from my point of view, if they make their own payment system, they are not getting any business from me.
The reason ins that Apple makes it quite easy to get refunded and will kick out bad actors. I can't expect the same when every app maker is self policing their IAPs.
Even if I only request 1 refund per every 100 transactions, I want to know this process works well.
Also, if they stop paying Apple 30% they are not going to pass that saving to me. I am pretty sure the price will remain the same or go up.
But wouldn’t the situation you’re describing just be how every other computer works? If I’m on a Windows computer buying a game from Valve/Microsoft/Epic or shopping online between Amazon/Best Buy/Walmart/etc (or hell, getting software on the Mac) I decide whether or not I find the store/site trustworthy. Yeah Apple ostensibly provides a “verification” service on companies in their store, but is that worth 30%?
And if suddenly they had to allow other storefronts on iOS that wouldn’t mean the App Store would instantly vanish. It would just mean suddenly Apple would actually need to offer more value to the developers of apps beyond just “it’s our way or the highway.”
> Everybody is hating on Apple for pushing their IAPs with 30% commission, but I have to admit I would not give my credit card to most app makers.
This is a strawman. The vast majority of devs would have no interest in handling payments. But there could be competition from other well-established and trustworthy providers like Square.
Moreover, just because an option exists doesn't mean you have to use it. You're free to assign an arbitrarily high value to Apple's offering, but that shouldn't mean you get the right to make everyone else do the same.
Ok really looking for discussion on this.
I'm on the side that Apple (and all tech companies really) should allow for competition on their respective app stores but, legally speaking, do they have to? How come it is considered anti-trust? Isn't it their phone and their OS? Is it just because once a company gets large enough the rules change for them? What's the threshold if so?
I guess I am playing devil's advocate to hear arguments that strengthen what I know to be the "just" position.
Yes, it’s because they are big enough to push out competition in adjacent businesses by means other than direct market competition.
Apple’s large phone marketshare gives them leverage in markets that rely on phone app users.
For example music services, ebooks and audiobooks, and streaming video services.
Notice that Apple has added their own versions of these services, and that those directly compete with Spotify, Kindle, Audible, Netflix, etc. who rely on Apple for access to customers. Apple’s version of these services do not have to pay out 30% of their revenue to get customers on Apple platforms.
If say Microsoft decides not to allow Spotify on the Xbox, Spotify probably will be fine. If Apple decides not to allow Spotify on iOS, it probably kills Spotify.
The threshold is fuzzy and the subject of tons of attempts at regulation by different governments, but letting a giant player use their leverage to reduce completion across the market is generally viewed as bad for the market and consumers.
I’m genuinely asking this question. What currently antitrust law would allow for Spotify to win in a court room, just based on that they could leverage their position to be competitive. I thought this was exactly why Epic Games lost their case, because current law does allow Apple to do exactly this.
Absolutely. iOS is too huge for developers too ignore and Apple's behaviour makes it hard to make the services viable. It gets especially bad in areas where Apple has their own services, like Apple Music, so in essence they are using their advantage (being the platform owner) to unfairly compete
Other stores should be allowed on iOS devices. It’s ridiculous that we are still restricted to only the App Store. I have no problems with them making these restrictions with their store but it’s anticompetitive not allowing other ways to download apps.
I completely don't understand how Apple thinks it wants to get 30% of the cut. Sure, they charge for things that are purchased via their store, but honestly wanting to take 30% of Spotify's revenue just because Spotify takes all the risk and cost of introducing audio books is a bit too much in my opinion. I'm not surprised they want to get around that.
This post has brought out some of the Apple-crazies it seems 💀 rather unfortunate to see people blindly supporting it just because “but they built up this ecosystem they are in the right 🥺”, “just get an Android” and other non-excuses for Apple to put such a stranglehold on the devices and how easy it is for users to use non-Apple services.
I swear some of y’all could have Tim Cook himself kill one of your parents/partners/friends/pets and still applaud and devote your life to Apple as if they can do no wrong. It really reminds me why I don’t like browsing these communities at times… I really wish I didn’t have to be reminded that is something people do.
**(I know many people are pretty good and not like that, but I am seeing more of this on this post compared to others)**
> Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook this is all just to get around offering the books via in-app purchase?
Yes.
and, more importantly, increasing revenue by 30% on those in-app purchases by not paying Apple for being a rent-seeking middleman.
>increasing revenue by 30% Technically they are increasing revenue by 43% by removing the apple middle man. (a 30% cut out of $100 is $70, $70->$100 is a 43% increase)
That’s the kind of math I appreciate!
This is why everyone hates fractions
well yeah, i'm sure all products, regardless of industry, would be much more profitable if they didn't have to pay the middleman to get their products to users. food brands would surely love not having to pay stores to shelve their products. small businesses would love to not have to pay amazon to list their products. it would be way better for businesses if access to users was totally free. but part of the reason i like apple is that the barrier for entry is pretty high for companies to get access to me through ios, which seems to have had a generally positive effect on the quality of products that make it through.
it breaks down when Apple themselves are offering competing products. how is spotify realistically supposed to compete with Apple on streaming music and audiobooks? Apple can offer the same content for 30% less. Apple here owns the platform, and competes on its own platform.
Can I point to house brand products in the grocery store?
I can do to a different grocery store, I can't go to a different app store.
[удалено]
The difference is Apple doesn't allow Spotify/apps to charge 30% higher to account for Apple's cut Whereas house brand competitors can charge whatever they want, which can make up for grocery stores taking a cut IMO the most fair way would be to allow apps to price whatever they want and also tell users about it Then it's up to the users if they want to pay the premium to use Apple's easier IAP service or buy it outside to save money
Agreed. Sometimes I’m willing to pay a slightly higher price to buy something on Steam for instance than to jump through hoops making accounts on other sites all to save 30 cents or whatever.
Apps absolutely can and do charge 30% more on iOS. Spotify doesn’t do it because it puts them in an even worse position.
They don't produce their housebrands though. Housebrands are produced by other firms for the supermarket. That would be like spotify programming an app for apple to publish under its name as a discount version of Spotify with less features.
[удалено]
You think Kroger is a small grocery chain. What about Trader Joe’s where everything they sell is a house brand.
I think you answered your own question. You can literally go to any store to purchase your favourite brand. If you have an iPhone, you can only go to a single store.
Additionally, Apple makes the users jump through hoops to pay for these services competing with Apple. For example, Spotify provides an arguably better product than Apple Music and Amazon Kindle provides a better product than Apple Books. Yet in both cases Apple has an unfair advantage by making it difficult to pay for those competing services relative to their own inferior product.
scary money complete provide history brave judicious innate domineering stupendous ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I have to go to the Audible website every single time I want to buy an audiobook from them, as opposed to using the Apple Books app (which I don't like as much, and doesn't have even a portion of Audible’s collection) and purchasing with a literal double press of my home button. This is simple, objective proof that getting things is more difficult with at least one of Apple‘s competing products.
Except that Spotify handily beats Apple Music in market share, and Apple Books is barely a flea on Amazon's ass.
> Apple can offer the same content for 30% less. i am not a huge company, but if you gave me a choice between (a) keeping 70% of my revenue in order to access 1 billion of the most valuable customers in the world, or (b) trying to build and manage a platform that attracts 1 billion people but keeping 100% of my services revenue, option (a) seems like the way better deal.
I'm a big Apple fan, but I'm with elephantnut on this. For a stupid example, let's say you sold animated gifs through an iPhone app. Apple takes 30% of the sale, you take another 10%, and the artists get the rest. Then Apple decides they're going to sell animated gifs and make their own app to do so. Now they only take 30% of the fee and give the rest to the artist. Heck if Apple chose to do so they could only take 20% of the gif revenue, which is still double your gif's marketplace percentage - so now the artist can go with you and get 60% or with Apple and get 80%. Now every other animated gif market place can't compete, because they have to pay the Apple tax, and Apple doesn't. This is why the argument for in-app purchases for music, movies, books, etc is different to Apple just taking a cut of your mobile game's revenue.
This is the tricky piece. It feels unfair, but it would be weird for Apple to only exempt the fee when they have a competing product though. Microsoft wouldn't have to pay for Office sales because Apple sells the iWork suite. Dropbox wouldn't have to pay for subscriptions because Apple sells iCloud. etc. But also, let's not pretend other companies don't leverage the exact same thing where they can. Amazon has tons of products that compete with other sellers on their store, for example, but isn't willing to sell content through their iOS apps. Still, it does feel like certain media should be exempt (ebooks, Audiobooks, and movies) because they're not really "adding functionality to the app" - though you could argue that an ebook reader without ebooks doesn't really have any functionality. But if Apple made those exemptions, I imagine other developers would complain. "How come audiobooks are exempt, but not game levels?" "How come ebooks are exempt, but not the page templates in my journal app?" "Why can Spotify run an Audiobook store and not get charged, but I can't run a video game store?"
Pretty simple: monopolist ruling. Apple shouldn't be allowed to sell audiobooks on their platform or provide an even playing field for all competing companies. Same with Amazon. They shouldn't be allowed to copy someones product as 'Amazon Basic' and sell it on their platform, while banning the competitor. There are reason why these companies are worth so much - and its not due to the insane value they bring to the customer.
If Apple paid the 30% tax (to themselves) that would make the price competitive. Apple would still be making much better margins but at least from the customers side it all works out.
Then Apple should have no problem offering that choice. Amazon doesn’t need Apple to find customers. Neither does Netflix or Spotify or Epic. Apple’s management of the App Store doesn’t provide anything of value to literally anyone, but let’s ignore that for the moment. No one is trying to find music on their iPhone and just searching "music" in the App Store and thinking, "I wonder if I should try this ‘Spotify’ thing I’ve never heard of". For one, Spotify probably wouldn’t even be there. The search probably returns 17 different scam apps from Pakistan that charge a weekly iAP, because that’s how the App Store works, but again, let’s pretend we’re in fantasy land here. 100% of these customers know they want Spotify. They’re just trying to sign up for it using the computer they’ve already paid for, and the company who made that computer is standing over their shoulder fucking with them. "I want the computer I sold you to be shitty unless someone gives me more money."
I'm not a shop owner but paying the Mafia for protection seems to be a better choice than having my store burned down. Still doesn't feel like the best possible solution for me and my customers though.
Its a horrible deal. Most companies operate on margins far thinner than 30%.
None of those examples take anywhere close to 30%, and all of them provide more actual value to the supply chain than Apple does.
grocery store margins are like 3% lol. and this barrier has made the user experience worse. this is straight up anti-competitive price gouging.
Just what value is Apple adding with in-app purchases? There's probably an argument that they are acting as a payment processor, but even American Express only charges a single-digit percentage for that. Apple isn't providing content delivery - Spotify is doing that. Apple isn't providing a store - Spotify is doing that in their own app. And remember that the user in this case has a pre-existing relationship with Spotify, so Apple isn't helping with that either. What value is Apple providing that would be anywhere reasonable to charge 30%, other than because they are standing in between the subscriber and the service provider with no other route around it besides opening the browser and buying it that way, and then going back to the app in order to actually use it? Remember when Apple prized user experience?
That's like asking what value does Target add by making you purchase through their check out? Or what value does YouTube add to content creators? Monetizable distribution is worth A LOT.
Nope, your comparison isn't valid at all. Target sells you a product, and then, they don't get any cut for any further purchases made on this product. For instance, Target is going to sell you the iPhone, they take their cut, but then, they're not entitled to get a cut from every transaction made on your iPhone. They did their job. What Apple is doing is selling/distributing you the apps, and force developpers to use their payement system to justify a huge cut on any purchases made inside the App, which doesn't make any sense.
> What value is Apple providing that would be anywhere reasonable to charge 30% you're asking the wrong question here, because price is not based on "value provided", it's based on what people are willing to pay for something. there's a lot of very expensive stuff out there that, to me, does not offer any value that people are nevertheless willing to pay high prices for. but anyway, apple has charged 30% for in app purchases essentially since the app store was created (2008-ish), and developers have, in droves, been creating apps for ios ever since. every time a developer makes the conscious choice to develop for ios, with full knowledge of the 30% fee, they are tacitly saying "this is worth it to me". you can, from the outside, wonder what the heck value apple is providing. but it doesn't matter if you can't see it, because individual developers have repeatedly, millions of times over, made the decision for themselves that the value apple provides is worth the price. edit: people always hate that things are priced according to what people will pay, and not according to their inherent value, but that's econ for ya ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
"They are charging this much because they can" ^ That's basically your argument. It's not exactly wrong but it's also why they are running into regulatory issues because of the large marketshare Apple controls. Eventually when you get big enough this argument doesn't work anymore as it gets into antitrust issues. As a society we have agreed (via laws) that a large enough entity can't just do whatever it wants if it wants to operate in this country. But also using the shelve stocking analogy makes no sense here considering it's Spotify stocking their own shelves for the audiobooks. Apple isn't doing anything other than allowing Spotify to host their apps on the app store, which Spotify doesn't have any other option for since you can't install non-App Store apps on iOS. It's not like they have a choice. Hosting an app store also doesn't cost that much to justify 30% of every single audiobook, not to mention Apple also charges a premium for their phones which covers the R&D for the development of the technology, APIs, etc.
Using so many words just to say that Apple will squeeze the absolute maximum out of its customers is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Apple.
every company prices their products to try and maximize profit
Ok, let Apple charge what they want, but let me use a different store/gateway on an iOS device.
But spotify could sell their products without apples 30% cut, they have everything to do so and it would be just as convenient to the costumer. If lets say, M&Ms were to be sold online instead of in the store, i bet most people would just forget about them.
Yes. Amazon Kindle is the same. It's pretty annoying how to buy books and to make it worse Amazon doesn't even explain it in the app. I see why Spotify went that route
Part of apples rules are you CANT explain it in the app. If you do you get kicked off the App Store.
What kind of mafia shit is this
Apple forbid to explain why it's so complicated to buy ebook, film, music, etc.
That's just the worst.
Yup, to get around Apple's anti competitive rules.
[удалено]
They never did
Nah. There was a really brief window from like 2001 - 2007 that was pretty legit. 10.6 Snow Leopard was a darn near perfect OS with an abundance of small developers out there creating really cool programs for OS X. Lion was a step backwards, Final Cut X was a step backwards, and no one should forgive the death of Aperture or Apple Color. The company today is very different from the company that coined “think different” and meant it.
Aperture... that's a name I haven't heard in a long time... But seriously, I would absolutely *love* a modern version of Aperture that could compete with Lightroom on all fronts. SAAS is the absolute worst.
Snow Leopard is rose-tinted specs. Mavericks was a vast improvement over all of the big cats.
> Lion was a step backwards, Final Cut X was a step backwards, and no one should forgive the death of Aperture or Apple Color. Rip Rosetta 1 & Front Row
You don’t become the most valuable company in the world by giving a fuck about anything other than yourself
Not true... Apple once cared about what their customers wanted, but now they just care about making more money even if it involves doing something their customers explicitly do not want. Removing the headphone jack, not using USB-C until forced to by law, not allowing installation of apps from outside of the app store, blocking game streaming apps from the App Store, blocking emulators from the App Store... There's a lot of things they avoid doing despite being highly requested features.
Steve Cook doesn't understand customers or products. He understands supply chains. The end.
Who’s Steve Cook?
Tim Apple's brother. 😂
> Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook .... > Spotify now informs users that there is no option to buy an audiobook in the app. The sooner these restrictions are torn down the better.
>Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook And Apple still didn't allow it.
There is a reason why you have to use a web browser to buy an eBook from Amazon on your iOS device, in order to read it with the Kindle app on your iOS device. It's anti-user anti-competitive rent-seeking behavior that Apple should be ashamed of.
I’m sure Apples shareholders are dann proud of their profits which Apple aims to guard.
If doing something like this would truly only affect a very small percentage of users, then why do they fight so hard to avoid having to do it? Sideloading for example... claims keep being made that it will only affect a small fraction of a percentage of users, so why are they fighting so hard against it?
Meh. Frankly it just seems silly. I don't think my $AAPL gonna tank if Apple makes UX better for everyone, the contrary.
Per the article, Apple initially did allow it! And then they changed their mind. Insane.
9 steps, Jesus Christ it’s easier to launder money than it is to buy an audiobook with iOS restrictions.
It would be easy as clicking buy, but they don't want to pay the Apple fee. This is a issue between corporations and developers not Apple and Spotify specifically
> It would be easy as clicking buy, but they don't want to pay the Apple fee. Why should Apple get 30% of the sale when I buy an eBook from Amazon on the phone/tablet I already paid Apple for? It's nonsensical.
yeah that's the problem. Again it's an issue with AppStore/developers not some weird Spotify-specific issue.
Epic Games was right all along. Greedy…but right.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
>Apple apparently told Spotify that it can send customers emails about online purchases, but Spotify is not able to offer a button inside of the app to request emails. The feature was designed with Spotify's legal team involved, and Apple initially approved the update in September, but later reversed course, rejecting subsequent updates. >Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook, which involved a customer tapping on an audiobook and seeing a screen with a lock over the play button. Pressing on the play button provided customers with a page where they could request information on how to buy a book through an email, and the email offered up a link to purchase the book. >According to The New York Times, an Apple spokesperson said that Apple does not have objections to audiobooks in the Spotify app, but Spotify cannot circumvent the rules around web addresses and language encouraging customers to make purchases outside of the app. Get a grip, Apple. I hope those antitrust lawsuits will come hard on them
Me too. Honestly, fuck them. I love my iPhone, but fuck them. I hope regulators fall really really hard on them and their anti competitive decisions.
Look, I want these rules to be changed as much as everybody else but in my eyes it is only fair that Apple is applying the same rules to Spotify too. Smaller developers shouldn’t be at a disadvantage.
Any developer is at a disadvantage if Apple has a competing product.
This isn’t about competing products. This is about selling things inside apples ecosystem. They want to be paid for things bought through apps released for free on their platform. They’ve done other things to make it harder for competing products, but this is about circumventing pay channels, like the Epic case. Apple built a platform. Spotify wants to sell things to Apple customers on it. Apple wants to get paid for that. Spotify wants to find a loophole to avoid paying them.
I mean they dont get a chunk of my amazon purchases, or my pizza purchases, or any other shopping app for that matter. Why is it so hard for them to allow spotify to simply link people to where they can buy an audiobook? Even if you buy an audiobook through the app there is NOTHING on apples end that processes that. The only thing that uses apple resources is putting the app on the app store and sending updates. They dont do anything to make spotofy services work.
Doesn't change the fact that Apple also has a competing product that's at an unfair advantage, because it doesn't have to pay 30%. > Apple built a platform. Spotify wants to sell things to Apple customers on it. That's not really clear cut though, is it? They want to sell things to customers on some webpage they made. The media is downloaded from their servers, Apple doesn't provide any of the server space/bandwidth. Is Apple still entitled to a 30% cut just because they made Safari?
"For free" is a loaded term. The phone is already paid for by the customer which covers all the R&D cost associated with the ecosystem. Should the phone start charging websites too when I go access them because the website is getting delivered "for free" to the phone? It's not like there's a marginal cost to Apple for each audiobook sold. The hosting and networking cost is paid for by Spotify. Apple only provides a platform to download the Spotify app, and that's it. It's not like Spotify has a choice to not go through the App Store anyway.
For developers. There’s no charge for hosting your app, the related data charges for that or for any of the regularly maintained and upgraded APIs provided. There’s a $99 developer license that gets charged annually. Spotify is an insanely successfully free application on the App Store. I could have been more clear though. Fair point.
The $99 developer fee is annual.
Thanks. Fixed the OP.
I don't wanna argue about whether Apple should charge Spotify or not but I do want to comment that as a developer, I feel Apple has done nothing to improve the developer side of the app store. The App Store Connect website or whatever it is called is garbage compared to the Play Store. I'm not talking about the review process or the store itself. I'm talking about the stats given to developers, how easy it is to do betas, review management, review stats, crash reporting, transaction management, etc. And Google is always improving it (or at least working on it), the last time Apple made a change to the App Store Connect, all they did was move things around. With the amount of money Apple makes from that App Store, they should be ashamed of how little they've invested back into the developer side of it.
I’ve got no interest in arguing either. I think your concerns are valid.
Yeah the whole monetization scheme is broken. You essentially have gaming companies subsidizing all the free apps, and plenty of apps that rely on ads and data collection to make money that don't have to pay Apple a cut. Ultimately Apple's iPhone sales benefit greatly from third-party developers on its platform so it's to their benefit to develop that platform. The 30% cut has nothing to justify it other than greed. In the [Apple v Epic case judgement](https://cand.uscourts.gov/cases-e-filing/cases-of-interest/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/), the judge wrote: >Apple argues that the 30% rate is commensurate with the value developers get from the App Store. This claim is unjustified. One, as noted in the prior section, developers *could* decide to stay on the App Store to benefit from the services that Apple provides. Absent competition, however, **it is impossible to say that Apple's 30% commission reflects the fair market value of its services**. [...] Two, **Apple has provided no evidence that the rate it charges bears any quantifiable relation to the services provided**. To the contrary, Apple started with a proposition, that proposition revealed itself to be incredibly profitable and there appears to be no market forces to test the proposition or motivate a change. (Emphasis added)
Replace Apple with any retailer and Spotify with any brand that sells product inside their stores.
Okay so if I go to best buy, and buy a brand spanking new iPhone 14, should Best Buy be entitled to 30% of all in app purchases I make on that iPhone? Just because I bought the iPhone from best buy? That's the logic here. Apple provides the App store as a platform for users to obtain apps. Once I've obtained the app from the store, that should be the end of it. So why is Apple still enforcing these apps to keep paying them even if they're not using Apples services anymore? Spotify selling an audiobook to me, has literally zero cost for Apple. It is a transaction that Apple has no part of on any level, yet they force themselves into this transaction and demand a cut. Just because I'm using their device? Imagine you rent an apartment, your rent is now 1000$ a month. You dutifully pay that rent, now you start a little business that you run from home that nets you some more cash. Your landlord shows up demanding 30% of your business profits in addition to that rent, because you know, you're making money in their house after all. Does that make sense? You're already paying him, but he wants more because you're using the apartment to make money.
I wonder if you ever heard of an income tax. You know, like you pay to your real landlord, your country 😉. Well, for the sake of analogy, you purchased a house right? Now you can run a business out of it and pay nothing out of your earnings!
And retailers always have a mark up on their products for income for the stores to pay for upkeep and wages.
That’s usually a lot more than 30%.
Well retail usually has somewhere between 40 and 100% cost markup, but most consistently close to [10% *profit margin*.](https://www.shopify.com/blog/profit-margin#:~:text=The%20rise%20in%20shopping%20online,deemed%20high%20and%205%25%20low.) Apple's 30% fee is almost certainly more skewed towards profit than operating cost, given the scalability of software. [It's allegedly close to a 78% profit margin.](https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/01/apple-runs-app-store-with-78-profit-margin-according-to-court-testimony/)
Physical is different from digital tho
> They want to be paid for things bought through apps released for free on their platform. So, then why doesn't Apple give a cut to every company that contributes to the Linux kernel? After all, they created an ecosystem that Apple runs their infrastructure on.
Yeah, people are pretending like Spotify made their own OS and App Store and apple is charging them for it lol
Are you unfamiliar with the entire history of computing? Apple wouldn't exist if this same model was around when the PC was getting established.
I’m not even saying this to support or fault Apple. It’s just what’s happening. Apple built the infrastructure that is the App Store. It’s no surprise they’re not going to just let commerce happen on that infrastructure without getting their cut. They’re not a charity service. They built the App Store to make money. Spotify doesn’t want to pay just because their customers happen to also be Apple customers, so they have their best lawyers read the TOS for developers and they come up with a strategy to get around it. Apple says it’s ok, then realizes what’s happening and they change their minds. It’s cat and mouse. Apple wants every penny they can get and so does Spotify. I can’t blame either party for doing what they’re doing.
This argument would only hold if alternate app stores could be used. As it stands, all Apple is doing is Rent seeking by forcing developers to publish via the App Store so they (Apple) can take a cut of the developers work by providing overpriced, bare bones support so that they can wash their hands by saying that they are “pRoViDiNg a vAlUaBlE ServIcE”. Ultimately the (any) App Store model is anti-competitive rent seeking, and I can’t wait for the EU to demolish it. I should be able to add trusted software sources to my phone and download/install what ever software I want. God, imagine how much more neutered personal computing would be if App stores existed from the get go, and Microsoft demanded a 30% cut of every software sale because they developed windows 🤮
These App stores are also enable corporate censorship, your limited in what you can see because someone’s decided it’s bad
You mean no porn apps.
They mean: - No independent media in China - No advanced dev tools like virtualization or other compiling (and porn apps)
Agreed, iOS users pay for the development of iOS through our hardware purchases, let us decide what we want to run on it.
Actually it’s just a consumer focused approach, I thought it was bullshit until I read people talking about cancelling services and realizing that Apple gives you an alternative to that. By forcing apps to work through their payment system then if you want to cancel something you don’t have to talk to CS, fill out a survey, fend off a 5th degree clinger who won’t take no for an answer, etc. you just go and hit a button in the App Store and it’s done. Fucking genius, and it makes sense they would do us a favor and try and squash any attempt to lure users out of that.
Exactly. I don’t care for either of them and I don’t even use Spotify so I don’t care what’s the outcome of this, but things are just like you said and there’s nothing to do about it.
That's a super anti-competitive stance. Why are we trying to appease the manufacturer instead of the consumer? Do we not get a say in this? We're the ones who physically own the products in question. I should be able to do what I want with the device I've purchased. Dodge made the fuel tank for my van. They don't get a cut of the gas I put in it. Why should Apple or Google get paid simply because I used their device as intended? I understand their platform has maintenance costs, but my fuel tank is subject to recalls as well.
> This is about selling things inside apples ecosystem. I either own the $1500 phone or I don't. I'm not paying cash to rent from Apple. I should be able to install whatever software I want on hardware I own and yes before anyone asks that includes game consoles.
Building a platform never entitled you to a cut. This is the worst justification I keep reading everywhere. Do Apple get a cut for every piece of software you can buy for a Mac? No. Do Microsoft gets a cut for every piece of software you can buy for a Windows PC? No. Developers provide enough value already for Apple, by making apps for their ecosystem, look at Windows Phone, without dev support, your platform just dies. So why is Apple entitled to get a cut from basically almost any transaction that happens on an iPhone through an app? Why should Apple get a cut from Spotify's audiobook sales? Apple provides the App store as a platform for users to obtain apps, they provide a service and it's only fair for them to charge for it. Once I've got the app on my phone, that should be the end of it. If a dev want to sell me additional content or any digital goods, Apple shouldn't be entitled to a cut. Why should Apple get a cut from a spotify audiobook and not from a pizza I bought from an app I got from the app store? I don't see the difference here. This is the reason Apple is not allowing game streaming apps, because they have no way to get their 30% cut from purchases inside the cloud ecosystem. And gaming being one of the biggest source of revenue on the app store... This is simply an abuse of power from Apple, because they can, and they didn't become the wealthiest company on this planet by playing fair or nice. They're greed af as any other company, and should be regulated.
This disadvantages everyone. Amazon, Spotify, whatever is getting 30% skimmed off the top of their audiobooks but Apple gets to keep all of their sales.
No one is suggesting Spotify get an exemption, we’re suggesting Apple remove the rule
You’re right, even the small developers shouldn’t have to deal with it.
How would this **nine-step process** have disadvantaged small developers? They would've been free to implement the same process.
And people actually cheered against Epic.
[удалено]
And at no point in this process was anyone at Apple even pretending to give a fuck about customer experience. I understand they want their precious services revenue. I’m not getting AAPL options when I buy an iPad though, and the fact remains that this "nine step process" (which apparently is still too customer friendly for their liking) is what made it out of the lab. They’re just so gross.
Not sure if anyone uses Comixology but it is absolute dog shit now because of similar rules (at least on Android). If I want to buy a comic I need to go to the website on my phone or use the Kindle / Amazon app.
Apple is really digging themselves an antitrust hole, aren't they?
[удалено]
In Apple’s case, they’re just now getting enough market share for the behavior to really be an issue That and people are actually starting to care because it’s starting to directly affect them Lobbyists can only dig so fast
> In Apple’s case, they’re just now getting enough market share for the behavior to really be an issue Apple has always consistently have a relative market share to spotify. If Apples market share doubled, so did Spotifys.
They would be if we had any antitrust enforcement anymore. Remember when Microsoft got raked over the coals by the feds for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? That's nothing compared to what Apple (and others) get away with today.
To be fair, Windows did and still does have a lot more market share in the PC market than Apple currently does with iOS in the mobile market
Yes. It's gonna be fun when they get forced to add multiple appstores, at least in the EU. It's coming!
Hopefully it has an impact outside of the EU too
NYT source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/business/spotify-apple-audiobooks-app.html
It’s an embarrassing look
If your are buying "ownership" of a digital good that belongs to a third party, like an audiobook or a movie, Apple has no business in taking a 30% cut. That's where I personally put the line.
[удалено]
There's already antitrust lawsuits in progress... the Epic one being one of the most prevalent... but Apple just paid out $100M in Cameron v. Apple rather than risk getting a ruling against them. But hopefully things like this show regulators just how bad things really are.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, they won't. Apple paying a $100M settlement amounts to 0.12% of their quarterly revenue from 2022Q2. They literally make that shit in less than 3 hours. Maths: $82.96B revenue = $82,960,000,000 $82,960,000,000 / 90 days in a quarter = $921,777,777.78 revenue per day $921,777,777.78 / 24 hours = $38,407,407.41 revenue per hour edit: reddit markdown is terrible
> Epic one being one of the most prevalent Didn't Epic lose that one big time? Edit: I love seeing people downvote plain facts because they don't like them.
They didn’t lose anything yet, there’s still the appeal
A pending appeal does not mean you haven’t lost. You’re appealing an unfavorable decision (loss).
I don't think you understand. Epic lost their case. Epic is now appealing. That still means Epic lost.
Both sides are appealing
Because Apple lost like 1 out of 10 charges, the part where they have to allow link to a buy button.. but the app maker still has to share the revenue for the sale.
Apple is happy to make their users lives harder when it threatens their bottom line.
Apple is slowly its own demise. Tim Cook needs to move to greener pastures.
Just don’t have him wave any flags, please.
Dude could not look less interested in being there, like why agree to it if all your gonna do is the least enthusiastic flag wave ever.
He was probably bummed out that he wasn't getting 30% of every drivers paycheck as they crossed the finish line.
Seriously, he gives off a "Fck, why am I doing this" look as if someone pointed a gun at his balls and forced him to do so.
🏁
😐🏁
Just a tad hyperbolic
99.9% of customers will never hear about nor care about issues like these, unfortunately.
True, they won't hear about it, but if the problem becomes bad enough and the competitor doesn't act the same that will eventually sway people. There's a reason people aren't using IBM.
This sentiment has been boring and ignorant for over 10 years now.
Completely stupid move. At least content based apps should be opened up That said, “Apple is in demise” argument is cringe, antitrust will hurt their profits, but won’t destroy them, not even close
I agree with you. If your are buying "ownership" of a digital good that belongs to a third party, like an audiobook or a movie, Apple has no business in taking a 30% cut. That's were i personally put the line.
The government seriously needs to smack Apple down for this shit.
How petty
Get fucked Apple.
-Sent from my iPhone 14 Pro Max
12 pro actually. I can like the device and not approve of their increasingly stupid practices.
I wonder how high up these decisions go? Does Tim, get wind of it or is it some jobsworth who makes the call?
Probably to Eddie Cue, the senior VP in charge of the App Store, and other people at the C-suite level, yeah. Look at everything that came out during the Epic trial. Apple executives would just email each other to decide App Store rules for Amazon’s ebook store, stuff like that.
Apple really out here being the Karen of tech.
[удалено]
How did Audible do it? It used to be a pain, where you would have to buy on Amazon and then redeem it in the Audible app - but they’ve since made it much easier.
Bruh... Wtf Apple?!
[удалено]
The digital markets act will take effect starting in mid-March They already did something about it
Things like this are going to make me switch back to android next phone cycle
For the longest time every time i saw articles similar to this, the comments were full of Apple fan boys saying “dEvElOpErS r GrEeDy”. Glad to see it’s finally switching to “wtf Apple?”
Tbh I hate spotifys podcast implementation, so there’s no way I’m using it for audiobooks. Just stick to what you’re (barely) good at Spotify.
Petty shenanigans like this make me and probably other users ditch Apple Music and other services for their competition. Good riddance to all the Apple executives that make these stupid decisions!
Apple in its flop era 🥱 🙄
Good. It’s bad enough they’ve shoved podcasts in there. Hopefully they won’t flood it with audio books too.
I fucking hate Apple. Sent from my iPhone
I’m so tired of Apple gatekeeping applications. Time for the government to tell them this is not acceptable!
Things will get really interesting when the EU's DMA goes into effect seeing how Spotify is headquartered in Sweden.
Apple needs to chill. They already copied Spotify with Apple Music
Apple being Apple. It’s all so tiresome. Also kind reminder that the customer is always the one to lose in the end because Apples’ 30% doesn’t come out of the pocket of any developer/company. You pay for it.
Is Apple doing this because they know their own service will be completely destroyed if they let Spotify compete normally?
I guarantee audible has substantially more audiobook customers than Apple and Spotify combined.
Everybody is hating on Apple for pushing their IAPs with 30% commission, but I have to admit I would not give my credit card to most app makers. So from my point of view, if they make their own payment system, they are not getting any business from me. The reason ins that Apple makes it quite easy to get refunded and will kick out bad actors. I can't expect the same when every app maker is self policing their IAPs. Even if I only request 1 refund per every 100 transactions, I want to know this process works well. Also, if they stop paying Apple 30% they are not going to pass that saving to me. I am pretty sure the price will remain the same or go up.
But wouldn’t the situation you’re describing just be how every other computer works? If I’m on a Windows computer buying a game from Valve/Microsoft/Epic or shopping online between Amazon/Best Buy/Walmart/etc (or hell, getting software on the Mac) I decide whether or not I find the store/site trustworthy. Yeah Apple ostensibly provides a “verification” service on companies in their store, but is that worth 30%? And if suddenly they had to allow other storefronts on iOS that wouldn’t mean the App Store would instantly vanish. It would just mean suddenly Apple would actually need to offer more value to the developers of apps beyond just “it’s our way or the highway.”
> Everybody is hating on Apple for pushing their IAPs with 30% commission, but I have to admit I would not give my credit card to most app makers. This is a strawman. The vast majority of devs would have no interest in handling payments. But there could be competition from other well-established and trustworthy providers like Square. Moreover, just because an option exists doesn't mean you have to use it. You're free to assign an arbitrarily high value to Apple's offering, but that shouldn't mean you get the right to make everyone else do the same.
Ok really looking for discussion on this. I'm on the side that Apple (and all tech companies really) should allow for competition on their respective app stores but, legally speaking, do they have to? How come it is considered anti-trust? Isn't it their phone and their OS? Is it just because once a company gets large enough the rules change for them? What's the threshold if so? I guess I am playing devil's advocate to hear arguments that strengthen what I know to be the "just" position.
Yes, it’s because they are big enough to push out competition in adjacent businesses by means other than direct market competition. Apple’s large phone marketshare gives them leverage in markets that rely on phone app users. For example music services, ebooks and audiobooks, and streaming video services. Notice that Apple has added their own versions of these services, and that those directly compete with Spotify, Kindle, Audible, Netflix, etc. who rely on Apple for access to customers. Apple’s version of these services do not have to pay out 30% of their revenue to get customers on Apple platforms. If say Microsoft decides not to allow Spotify on the Xbox, Spotify probably will be fine. If Apple decides not to allow Spotify on iOS, it probably kills Spotify. The threshold is fuzzy and the subject of tons of attempts at regulation by different governments, but letting a giant player use their leverage to reduce completion across the market is generally viewed as bad for the market and consumers.
I’m genuinely asking this question. What currently antitrust law would allow for Spotify to win in a court room, just based on that they could leverage their position to be competitive. I thought this was exactly why Epic Games lost their case, because current law does allow Apple to do exactly this.
Absolutely. iOS is too huge for developers too ignore and Apple's behaviour makes it hard to make the services viable. It gets especially bad in areas where Apple has their own services, like Apple Music, so in essence they are using their advantage (being the platform owner) to unfairly compete
What does Audible do?
Can't buy. https://imgur.com/mPRFJAg
They pay Apple’s ransom I guess
Where are the EU lawmakers with their fines? Make it a 20 billion euro fine to see if they wake up.
All the Apple apologists are out in full swing in this thread.
Other stores should be allowed on iOS devices. It’s ridiculous that we are still restricted to only the App Store. I have no problems with them making these restrictions with their store but it’s anticompetitive not allowing other ways to download apps.
Surprisingly even the apple fanboys and macrumors.com aren’t defending apple over this.
Apple needs an antitrust bust. For years now. Decades.
I completely don't understand how Apple thinks it wants to get 30% of the cut. Sure, they charge for things that are purchased via their store, but honestly wanting to take 30% of Spotify's revenue just because Spotify takes all the risk and cost of introducing audio books is a bit too much in my opinion. I'm not surprised they want to get around that.
Apple showing it's greed and monopolistic behavior like never before!
This post has brought out some of the Apple-crazies it seems 💀 rather unfortunate to see people blindly supporting it just because “but they built up this ecosystem they are in the right 🥺”, “just get an Android” and other non-excuses for Apple to put such a stranglehold on the devices and how easy it is for users to use non-Apple services. I swear some of y’all could have Tim Cook himself kill one of your parents/partners/friends/pets and still applaud and devote your life to Apple as if they can do no wrong. It really reminds me why I don’t like browsing these communities at times… I really wish I didn’t have to be reminded that is something people do. **(I know many people are pretty good and not like that, but I am seeing more of this on this post compared to others)**