Apple Responds to EU's Decision to Narrow Antitrust Case Prompted by Spotify

[DeepIn2U]

You are joking yes?

Let's see...

1. Microsoft forced OEMs into Windows only contracts, meaning if you wanted deep cuts to Windows licensing fees so you could compete with other Windows-based systems, you weren't allowed to sell computers with other OSes pre-installed. This effectively pushed non-Windows operating systems out.

2. Required any company that wanted site-wide licensing for Windows/Office/Server they had to count and pay for every "seat", which included, Macs, Unix workstations, mainframe terminals. Those agreements were far, far more costly than the actual hardware, so eventually it became cheaper for companies to start replacing hardware. This effectively pushed all non-Windows compatible hardware out.

3. Whenever a cross-platform technology starting making headway in the market, Microsoft was famous for, "embrace, enhance, extinguish" tactics. Netscape was a victim of that when Microsoft - who had a monopoly in the desktop computer market, decided that IE should be tied into Windows 98. This effectively pushed all non-Windows based technologies out.

And remember this was a company that had an actual monopoly. When monopoly still meant; a single entity that controlled a vast majority share of its respective market. (And building and owning something does not make you a monopoly, it makes you the owner.)

They are still a monopoly today, and I whole-heartedly agree that they should be allowed to do whatever they want on their Surface computers. Just as I believe Google should do what they want with Pixel devices. In the same way I think Apple should be allowed to what they want on their iPhones.

ANY company should be allowed to design and create whatever product they want. Have it run however they want. What features goes in that devices. Etc. Then let the market decide. The only time that should ever really become an issue is if that "device" obtains a monopoly position in its respective market and has done so through anti-competitive tactics. (i.e. If the only (or easiest/best) way to sign up to Spotify was via the iOS App Store, then Apple should not be able to dictate the terms.)*

*Although I do think if a company/developer/service creates a "player" only app, then they should be allowed to direct users to an outside method of subscribing, even if in an indirect way.

EXCELLENCE right here! Someone whom has an accurate account of history regarding Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics in their monopoly and whom fully understands what a monopoly IS! Well done!

This is most likely what the EU reversed their push against Apple.

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.

There are two main platforms in Desktop as well as mobile. The market decided that for the most part ... aside from Microsoft's juggernaut surviving Monopolistic actions regarding IE ... but now they're doing it with MS Teams - built into Windows 11 with 2 installation listings within Programs and Features. But hey Apple includes iMessage as well in macOS 11.

Linux desktop OS, even with Ubuntu still isn't properly consumer focused for ease of use - not when it comes to downloading and finding programs an end user seeks (without knowing what is out there).

For mobile: Symbian & S60 died because Nokia got too fat internally and rested on their laurels, Microsoft as well - thinking purchase Nokia's mobile division and they'll come - just like BlackBerry did with BB10 OS and hardware before jumping to Android far too late when nobody wanted a physical keyboard on their phones anymore. Those that did had to adjust and they did!

Neither is a monopoly. Nor is having a store that houses developers apps. Not once does Google, Apple, Nintendo, nor Sony claims ownership and nor exclusive rights to apps in any of their platforms respective stores. THAT is the confusion that EU and many other countries don't get! Those in charge NEED to go back to higher education to re-do their degrees or submitt all bank accounts (including offshore) for themselves and their immediate families to the public to see the ROOT cause of their initial push in the first place!!

Anti-competitive practices one can look to Tencent and how they've operated. lookup "The Secret Chinese Company That Owns Everything" on youtube ... it's an eye opener.

 

[laptech]

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 should be in no way obliged to tell their customers they can “get a better deal” somewhere else, anymore than Target is obliged to tell their customers about Costco’s or Walmart’s prices.

Actually you are wrong. Under the app store terms and conditions, dev's are prevented from putting in their apps that there are cheaper subscriptions outside of the app (the dev's own website). It is not about 'claiming something', it's is about not informing/preventing users from knowing there are cheaper options outside of the app/website.

Yes you are correct with the analogy that Target is not obliged to tell customers about Costco or Walmart prices BUT when it comes to a company wanting to tell it's customers about it's OWN offers/deals and is being prevented from doing so then it becomes a problem.

Facebook was prevented from doing this, so was Spotify and so was Epic. All their app's were removed from the store because in the app that there where cheaper options/prices outside of the app and all they had to do was click a button in the app to go to the app's website (the apps were removed for other app store violations as well). Apple said doing this breaches the app stores term's and conditions. MR reported on it ages ago.

 

[dragoon2745]

This should be an open and shut case. Either Apple must allow advertisement in app of the ability to pay externally for lower prices, or in areas where Apple directly competes (like video and music streaming) they should be required to remove their commission so developers can charge competitive prices. I don’t see how it’s not blatantly anti-competitive if they aren’t required to do at least one or the other. That or allow non-apple controlled app stores (which is the solution I’d be least happy with but seems the most likely outcome)

Apple does allow advertising this they just don't allow the developer to insert a link to the website. Commissions should not be removed though. Best Buy sells its own branded TVs Insignia and also Amazon's Fire TV. Should Best Buy be expected to sell Amazon's TV at zero profit because they have their own solution being sold at the same store?

 

[bluecoast]

For all those still supporting Apple in this stance:

• Imagine if Windows and MacOS were as locked down as iOS / Android with similar polices and %age cuts as the App Store / Play Store.
• Both companies made the investment in their respective OSs (and hardware with Apple), so they deserve to decide how applications get on their operating systems - and to and profit from this, right?
• So no Wordperfect, you can't tell users to go your own site to buy your application for less.

Would you be OK with this?

Footnote:

• I bet that Bill Gates is kicking himself in not thinking of launching the 'Windows Program Market' with Win95 or 98 (once 95 had established Windows' dominance on the desktop).
• Now I'm just imagining downloading programs at 36kbps dialup speeds...
• I guess the 'Windows Program Market' would likely have been like early Netflix with CDs in the post!

 

[Detnator]

Actually you are wrong. Under the app store terms and conditions, dev's are prevented from putting in their apps that there are cheaper subscriptions outside of the app (the dev's own website). It is not about 'claiming something', it's is about not informing/preventing users from knowing there are cheaper options outside of the app/website.

Yes you are correct with the analogy that Target is not obliged to tell customers about Costco or Walmart prices BUT when it comes to a company wanting to tell it's customers about it's OWN offers/deals and is being prevented from doing so then it becomes a problem.

Facebook was prevented from doing this, so was Spotify and so was Epic. All their app's were removed from the store because in the app that there where cheaper options/prices outside of the app and all they had to do was click a button in the app to go to the app's website (the apps were removed for other app store violations as well). Apple said doing this breaches the app stores term's and conditions. MR reported on it ages ago.

Ummm… sure, but… huh?

What do you think Target would do if a Walmart employee walked into a Target store and started putting up signs saying “hey you can get these products cheaper at Walmart instead”?

Target customers can find out that there are different prices at Walmart and Costco by walking into Walmart or Costco, or by reading the catalogs or emails or other marketing that Walmart and Costco try to point them to. Target can not and doesn’t try to prohibit that. But Walmart and Costco are not allowed to put up signs inside (or even immediately outside) Target stores or price stickers on the products in Target stores advertising their prices to Target customers there.

Likewise Apple doesn’t allow Spotify or anyone else to put up signs in Apple’s online store saying “you can get a better deal on our website”. But Apple does not prohibit Spotify from emailing or marketing in any other way to Spotify’s customers (or anyone) with information about pricing on their website.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

 

[Klae17]

Nah. It's trying to be profitable and not wasting time on something that doesn't make us money. There's a reason my retirement fund has gone up over $30k a year for years now.

I think that was a reference to your name. Pretty funny joke.

 

[DeepIn2U]

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.

Spotify already DOES what you're stating!

At that rate why can't Spotify MATCH what Apple's Music pays to artists when they have thousands more streams per user per song?! Why is Spotify skimping to artist and not paying for their worth!?

Why is Streaming the business model it is where artists are paid pennies per full track listened?
Some would argue it's better than when an artist buys a single song or album and listens to the song(s) indefinitely the artist is not paid per listen in that respect - BUT the artist doesn't see anything worthwhile until long after a million streams has been reached.
Why doesn't Spotify pay the artist when their song is featured in an add?! That's a licensing loop-hole they have an agreement to - and really is sketchy they've had that.

Songs are the blood, sweat, tears, and heart & soul of an artist, a band, a collaboration - so why is ART (Music and visual arts) always looked at as a commodity and CHEAP!?

Back in Napster days how many songs did YOU steal for free?! How many of THOSE tracks did you purchase after when available for sale in digital format!?
ME: I downloaded roughly 80 songs from artists I've already had previous albums for, about 20 for songs I already had on Vinyl. I purchased EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tracks back again on iTunes (via singles or by Album collections) because I'm not a hoarder ... I'm a music lover and I play music on my spare time.

this fight isn't just between Apple vs Spotify it's about the artists and the consumer as well. One cannot exist without the other.

 

[BuffaloTF]

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.

If you really want something sobering - AT&T. Their monopoly in one country allowed them to finance Bell Labs. The catch, they were regulated so heavily they could not patent anything not related to telephony. Go look up Bell Labs’ inventions and take note of some huge names, platforms, computer languages, scientific findings… all free and clear that spawned huge new markets or research. Short list; you’ll find UNIX there, C++, stereo sound, discovery of the Big Bang… it’s insane that they were that advanced, and we’re still only iterating those same things. Instead of the innovations, we’re left with figurative strip-mining of those, squeezing every last penny out of them.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

Microsoft was almost broken up. They appealed it and won the appeal. The only thing they didn't win was the antisteering measures and had to allow other web browsers on Windows.

Fast forward a few years after that decision, Google Chrome came out. And now look where the industry is now: Internet Explorer is dead and Chrome is the #1 browser in the world. Chrome never would've kicked off if it wasn't for the DoJ's decision.

But that’s also due to the fact the MS Explorer was an AWFUL web browser, hideous and clunky and slow. Of course they lost the market!

 

[FriendlyMackle]

No. Not at all. The swipe fees are 2-4% or so. That is paid by the merchant, not the consumer.

A bank offering a couple of points back to the cardholder as a benefit of using their card is a marketing and product decision on the bank's part. And not all cards offer cash back (which is really the only card benefit that couple possibly be conflated as reducing the effective fees.

Lets use some simple round numbers:

1,000,000 cardhlders total
600,000 cardholders of that with a 1% cash back card

Each cardholder makes a $10 purchase.
Total swipe fees PAID BY MERCHANT = $20,000
Total cash back TO CARDHOLDER = $6,000

The swipe fees are still the full amount. Some banks include a cash back benefit to their cardholders that is paid out of either the $20,000 swipe fees, or most likely, from a corporate marketing budget or other promotional funding source.

The 1% or 1.5% paid to customers is likely sourced from the exorbitant interest charged to customers who carry a balance on their cards each month—which is a large percentage of cardholders. Additionally, many of the cards that offer ’higher’ benefits or % back also charge large to huge membership fees. So after the annual fees, a cardholder ‘member’ might only make around 1% back on what they spent anyway. It is a huge racket. But it does benefit those who pay off their full balances each month. Of course, the bank rakes in the profits.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

But that’s also due to the fact the MS Explorer was an AWFUL web browser, hideous and clunky and slow. Of course they lost the market!

And Safari isn't an awful web browser, hideous and clunky and slow?

Safari Team Asks for Feedback Amid Accusations That 'Safari Is the Worst, It's the New IE'

Apple's Safari and WebKit team has asked for feedback on Twitter amid criticisms of the browser's bugs and missing support. Jen Simmons, an...

www.macrumors.com

Safari at one point was ported to Windows, then a few years later discontinued due to low usage.

Do you really think we'd still be using Safari on our iPhones if we didn't have a gun to our head? The only reason Safari usage is so high is because webkit is the only web engine allowed on iOS so there's no point in downloading another browser since it'll still function like Safari just with a different UI. There's a reason Safari usage on Mac is very low since Mac users actually can use a different browser.

 

[_Spinn_]

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

[pasamio]

For all those still supporting Apple in this stance:

• Imagine if Windows and MacOS were as locked down as iOS / Android with similar polices and %age cuts as the App Store / Play Store.
• Both companies made the investment in their respective OSs (and hardware with Apple), so they deserve to decide how applications get on their operating systems - and to and profit from this, right?
• So no Wordperfect, you can't tell users to go your own site to buy your application for less.

Would you be OK with this?

Footnote:

• I bet that Bill Gates is kicking himself in not thinking of launching the 'Windows Program Market' with Win95 or 98 (once 95 had established Windows' dominance on the desktop).
• Now I'm just imagining downloading programs at 36kbps dialup speeds...
• I guess the 'Windows Program Market' would likely have been like early Netflix with CDs in the post!

To be honest I use the Mac App Store today so I guess I would be fine with it? Some of the devs I know in the MAS are happy for Apple to take their 30% for not having to deal with everything else.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Spotify already DOES what you're stating!

At that rate why can't Spotify MATCH what Apple's Music pays to artists when they have thousands more streams per user per song?! Why is Spotify skimping to artist and not paying for their worth!?

Why is Streaming the business model it is where artists are paid pennies per full track listened?
Some would argue it's better than when an artist buys a single song or album and listens to the song(s) indefinitely the artist is not paid per listen in that respect - BUT the artist doesn't see anything worthwhile until long after a million streams has been reached.
Why doesn't Spotify pay the artist when their song is featured in an add?! That's a licensing loop-hole they have an agreement to - and really is sketchy they've had that.

Songs are the blood, sweat, tears, and heart & soul of an artist, a band, a collaboration - so why is ART (Music and visual arts) always looked at as a commodity and CHEAP!?

Back in Napster days how many songs did YOU steal for free?! How many of THOSE tracks did you purchase after when available for sale in digital format!?
ME: I downloaded roughly 80 songs from artists I've already had previous albums for, about 20 for songs I already had on Vinyl. I purchased EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tracks back again on iTunes (via singles or by Album collections) because I'm not a hoarder ... I'm a music lover and I play music on my spare time.

this fight isn't just between Apple vs Spotify it's about the artists and the consumer as well. One cannot exist without the other.

You are very naive if you believe that Apple is paying artists much more than the next service. The figures that Apple bandied about misrepresnt the way that streaming royalties are paid and who Apple pays that 'per stream' number to.

Even if Apple were paying artist double what Spotify are they are arguably devaluing the artists work even more than Spotify are.

Apple are a thousand times bigger than Spotify they don't deserve credit for paying musicians a few more pennies.

 

[gregmancuso]

The 1% or 1.5% paid to customers is likely sourced from the exorbitant interest charged to customers who carry a balance on their cards each month—which is a large percentage of cardholders. Additionally, many of the cards that offer ’higher’ benefits or % back also charge large to huge membership fees. So after the annual fees, a cardholder ‘member’ might only make around 1% back on what they spent anyway. It is a huge racket. But it does benefit those who pay off their full balances each month. Of course, the bank rakes in the profits.

I believe we re saying the same thing - my last sentence talks to "other promotional funding sources" which are obviously not coming from swipe fees. The example in my message was a direct response to the comment that the banks can just up the swipe fees to cover the cash back.

 

[DeepIn2U]

You are very naive if you believe that Apple is paying artists much more than the next service. The figures that Apple bandied about misrepresnt the way that streaming royalties are paid and who Apple pays that 'per stream' number to.

Even if Apple were paying artist double what Spotify are they are arguably devaluing the artists work even more than Spotify are.

Apple are a thousand times bigger than Spotify they don't deserve credit for paying musicians a few more pennies.

You have proof of what you claim?

Cause what I claim has been presented on this site direct from Apple.

Not naive - so where’s your source?

 

[OneBar]

For all those still supporting Apple in this stance:

• Imagine if Windows and MacOS were as locked down as iOS / Android with similar polices and %age cuts as the App Store / Play Store.
• Both companies made the investment in their respective OSs (and hardware with Apple), so they deserve to decide how applications get on their operating systems - and to and profit from this, right?
• So no Wordperfect, you can't tell users to go your own site to buy your application for less.

Would you be OK with this?

Footnote:

• I bet that Bill Gates is kicking himself in not thinking of launching the 'Windows Program Market' with Win95 or 98 (once 95 had established Windows' dominance on the desktop).
• Now I'm just imagining downloading programs at 36kbps dialup speeds...
• I guess the 'Windows Program Market' would likely have been like early Netflix with CDs in the post!

No one wants to sell their app for less. That's the crux here. Spotify isn't going to sell their Premium for less if they could. Wait, they already can since you can only sub through their website already. And it's the same price they were selling it at when they were selling it through Apple. Fascinating.

This is, of course, completely disregarding that if Apple wasn't facilitating the storage and maintenance and delivery of the app, then it's completely up to the dev to do so and there goes that 30% anyway. They're not going to make more money and you're not going to save any. If anything, it'll make the app more expensive because they'll have to go through other third parties for the necessities and their own mark-up.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

You have proof of what you claim?

Cause what I claim has been presented on this site direct from Apple.

Not naive - so where’s your source?

So it's true because Apple says it is? Yes that's very naive. It was pure PR because Spotify had reported them for abusing their market position.

The way Apple presented the data is entirely misleading.

From the Wall Street Journal ...

“In the letter, Apple says it pays 52% of subscription revenue, or 52 cents of every dollar, to record labels. Spotify, which generates revenue both from subscriptions and its free ad-supported tier, says it pays ⅔ of every dollar of revenue to rights holders, with 75% to 80% of that going to labels, which translates to 50 to 53 cents on the dollar, depending on agreements between the service and different labels.”

Music Industry sources quoted by Variety

Ultimately, the variables make apples-to-apples comparisons (sorry) nearly impossible, but multiple sources say the two companies’ rates are actually much closer than Friday’s headlines would imply.

“Nobody looks at per-stream [metrics] anymore, at least not internally,” one executive at a major music company tells Variety. “What we look at is overall subscription growth, the churn rate — with a low rate being the goal, because it means people are sticking around — and the conversion rate, which is how many people stay past the free trial or, in Spotify’s case, switch from their ad-supported platform to a paid one.”


The executive concludes, “What we want to see is a lot of users streaming a lot of music” — which seems blindingly obvious. But more users and more streams can actually mean a lower per-stream rate. For example, if one artist were racking up a high percentage of streams on a less-popular streaming service, their per-stream rate would be quite high — but they’d actually have fewer streams than they would on a site with more users. (Spotify has an industry-leading 155 million paying subscribers and 345 million active users, according to its most recent report, while Apple last reported more than 60 million Music subscribers in June 2019.)

Spotify is generating much higher revenue for the Music industry their service is the biggest in the market by a distance.

If Apple care about Music they could start by building an app that isn't atrocious they might be able to compete fairly then.

 

[DeepIn2U]

So it's true because Apple says it is? Yes that's very naive. It was pure PR because Spotify had reported them for abusing their market position.

The way Apple presented the data is entirely misleading.

From the Wall Street Journal ...



Music Industry sources quoted by Variety






Spotify is generating much higher revenue for the Music industry their service is the biggest in the market by a distance.

If Apple care about Music they could start by building an app that isn't atrocious they might be able to compete fairly then.

But by the very first quote Spotify has different rates based on region/country outside of the USA.

And sue to the pay subscriptions vs free it would seem there is a variable rate that is consolidated.

Also stated is “nobody looks at per stream anymore..” listed in the WallStreet Journal link above.

So it’s not that Apple’s report is incorrrect it’s just that it doesn’t follow the model that Spotify uses and reports. By volume of subscribers of course Apotify would “generate more for the music industry” it’s simple mathematics. Yet narrow down to the same numbers for each at say Apple’s max subscribers or recalculate Apple’s subscriber count to match Spotify the numbers - in total would be very different.

An app being atrocious is subjective - to many iPhone users Apple Music as an app is fine - of course recommendations and opinions vary but the choice of algorithms vs human curated playlists definitely shows a clear winner in every genre or for new music discovery winning in Spotify.

Non of your links disprove Apple’s claim succinctly does it? Simply that disprove the claim - not by comparison based on subscriber or service variables.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Neither is a monopoly. Nor is having a store that houses developers apps. Not once does Google, Apple, Nintendo, nor Sony claims ownership and nor exclusive rights to apps in any of their platforms respective stores. THAT is the confusion that EU and many other countries don't get! Those in charge NEED to go back to higher education to re-do their degrees or submitt all bank accounts (including offshore) for themselves

You may want to get back to higher education and re-do your degree and find out that you don't need to "claim ownership" of apps to be considered a monopoly (or rather a duopoly) for the distribution of them to customers.

Neither would MSC and Maersk have to claim ownership of transported goods to be considered a duopoly in international container shipping (if their combined market share warranted it).

This is, of course, completely disregarding that if Apple wasn't facilitating the storage and maintenance and delivery of the app, then it's completely up to the dev to do so and there goes that 30% anyway. They're not going to make more money and you're not going to save any. If anything, it'll make the app more expensive because they'll have to go through other third parties for the necessities and their own mark-up.

This is, of course, completely disregarding the economics of providing app downloads and online payment processing.

Hosting of an app to download for customers costs next to nothing - and neither does incorporating an online update mechanism (which, of course, they can't ship a third-party one on iOS). Online payment processing also costs far less than 30%.

There is ample room to save for consumers and app developers without a supracompetitive 30% enforced commission. Whether that will actually result in lower consumer pricing, let alone better user experience, is a different story.

 

[bluecoast]

No one wants to sell their app for less. That's the crux here. Spotify isn't going to sell their Premium for less if they could. Wait, they already can since you can only sub through their website already. And it's the same price they were selling it at when they were selling it through Apple. Fascinating.

This is, of course, completely disregarding that if Apple wasn't facilitating the storage and maintenance and delivery of the app, then it's completely up to the dev to do so and there goes that 30% anyway. They're not going to make more money and you're not going to save any. If anything, it'll make the app more expensive because they'll have to go through other third parties for the necessities and their own mark-up.

I think this argument works for small companies / apps but not for big companies where economies of scale kick in. For them it’s just a blatent platform tax.

Apple acts like the App Store is still the really compelling proposition it initially was in 2008, where for ‘the little guy’ it looked after distribution, payent & billing & much of the marketing & promotion. But it’s just not like that anymore.

 

[bluecoast]

To be honest I use the Mac App Store today so I guess I would be fine with it? Some of the devs I know in the MAS are happy for Apple to take their 30% for not having to deal with everything else.

I’m not a dev at all - nor do I know anyone who is - so I defer to your knowledge and experience on this.

But isn’t that the great thing about the Mac being open?

For those that want to set up their own distribution, marketing and billing for their apps, they can.

Apple still provides the notarisation service.

For those that just want to develop, there’s the Mac App Store.

 

[OneBar]

I think this argument works for small companies / apps but not for big companies where economies of scale kick in. For them it’s just a blatent platform tax.

Apple acts like the App Store is still the really compelling proposition it initially was in 2008, where for ‘the little guy’ it looked after distribution, payent & billing & much of the marketing & promotion. But it’s just not like that anymore.

Either way, they're still paying for development of the app, hosting the app, security of the app, storage of any associated code, music, video, distribution, customer service, staff to manage all of this, subcontractors for the stuff they don't want to directly handle, advertising, etc. There's much more that Apple provides for that 30% than people realize.

 

[AppliedMicro]

This is, of course, completely disregarding that if Apple wasn't facilitating the storage and maintenance and delivery of the app, then it's completely up to the dev to do so and there goes that 30% anyway

You‘re way overstating what the commission pays for. Especially for the likes of Spotify. Facilitating the storage and delivery of the app? Amazon AWS charges single-digit $US cents for storing a GB of data a month. Downloads? Fraction of a cent per download. Data transfer? Less than 0.10 per GB.

Maintenance and security? Apple doesn‘t do that for you.

👉 There’s two good reasons why Apple offers free downloads on the App Store. First, to promote the platform and hardware sales - and second because it costs them nearly nothing, except for the rather superficial app review.

I agree with bluecoast in calling it a platform tax. At the size of Spotify, you can do all the app hosting, billing and payment processing for less than a dollar per customer and month - while Apple wants to charge you 3 (of a 10$ subscription).

 

[OneBar]

You‘re way overstating what the commission pays for. Especially for the likes of Spotify. Facilitating the storage and delivery of the app? Amazon AWS charges single-digit $US cents for storing a GB of data a month. Downloads? Fraction of a cent per download. Data transfer? Less than 0.10 per GB.

Maintenance and security? Apple doesn‘t do that for you.

👉 There’s two good reasons why Apple offers free downloads on the App Store. First, to promote the platform and hardware sales - and second because it costs them nearly nothing, except for the rather superficial app review.

I agree with bluecoast in calling it a platform tax. At the size of Spotify, you can do all the app hosting, billing and payment processing for less than a dollar per customer and month - while Apple wants to charge you 3 (of a 10$ subscription).

Cool, then go do that. They have no legal leg to stand on if they can go do it themselves. They have no reason to stay on the App Store from their perspective and you already cannot get Premium through the app anyway. So if your theory is correct, they should step away and drop their price. Like yesterday. That they don't tells me that I'm right and that the cost of doing everything that Apple does for them in the App Store costs at least the 30%.