Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell:
“Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor,” Sewell explains. “Ironically, it is now Spotify that wants things to be different by asking for preferential treatment from Apple.”
I absolutely love that Apple didn’t take this criticism sitting down!
“Our guidelines help competition, not hurt it. The fact that we compete has never influenced how Apple treats Spotify or other successful competitors like Google Play Music, Tidal, Amazon Music, Pandora or the numerous other apps on the App Store that distribute digital music.” I wonder what Rdio or MOG or Lala might think about that…
Rdio might have a point, but MOG and Lala were both bought by Apple (MOG -> Beats -> Apple Music, Lala -> iTunes Match), so…
In all seriousness, I do think the in-app purchase rules can get really weird at times, and I’m not sure that everyone at Apple is aware of the fine line that they’re walking. But I don’t think the IAP rules themselves were responsible for any of those services dying. It’s a low-margin, cutthroat market right now on all sides.
That’s the thing, the margins are very low, and I find it naïve on Apple’s behalf to not acknowledge that they have a tremendous advantage over Spotify as they’re not obligated to pay that extra 15 or 30% to themselves for basically the exact same service… That extra charge either wipes out Spotify’s own margin, or by forcing them to increase the subscription price to make up for the in-app purchase fee, would make consumers pick the less expensive option—theirs. I fear Apple is entering Microsoft territory, where as owners of the platform they are not really allowing for competition to develop fairly. I believe that f Apple decides to offer a service, it should remove the fees from any direct competitor in that space. I think it’s pretty obvious that the reason we can’t buy movies directly in the Amazon Video app is because they can’t afford to pay that extra 30% to Apple for that content (I doubt it has a 30% profit margin on it), and in the end, it’s really the users who get a less-than-optimal experience as a result.
The people subscribing to Spotify from the iOS app for a premium are certainly not too dumb to go to their Web site and subscribe there. They do it for convenience. The net loss for Spotify is zip.
They are in a business that stinks, and they are one of the biggest stinks in that business. Nobody who is in the business of ruining musicians is doing anything for competition or choice. If streaming rates were reasonable for musicians, nobody would subscribe.
The only positive thing I can say about them, is that they make better software than Apple, which isn’t too hard these days, but still…
Apple having an advantage on an apple platform is normal.
Note that Microsoft did not get into trouble because IE has an advantage on Windows. They get into trouble because they were forcing OEMs to not preinstall netscape on their system.
I wonder if Spotify will not drop the 30% in-app-purchase sting to match the higher 85% they are getting back from Apple.
<<m.y a=”room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!bk561u:
two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here
!bk561u:
➽:➽:.
➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPhaseGetPay$98Hour……………………………….,,,.=”>.
✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:::::::!bk561u:….,….
“…if Apple decides to offer a service, it should remove the fees from any direct competitor in that space.”
So, by your reasoning, if I open up a Toyota dealership, I should give free showroom space and sales support to GM and Hyundai. To allow competition to develop fairly.
Am I getting that right?
isn’t too hard to make better software than Apple? nonsense. we’re that true you’d be running android and Windows.
If GM and Hyundai were selling cars directly before Toyota was, and then Toyota decided to join the game, and if in order for most people to be able buy and then drive a GM or a Hyundai at all they needed to go through a Toyota dealership, then maybe, yes.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.
The main reason I’m using Apple Music is because I hate Spotify UI.
All of this has happened before.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1035641/real.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109110473987277613
Uhmm… Yes?
Your metaphor/original argument are based on a lot of silly requirements and an assumption that Apple should be obligated to accommodate them. Ridiculous.
Not a lot more ridiculous than comparing the app store to a car dealership…
The App Store is a retail vendor of goods and services, owned by a private corporation. You’re suggesting they have some sort of obligation to accommodate their competitors because their store is too popular.
Can you point to where I suggest that? You missed the whole point, which I’m not going to repeat because you obviously can’t hear it.
“I believe that f Apple decides to offer a service, it should remove the fees from any direct competitor in that space.”
Special treatment for competitors.