Should have clarified... (mistaken on free iPhone updates) but was referring to Apple OS upgrades in general, as Mac OS went from $129, down $29, then to free. And all of Apple's software prices either went away or dropped significantly.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Responds to EU's Decision to Narrow Antitrust Case Prompted by Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Should have clarified... (mistaken on free iPhone updates) but was referring to Apple OS upgrades in general, as Mac OS went from $129, down $29, then to free. And all of Apple's software prices either went away or dropped significantly.
These are ridiculous analogies.
Apple doesn’t force third party retailers to do anything. AT&T, Best Buy, etc. sell the exact same devices Apple sells under the exact same conditions. Apple even sells AT&T locked iPhones, with AT&T's services in Apple's retail stores and web store (as well as the same for the other carriers).
If we want to make a comparable analogy to what Microsoft did it would be like Apple telling AT&T if you want to sell iPhones you can't sell phones made by anyone else. If you sell phones made by anyone else then we won't provide you any iPhones to sell.
Needless to say, the retailers aren’t the ones complaining anyway. As far as I can tell they don't feel wronged, so those analogies are not only ridiculous but not even relevant to the issues here.
The ones complaining are the app devs who want a free ride from Apple.
In the case of the developers, the analogy might be Apple telling devs "If you want to sell apps for use on iPhones then your apps can't be available on Android or any other platform. If your app is available on Android or the web or anywhere else then we'll block you from the App Store." Of course Apple does nothing of the kind.
The only thing Apple "forces" developers to do is those who want access to Apple's hardware, Apple's API's, Apple's customer base, and other things belonging to Apple, should pay for that. It's that simple.
If someone has never heard of Spotify, but discovers Spotify through Apple's App Store, then that person is Apple's customer, who then becomes a NEW customer for Spotify -- one that Spotify may never have had without Apple. That's what it means to say Spotify getting access to Apple's customer base. Why should Spotify get that for free?
Some try to argue that that's the only option Apple gives developers because Apple's walled garden restricts other options. But that's simply not true! If a Spotify customer -- someone who found Spotify because of Spotify's marketing, etc. efforts -- wants to sign up for Spotify, then Spotify's marketing efforts will (or should) have directed them to their website to pay. In that instance, they can still get access to Apple's API's, and Apple's delivery and hosting services, for free.
Meanwhile, Spotify doesn't even have to have an app on Apple's App Store to be able to serve iPhone users if they don't want. Web technologies today mean you can build comprehensive user friendly apps in a web browser (yes, even WebKit) and in fact Spotify (along with Facebook, banks, and plenty of other markets and industries) have perfectly usable web apps whose functionality barely differs from the native apps if at all. Apple makes no effort to block any of that. The fact that you can't sideload native apps into iOS doesn't mean you don't have access to apps outside the App Store. (Apple blocks native apps they don't like (eg. porn) on their App Store, but nothing stops developers delivering anything they want (eg. porn) to Apple devices and Apple device users, through the web.) Just because the delivery and presentation is in a web browser doesn't stop an app from being any good. A web app can even have an icon on the Home Screen like any native app.
Of course some will argue "Oh but a web app isn't the same experience as a native app". To which I say... yep, in some cases that can be true... So why do you think that is? The ONLY reason a web app might not have the "same" experience as a native app is because of Apple's API's. Which Apple gives away access to almost for free*. Even so, I can barely tell the difference in practice between Facebook's/Spotify's/banks'/etc. web apps and their native apps.
So this argument that developers don't have any choice is ludicrous. Developers have a choice: either use Apple's APIs (virtually for free*) to build a native app, have it discoverable by Apple's customers, and hosted and delivered using Apple's hosting and delivery services, and then pay Apple a market-standard/competitive fee for that. OR they can build a web app, have it discoverable by anyone they want that they can adequately market to themselves, and have it hosted and delivered by their own hosting and delivery services, and pay Apple NOTHING while it still gets used on Apple devices. OR even better, they can still have a native app on the Apple App Store, hosted and delivered by Apple, and market it and sell it to anyone they want through whatever channels they want (except directly to Apple's customers through Apple's Store), and never pay Apple a dime.
So I just don't see the problem here.
Why should Spotify, or anyone else, get access to all of Apple's stuff for free? If Apple didn't offer ANY other alternative then maybe that could be considered anti-competitive. But Apple offers those choices: Use Apple's stuff and pay for it, or handle some or all of it yourself (while still having the option to use some of Apple's stuff) and don't pay Apple a dime.
None of this is even remotely like what Microsoft did.
*Please don't try to tell me it's not free because it's $99 per year. $99 per year for a $multi-million/billion company is pocket change's pocket change.
Last edited:
Then subscribed via the web.
You do not expect McDonalds to advertise Burger king in their shops...
Apple didn’t develop any of the Spotify App…? So… none of Apple’s (virtually free) API’s went into the Spotify app then?
Why does Spotify need to pay Apple anything when Spotify users can pay for Spotify on the web? If they’re Spotify’s customers why can’t Spotify email them and tell them they can get better pricing through their web site than through Apple’s App Store? Heck why can’t they do what Netflix does and not even allow users to pay through the App Store?
If providing customers the ability to pay through the App Store has no value then they shouldn’t offer it. If they’re offering it it’s because it has some value, and therefore why should they get that value from Apple for free?
See my previous post above for answers to those questions.
You can’t have it both ways.
You missed my point; people are trying to make it so Apple doesn't profit from the store.🤣 at you thinking Apple can't make money off their App Store when they generated record sales in 2022
Apple's App Store growth is slowing down
This year's disclosure suggests that Apple's App Store growth has plateaued.www.cnbc.com
Apple said in its release that 2022 was a “record” year for the App Store, and revealed 900 million subscriptions, up from 745 million subscriptions in 2021.
and where their profit margin is at 78%
Apple runs App Store with 78% profit margin, according to court testimony - 9to5Mac
It is an open secret that the App Store is a huge revenue and profit driver for Apple but to...9to5mac.com
Last edited:
I disagree. If the customer is acquired by Spotify they would just sign them on their site. The issue is they want free access to customers Apple nurtures and has their trust for free
Lmao.
Right. Let’s go back to multiple websites that host apps like back in S60 days shall we?!
And let the developers pay the costs of uploading and maintaining versions across several sites and working to ensure pirated versions are not on said websites and deem them the hassle of mediating such issues or payment issues to them from sites - especially those that closed down after collecting several hundreds or thousands of dollars and claim bankruptcy (as a business LTD you’re not getting blood from a stone).
Some people really have no idea the history of applications for mobile and how it used to be yet claim they want that and that developers would benefit Unfortunately they will not.
Oh Amazon has an AppStore and a website front for Apps for Android. It exists but I hardly doubt that’s a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd thought for Android users to go looking for apps. Most Android users claim what you claim and so many android users barely pay much for apps; so they want the same for iPhones.
Spotify is dying. It’s only a matter of time who’s going to run out of money first, and Spotify cannot win.
I was a Spotify subscriber, but I find that the library is no different than YouTube Music, so I’d rather just pay for YouTube Premium and ditch Spotify.
I was a Spotify subscriber, but I find that the library is no different than YouTube Music, so I’d rather just pay for YouTube Premium and ditch Spotify.
And the App Store is successful because of 3rd party devs. It works both ways.
But isn't this what Apple did in 2007? They started making a phone platform, leveraging their existing operating system, against an ecosystem of dominant establish competitors: Nokia, Blackberry, Microsoft...even Samsung had a bigger marketshare than Apple did back then. Microsoft probably came close to having enough cash to buy Apple and probably the next few companies along the line as well.
Of course the counter of this is Google with Android that entered the market a year after Apple released the iPhone and went on to basically destroy all but Apple in terms of mobile phone operating systems.
Yes let's punish the only alternative to the market player that under cut the market and destroyed the entire smart phone operating system market through using their dominance in another area (advertising) to ensure that they remained relevant in the future (mobile).
Apple also made the operating system, APIs and development tools too. It's a strawman to say it "only handles the hosting" whilst excluding the reality that the 30% covers not only the payment fees and distribution but also is a license for the intellectual property. Spotify of course need not use those and could just use a web app instead which wouldn't require sending 30% to Apple nor limit sign up either.
Spotify is acting entitled to Apple's work and APIs for not payment. I do wonder at what point will Apple make the next move to ask for ~27% of any revenue generated by apps built leveraging their APIs regardless of the source. We already see this where Apple has been forced to permit external payment vendors however it stands to reason that the same technique could work more broadly.
Indeed, it works both ways. So for those making money from Apple's platforms, they contribute 30% of their revenue raised on the platform to Apple as a license for leveraging Apple's intellectual property.
Ok. Fair points about Microsoft and Windows.
In retrospect, it seems bizarre that the DoJ only came after them with IE vs Netscape et al and not their tactics re Windows OEM bundling and licensing terms to businesses as you’ve mentioned.
You could make an argument that the DoJ, the US House & the equivalent of the DoJ and legislatures across the world have been way to slow to regulate the very fast moving technology industry.
Perhaps there should’ve been way more antitrust actions than there previously has been in that industry.
I think we’re going to have to respectfully disagree about what a company should or should not be allowed to do and what is a monopoly or not.
We’re just two people commenting on a forum. But people who are paid to think about antitrust all day are investigating Apple in the US DoJ (Google too).
We have basically two main platforms in mobile and their payment terms are pretty similar. I’m certainly not an antitrust lawyer but that would make me want to investigate whether this outcome is purely market driven.
And at any rate, the EU has already enacted legislation that’s going up change how Apple has to operate in their market at least.
So whatever we may think here, change is starting to happen.
A great comment. Thanks for that
I’m in the UK so that’s why I thought that browser choice was a world wide thing. I guess the intervening 20 years have made my memories rusty!
And thanks for your comments on the standard oil break up and the results of that. It’s a sobering thought.
‘Here comes the new boss. Same as the old boss’, as the Who once sang.
That's funny.
I don't think you realize how little is involved on Spotify's part to get an app up and running on an iOS device...
1. there's very little programming in modern applications... 99% of the code that makes up the app are actually Apple's APIs and not the developer's code, which has been basically reduced to handling of data and managing API calls. (With SwiftUI, there's also interface layout.)
2. click a button and their app is in the App Store on a billion+ devices.
How is Apple involved in that?
1. Provide the operating system. Develop the API's and developer tools.
2. Develop the App Store. Provide the data warehouse and network distribution.
Can't really argue what a monopoly is; it is clearly defined. However, you can argue if a company is acting in a monopolistic way though. But neither being a monopoly nor acting monopolistic is illegal.
The issue at hand is the restriction Apple places on developers from being able to guide users out of the AppStore to a website to subscribe to their services, circumventing Apple's payment system. This is, arguably, acting monopolistic. I personally don't they should have this restriction, especially when it's a service they directly compete with. However, I also believe the developer signed the agreement and knew the terms and I think Apple should get some kind of fee as their platform acted as an agent.
I do think Apple is entitled to collect some kind of fee. Maybe add a
Your logic only works in the US.
Europe has a more fair and balanced approach (IMO) to financial singularity.
The same logic you use is the reason Americans cannot afford insulin.
So yeah. You can say "sucks to be Spotify" just like the medical says "sucks to be poor" to the average American.
Your logic is neither patriotic nor holds up in any long-term objective of any society unless you live in a post-apocalyptic world, which I will be cheeky enough to assume you aren't hoping for.
Yes, debatable. Both MS and Apple did/do put restrictions on their operating systems but Apple is much more restrictive with end users.
Microsoft didn't literally kill off competition in "those markets." In the browser market, for example, Netscape continued to release new browsers until 2008 and during that time (and since) many other browsers came to market. Even Netscape Navigator essentially still exists as Firefox.
Were actions used by Microsoft a violation of antitrust laws, yes, and I feel the same can be true for some Apple activities.
Last edited:
Not at all. First, it is not as simple as a bank adding a point to the swipe fee. The fees are MC / VISA / AmEx card processing. Not the individual banks. (yes I know there is a little flexibility in there).As far as Apple is concerned (for purposes of analogy), the important part is the fee collected by the service provider (credit card company). They get 1..2% for their service. Apple gets 30%. To account for the cash back, all the merchant needs to do is to raise the price by 2%. The customer pays more but gets the cash back. The merchant gets its money. Everybody is pretending that they fooled each other but the reality is that the service fee effectively is just 1...2%. If Apple was paying 28% cash back then the situation would be similar
Do you seriously believe that Apple charges 15% (or 30% $1MM+) as a swipe fee? They allocate no more than a standard card issuing bank for the actual transaction. There is a laundry list of additional services included in the fee. In fact, they previously outlined what the App Store fees would be with third-party credit card processing - the Dutch dating app thing and it was 27% if I recall correctly.
Again - none of this impacts the consumer. merchant pays the swipe fees. In the case of the App Store, the merchant is Apple who pays the swipe fees to the purchaser's credit card bank. They recoup that fee as part of the App Store transaction fee along with the other services provided.
I used forced (and put it in quotes) because that's the word used in the post I replied to. Computer makers aren't forced to sell Windows with their machines, retailers aren't forced to sell iPhones, developers aren't forced to use certain platforms, etc. However, having only TWO major players in mobile OS can definitely force their hands and this is where antitrust laws and regulations are supposed to step in.
And while MS did do things like incentivize computer makers to NOT include Navigator on Windows machines they sold, they did not absolutely restrict it. In varoius ways, Apple is more restrictive than Microsoft not only with third party companies but especially end users.
Were actions used by Microsoft a violation of antitrust laws, yes, and I feel the same can be true for some Apple activities.
There is a reason for this. Many of the apps that are essentially front ends to services - banking, Facebook, etc. - are either nothing more than a simple wrapper app with a WebKit window presenting a variation of their default web app. Or they are using cross-platform development tools (Electron, JavaScript, etc.) so the apps all look and work the same regardless of how to get to the them - iOS, Android, Mac, PC, web.
How difficult is it to go to their website, purchase a pro sub, and refresh your app? That's what I would do anyway, just for ease of use. Purchasing subs on phones sucks and always has. You can already by-pass the "30%" oh wait you can't because the pro sub costs the same now as it did when you could purchase it through the mobile app. They don't want to save the customer 30%, they want to pocket that 30%. You're not going to see any benefit from any of this.
Good point. Then Apple making 30% isn't quite enough. It should be 50/50.
The EU commission hit price comparison websites with the same thing because it was found that the websites were not offering the best deals or hiding the best deals because many of the best deals could be found away from the price comparison website and directly at a company's website or at their brick and mortar site but the price comparison websites never told users this. Thus the EU commission told the websites to change their ways or face heavy fines or website closure. Apple is doing the same, not telling users about better options elsewhere therefore they should face the same scrutiny as the prices comparison websites did.
Indeed. I’m aware of this and almost included it in my post, but my post was long enough already and didn’t want to distract from my point. 😉
No that’s a completely different thing.
The price comparison websites promote themselves as providing a service, that service being providing price comparison information. When the information they’re providing isn’t accurate then they’re not doing what they say they’re doing and should be called out on that.
Apple makes no such claim and it is not their business. Why should they be in any way obliged to tell their customers they can “get a better deal” somewhere else, any more than Target is obliged to tell their customers about Costco’s or Walmart’s prices?
Last edited: