Just about everything in this post is wrong
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Spotify CEO pleads for iPhone users to stop paying through Apple's App Store
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
TekGryphon gonna TekGryphon
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I... don't understand how Spotify gets away with this. Last I checked, Apple strongarmed people by disallowing them for selling subscriptions externally for less than they do through iTunes?
The punctuation looks correct, but otherwise is so out there to the point that Glen Beck would cringe.
I was put off by that too-but I don't listen to a ton of music, so I just wanted to test it out. I immediately set a reminder through Siri to cancel in 89 Days. (If I end up not caring for it.)
Maninthemirror
Banned
So why not cancel it in 3 months
Apple reversed that ages ago.
Because I'm too lazy to register then cancel it? So many steps.
And I'm satisfied with spotify premium.
Edit: Ok I'm not very satisfied now. Why there is no student discount in Australia?
You can cancel it today and it'll only stop working when your trial is up.
American Eskimo
Banned
Seems extremely risky to ask people to unsubscribe and then come back at some future date to subscribe again.
They really couldn't program it so people could presubscribe?
They really couldn't program it so people could presubscribe?
TheAbsolution
Member
You can just turn off auto renewal.
LumpOfCole
Member
It seems like a very inopportune time to tell Apple device users to cancel their subs, even if just to re-sub - they might just use the unsubscribing period to try Apple Music and stick with that.
mrmisterwaa
Neo Member
They technically pushed the "Apple tax" onto the user base instead of them paying out of their pocket. The amount Apple would be getting would be the exact same.
I don't see Apple could possibly do anything to Spotify any more (now that they have released Apple Music and would be seen as anti-competition).
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
All this does is make Spotify look bad to me. I had no idea they were pushing the Apple tax straight onto consumers up until now.
Either way, as has been pointed out, they only care now that their service looks like a poor value to Apple customers when compared to Apple Music at $9.99 a month.
Either way, as has been pointed out, they only care now that their service looks like a poor value to Apple customers when compared to Apple Music at $9.99 a month.
mrmisterwaa
Neo Member
It's hard to explain what I was thinking in my head but the way I look at it a little differently. Apple knows people are forced to use their ecosystem to purchase things - you can't get Applications* without using their store. When you don't have "true" choice over what you purchase. It's considered greed in my eyes.
I can give you a comparison with Steam. Steam sells you the same game for the same price as any other retailer would. They give you an ecosystem to play your game in. You don't need it.
*without jailbreaking.
That doesn't make any sense. Are you arguing that because Apple sells things that work on Apple devices, they should not charge anyone anything to use their infrastructure to reach that user base?
flaxknuckles
Member
Yep, Apple be tripping. Google don't force anyone to use Google Play in their apps. Comixology had to gimp their ios app but they made the Android version use credit cards and Paypal.
Maybe seedy is the wrong word, let's just say assholey when your main competitor doesn't do the same thing.
Anyway I was really talking more about Apple putting pressure on record labels to stop Spotify's free tier . If you don't think that's seedy, I don't know what to tell you.
To protect the free subscription service that Spotify has. I believe that as more people turn to streaming music, the revenues will increase, and services like Spotify will be able to pay more royalties. If enough people get invested, I think the free service would be able to sustain itself. It's a shame that artists like Taylor Swift and Apple are trying to quash it in the name of short-term profit.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Doesn't seem like pleading as much as just informational. Useful email blast.
I totally get why Spotify charges more for people who subscribe through the App Store. Can't fault them. I'll probably look at Spotify when my Apple Music trial sub expires.
I totally get why Spotify charges more for people who subscribe through the App Store. Can't fault them. I'll probably look at Spotify when my Apple Music trial sub expires.
mrmisterwaa
Neo Member
They should definitely charge but not force people to use only their infrastructure for purchasing options.
Give people access to a slightly more open market.
No, they backed out of that provision after complains of many companies and threats of antitrust suits.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
I would imagine when you come up with a subscription service model, you can't just absorb the losses of $3 a month from millions of subscribers willy nilly.
I'm surprised more services don't do this. It seems totally rational to me.
Yes, Google music competes with Spotify in the play store. Google and Spotify both pay publishers about the same amount and both have revenue of less than 30% of the $10 coming in. Google doesn't compete with Spotify by charging them a 30% cut they cannot afford or by forcing Spotify to jack up their prices above the market rate.
Tell me how it benefits you as an ios user that there are no music sub or ebooks you can buy at the market rate in ios other than Apple?
It's an anti consumer practice that takes advantage of prevailing publisher rates to push the competition out of offering IAP and leaving Apple as the only option instead of just building a better product.
Let me guess, you were fine with apple colluding with book publishers to jack up eBook prices also.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
"you pay the fee"
Firelord Chargrilled
Banned
How about not survive or exist at all if it wasn't for Apple ? Is using the App Store infrastructure suppose to be free ?
Maninthemirror
Banned
Apps make more money percentage wise at App Store than outside it , that's how.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The charge is for all paid and ad apps. It is due to the App Store that app makers more money percentage wise than any other store
Normal apps survive because the 30% is built into the cost, its the standard rate across the industry.
Streaming music and eBook apps don't have the same luxury because 30% is their total revenue. It forces ios users to either default to Apple music and book store or purchase on the web. Either way, I don't see any benefit to the consumer.
Yeah, I guess it's one thing when you're not a direct competitor to the product in your store. Run your store how you want it. Once you put out something that's competing, it's completely immoral to continue to force your competitor to raise their prices as it's pretty clearly an attempt to get users to favor your own offering. Don't see this lasting.
liliththepale
Banned
Interesting. How much farther does Spotify have to go? I feel like they already have near peak penetration.
If you are saying that 30% is their total revenue, are you saying that Spotify pays the music publishers 70% of the $13 charged on the App Store?
Never change, man.
No, I'm saying spofity cannot afford to offer the market rate ($10) on ios. It's the same reason no other music sub service or eBook service offers IAP on ios but can offer IAP on the play store.
It's a net negative to any ios user and I can't believe that practice is being defended.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
Didnt they always charged 13$ well before the Apple Music was launched?
They charge $13 on ios because $3 goes to Apple. If they charged the market rate ($10), they would lose money on every sub.
Spotify offers premium access for $10 on the play store.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
Yes I know, but I am saying that this has always been the case. Its not a step to get people use their cheaper product by increasing competitors price.
It's a closed system and it's perfectly fine. If people weren't willing to use it it wouldn't be so popular.
A few things:
Can you buy Spotify premium on google play? If so, how much does it cost? If it's $10, what happened to google's 30% commission they charge everyone else?
It's TekGryphon in an Apple thread.
Future Foundation
Member
No. You can download the app for free, and you'll be directed to subscribe to Premium online if you'd like (this is how it worked when I did it, I dunno if it's changed since then).
Tidal, Rdio, Rhapsody, Beats (before it was acquired) all offer IAP, so I don't see why you can say "no other music sub service or eBook service offers IAP on ios".
How would they lose money on every sub? Do they give 70% of $13 to the music publishers? I think they give 70% of their $9 cut to the publishers.
I think if they got net revenue of $7, they would give 70% of $7, they would not give 70% of $10 to the music publishers. They charge $5 for student subscriptions and give 70% of their net revenue to publishers, not 70% of $10.
- Status