Support NeoGAF

[The Faceless Master]

Dude. You're dancing around the answer. Cmon. It's the same percentage taken by all stores. But because Apple does it too, it's too high for them.

what are you even talking about?

wait... oooh.... now i see.

you asked why it was only an issue for Apple.

i answered by pointing out that the Apple App store was the only store on iOS while Google Play and Steam were not the only choices on Android and PC.

then when you replied, i thought you were talking about the marketshare of Google Play on Android and Steam on PC.

didn't realize that you were just re-asking your previous question in a different way because... what? you didn't like my answer?

 

[liliththepale]

Apple built its own ecosystem, so they get to set the rules. If Spotify doesn't like the rules, they can put their apps on other phones.

 

[Damon Bennet]

Apple built its own ecosystem, so they get to set the rules. If Spotify doesn't like the rules, they can put their apps on other phones.

its not working that way. ask microsoft and automatically installing IE on every system in the EU

 

[The Faceless Master]

Apple built its own ecosystem, so they get to set the rules. If Spotify doesn't like the rules, they can put their apps on other phones.

they don't have to like the rule, they just have to follow them. that's what this is. them following the rules. right down to the letter.

its not working that way. ask microsoft and automatically installing IE on every system in the EU

they don't have to ask anyone, they know firsthand from the eBooks consortium.

 

[deltatheta]

Apple built its own ecosystem, so they get to set the rules. If Spotify doesn't like the rules, they can put their apps on other phones.

I'm not sure who you're responding to. No one's said the M-word yet or suggested legal regulation. Yeah they can set their own rules, that doesn't mean that they're immune from criticism.

 

[The Faceless Master]

30% for delivering content owned by the publisher is one thing

30% for simply taking payment is another. Apple are not using any bandwidth or delivering anything for that - nothing like DLC or monthly magazine downloads - spotify is handling all of that.

also as mentioned this is a very thin margin game - music labels and publishers get most of the money. Spotify would most likely lose money if they charged $10 and let Apple have a 30% cut. Apple would make more money from spotify subscribers than Spotify would. Actually even at $12.99, I'd bet that Apple are making more money from spotify users than spotify are.

yep, $9.09 instead of $9.99 so ~1/3 off the leftovers after the Apple slice and ~$7 they pay out for music.

 

[wetflame]

Spotify would most likely lose money if they charged $10 and let Apple have a 30% cut.

How does this argument fit in with them charging students $5 a month though? Surely they're losing money on every sub there?

 

[Ghost]

How does this argument fit in with them charging students $5 a month though? Surely they're losing money on every sub there?

Almost certainly, but you can't be a student forever and Spotify knows a lot of those students wont cancel when they leave school.

I think we all know Spotify doesn't make money on anyone at the moment, it's a billion dollar revenue company that still makes a loss, they most definitely do not have 30% on top to give away.

But that's really not the point anyway.

 

[numble]

Almost certainly, but you can't be a student forever and Spotify knows a lot of those students wont cancel when they leave school.

I think we all know Spotify doesn't make money on anyone at the moment, it's a billion dollar revenue company that still makes a loss, they most definitely do not have 30% on top to give away.

But that's really not the point anyway.

I don't think they are paying $7 per $5 subscription. Are they paying $7 per free subscriber? Is Apple paying $42 for the 6-person plan that costs $15?

 

[liliththepale]

its not working that way. ask microsoft and automatically installing IE on every system in the EU

Personally, I strongly disagree with the ruling against Microsoft in the antitrust dispute. Netscape and other browsers should have been grateful to be on Windows at all, and instead focus on innovative features rather than crying about IE being bundled. But beyond that I also think this is a separate scenario. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on mobile phones like Microsoft had on x86 operating systems (Macs were mostly PowerPC at the time). The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is its own product, the iPhone.

they don't have to like the rule, they just have to follow them. that's what this is. them following the rules. right down to the letter.

Good.

Yeah they can set their own rules, that doesn't mean that they're immune from criticism.

And criticism shouldn't be immune from defense.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Good.]

personally, i think Apple consumers can afford the extra $3 a month.

 

[Wiktor]

Dude. You're dancing around the answer. Cmon. It's the same percentage taken by all stores. But because Apple does it too, it's too high for them.

Except it's not. Not for Steam. You're just trying to obscure the issue by shifting the argument to app sales, which are meainingless when discussing spotify.

 

[liliththepale]

personally, i think Apple consumers can afford the extra $3 a month.

lol, yeah. Most certainly can. This is less than my morning coffee.

 

[Wiktor]

Apple built its own ecosystem, so they get to set the rules. If Spotify doesn't like the rules, they can put their apps on other phones.

They are playing by Apple's rules. Nothing in this rules state they can't encourage their iOS customers to avoid in-App payments as long as they don't do it through app itself. If Apple doesn't like it then they should change the rules. But they don't seem to have any problem with it, so why do you?

 

[valkillmore]

If I didn't already subscribe to Rdio monthly, I would totally upgrade Spotify to the paid service. As it is I only listen to Spotify on PS4 while I'm gaming. It's going to turn into No Man's Sky Radio soon enough.

 

[liliththepale]

They are playing by Apple's rules. Nothing in this rules state they can't encourage their iOS customers to avoid in-App payments as long as they don't do it through app itself. If Apple doesn't like it then they should change the rules. But they don't seem to have any problem with it, so why do you?

Why are you asking this? I was making a point about it being so-called "unfair" that Apple takes so much of a cut. It doesn't really matter if it's unfair, it's their sandbox. Spotify clearly consented, but some of the people in this thread are acting like they shouldn't have or that the rules should be changed. I think Apple should do whatever they feel like.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Why are you asking this? I was making a point about it being so-called "unfair" that Apple takes so much of a cut. It doesn't really matter if it's unfair, it's their sandbox. Spotify clearly consented, but some of the people in this thread are acting like they shouldn't have or that the rules should be changed. I think Apple should do whatever they feel like.

pretty sure people were saying the rules should be changed *back* as those weren't always the rules

 

[liliththepale]

pretty sure people were saying the rules should be changed *back* as those weren't always the rules

Doesn't really change anything as far as I'm concerned. It's still Apple's arena to do what they want.

 

[ViciousDS]

Don't worry Mr Spotify, I suspect many iPhone users will stop subscribing to your service via the App Store within the next three months or so. It's sorted.

I will not as long as Spotify is the main service for my PS4

 

[slit]

Doesn't really change anything as far as I'm concerned. It's still Apple's arena to do what they want.

Of course they can do whatever they want within the confines of the law.

That doesn't mean we can't criticize them for taking advantage of the simple minded.

 

[liliththepale]

Of course they can do whatever they want within the confines of the law.

That doesn't mean we can't criticize them for taking advantage of the simple minded.

Right, but, like, that also means corporate apologists like me get to defend them.

 

[slit]

Right, but, like, that also means corporate apologists like me get to defend them.

Cool, if you recognize you're a corporate apologist then there should be no issue when we don't take you seriously while we point and laugh at you.

 

[mrklaw]

Doesn't really change anything as far as I'm concerned. It's still Apple's arena to do what they want.

hmm.

On the one hand that makes sense. They are not technically a monopoly, people can choose not to buy an iphone.

On the other hand, is their scale so large that there should be some requirement to provide fair access for users to third party services?

Cool, if you recognize you're a corporate apologist then there should be no issue when we don't take you seriously while we point and laugh at you.

But then I reserve the right to defend her being a corporate apologist and criticise you for criticising her

 

[TomShoe]

Interesting. How much farther does Spotify have to go? I feel like they already have near peak penetration.

How far they can go, there isn't really a set point, but the potential for growth is fine. Album sales are going to continue on their slow decline, while music streaming is going to continue upward. Once people stop paying for iTunes and move on the streaming, they'll never go back. The convenience is just too great, and Apple is acknowledging that by starting their own streaming service.

I mean Pandora has over 250 Million users, and Spotify has 75+ Million, 15M of which are Premium users. Pandora's payouts are miniscule, something like .001 cents. Imagine if more people picked up on Spotify's free service, or even if Pandora's huge base moved somewhere that paid more per artist. Spotify's payout is about .006 too .0084 per stream. The top hit on Spotify, Lean on, has about 2 Million streams a day. Major Lazer and Co. are making about 12k a day on the low end. Even the #50 song is making 3k a day, which translates to $90,000 a month. Imagine how much someone like Taylor Swift could make if she had her tracks on Spotify. Now multiply that times Pandora's 250 M userbase. See what I'm getting at? I think a free tier of music could at least sustain itself at least, if not provide a gateway for more premium subscribers in the long run.

 

[liliththepale]

How far they can go, there isn't really a set point, but the potential for growth is fine. Album sales are going to continue on their slow decline, while music streaming is going to continue upward. Once people stop paying for iTunes and move on the streaming, they'll never go back. The convenience is just too great, and Apple is acknowledging that by starting their own streaming service.

I mean Pandora has over 250 Million users, and Spotify has 75+ Million, 15M of which are Premium users. Pandora's payouts are miniscule, something like .001 cents. Imagine if more people picked up on Spotify's free service, or even if Pandora's huge base moved somewhere that paid more per artist. Spotify's payout is about .006 too .0084 per stream. The top hit on Spotify, Lean on, has about 2 Million streams a day. Major Lazer and Co. are making about 12k a day on the low end. Even the #50 song is making 3k a day, which translates to $90,000 a month. Imagine how much someone like Taylor Swift could make if she had her tracks on Spotify. Now multiply that times Pandora's 250 M userbase. See what I'm getting at? I think a free tier of music could at least sustain itself at least, if not provide a gateway for more premium subscribers in the long run.

That's interesting about Pandora. I had no idea they were still so big. Most people I know have moved on to Spotify, but I've stuck with Pandora for now.

Though it brings up another question: if Pandora is that big, and their payouts are so tiny, what makes you think Spotify will increase its payouts significantly when it grows much larger?

hmm.

On the one hand that makes sense. They are not technically a monopoly, people can choose not to buy an iphone.

On the other hand, is their scale so large that there should be some requirement to provide fair access for users to third party services?

Their scale is irrelevant. Bottom line is that Apple doesn't have to let third party apps on their platform at all, so the fact that they do means they get to dictate the rules.

 

[Diprosalic]

EU should get them for being anti-competitive.

 

[badb0y]

It's a ridiculous policy to say you can't tell your customers where they can buy your services. It's absolutely true that iAP offers a valuable service to developers, but if they don't want that service, they should be able to opt out of it run their own payments.

Of course I realize that Apple is not perfect and there should be exemptions and what not but for stuff that is F2P and makes all of it's money off of IAPs? Nah, I don't think they should be able to bypass the 30% cut. Apple basically gives you a population willing to spend money on Apps on a platter. Despite being much smaller than Android market-share wise iOS trumps it in app sales/revenue/profit.

30% for delivering content owned by the publisher is one thing

30% for simply taking payment is another. Apple are not using any bandwidth or delivering anything for that - nothing like DLC or monthly magazine downloads - spotify is handling all of that.

also as mentioned this is a very thin margin game - music labels and publishers get most of the money. Spotify would most likely lose money if they charged $10 and let Apple have a 30% cut. Apple would make more money from spotify subscribers than Spotify would. Actually even at $12.99, I'd bet that Apple are making more money from spotify users than spotify are.

Which is why you have a choice to pay $9.99 on directly to Spotify or $12.99 via the AppStore. I agree that Apple should consider dropping the tax on these subscriptions but since there is another way to purchase them I don't have a problem with it. The alternative is there, it exists, you should go and find it.

hmm.

On the one hand that makes sense. They are not technically a monopoly, people can choose not to buy an iphone.

On the other hand, is their scale so large that there should be some requirement to provide fair access for users to third party services?

Nope, they control like 20% of the overall smartphone market.

 

[mrklaw]

Their scale is irrelevant. Bottom line is that Apple doesn't have to let third party apps on their platform at all, so the fact that they do means they get to dictate the rules.

Their scale isn't irrelevant - look at the anti-competitive stuff MS got involved in. Their scale might not be large enough to trigger that though. There is a point where their scale could be considered anti-competitive.

Of course I realize that Apple is not perfect and there should be exemptions and what not but for stuff that is F2P and makes all of it's money off of IAPs? Nah, I don't think they should be able to bypass the 30% cut. Apple basically gives you a population willing to spend money on Apps on a platter. Despite being much smaller than Android market-share wise iOS trumps it in app sales/revenue/profit.

Nope, they control like 20% of the overall smartphone market.

These two points seem a little contradictory. While their physical marketshare might only be 20%, as you mention they have a very high marketshare in paid apps/subscriptions.

 

[TekGryphon]

Which is why you have a choice to pay $9.99 on directly to Spotify or $12.99 via the AppStore. I agree that Apple should consider dropping the tax on these subscriptions but since there is another way to purchase them I don't have a problem with it. The alternative is there, it exists, you should go and find it.

The funny part is that as sad as this thought-process is, this is probably one of the more reasonable Apple consumers out there.

Their scale is irrelevant. Bottom line is that Apple doesn't have to let third party apps on their platform at all

That's more like it. NeoGAF Apple crew, in all its glory.

 

[Red]

re: twisting the narrative

I'm just glad Apple is being so progressive with their family pricing. I hope their strategy forces all competing services to reduce their prices.

 

[TomShoe]

That's interesting about Pandora. I had no idea they were still so big. Most people I know have moved on to Spotify, but I've stuck with Pandora for now.

Though it brings up another question: if Pandora is that big, and their payouts are so tiny, what makes you think Spotify will increase its payouts significantly when it grows much larger?

OK, I should slow down a minute. Out of those 250M registered users, only about 78-82 million are actually active compared to Spotify's 75 Million. Still, the difference in payouts is huge considering Spotify's much larger paying base (20+ Million for Spotify compared to 3.3M for Pandora), and the nature of "radio" music and music "on demand." If Spotify gets larger, their (total, not per stream) payouts should increase simply because more people are streaming music on their service. I sort of expect the revenue per stream to go down somewhat if the service gets larger because I assume Spotify will want to break even eventually and they would be large enough to pay artists royalties they'd be satisfied with.

 

[itsgreen]

Well it is of course a little weird that Apple has a financial advantage on their own platform...

 

[Condom]

lol, yeah. Most certainly can. This is less than my morning coffee.

Well have fun being rich?

Now let us plebs discuss in peace about our plebeian people problems.
I for one don't want any company as big as Apple is (relative to their industry) to be able to have a 'the sky is the limit' amount of profit. It's damaging to society.

 

[SuperPac]

You can't buy anything in the Playstation app for the same reason (in this case the publisher loses 60% of its revenue, 30% to Apple/Google & 30% to Sony), the PS app directs you to the Web page when you try to make a purchase. It's very inconvenient & archaic.

Actually this is not true - the PlayStation app directs you to Safari because the PS app isn't very good. The Xbox Smartglass app allows you to purchase XBO games in-app without going to Safari.

The rule is if you're buying something in-app that you'll use in an application on that device, you have to go through Apple (you can't even HINT at redirecting to a web page or mention an alternate way to purchase) and they take their 30% cut. Otherwise Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart and other shopping apps wouldn't exist and no retailer would use Apple Pay in their apps.

Yes it's a bitch for Spotify or Comixology or any of the other companies that make their money off serving up digital content they don't own, have extremely thin margins on, or have to pay royalties to use.

 

[Mechanized]

Fuckig Apple. My next phone will be an Android. Though my iPhone 5 is perfect. So short of it spontaneously combusting that is a long ways off.

 

[ArtHands]

The help-section and web searches show that you pay a 30% transaction fee when it goes through them directly.

They don't restrict you from using alternate payment methods (compared to Apple).



Quality is definitely more than being super high tech. Apple tend to market that their products are of higher quality than their competitors. (in terms of software or hardware)

When it realistically isn't.

so its 30% on Google Play too basically...

 

[rezuth]

Well have fun being rich?

Now let us plebs discuss in peace about our plebeian people problems.
I for one don't want any company as big as Apple is (relative to their industry) to be able to have a 'the sky is the limit' amount of profit. It's damaging to society.

How so?

 

[wachie]

That desperation.

 

[werks]

so its 30% on Google Play too basically...

Spotty doesn't pay Google 30%, Amazon doesn't pay Google 30% for kindle sales. They both use their own payment system and the end result is a better ecosystem for android users. I can't believe iOS users are justifying why they can't buy books with kindle or pay a higher fee for IAP subs in iOS.

Books and music have a set cost from publishers. Spottily, Google, Apple & Amazon pay about the same amount for the same content, apple requiring IAP and demanding a cut is only to drive out the competition and hurt the iOS consumers. Even the DOJ states that as the reason for requiring all IAP to use apples payment system.

 

[chaostrophy]

Good for Spotify. As a non-customer of Apple I don't care what they charge for their products and services that their customers choose to buy. But I hate how they throw their weight around to extract subsidies and fees from cross-platform services. If Spotify ate the Apple tax all Spotify customers would essentially be eating it. Spotify refusing makes me feel like my subscription is a better value since my whole $10 is going to Spotify rather than indirectly to Apple.

 

[The Faceless Master]

re: twisting the narrative

I'm just glad Apple is being so progressive with their family pricing. I hope their strategy forces all competing services to reduce their prices.

that would only make sense if they got a similar deal from the music rights holders.

Well have fun being rich?

Now let us plebs discuss in peace about our plebeian people problems.
I for one don't want any company as big as Apple is (relative to their industry) to be able to have a 'the sky is the limit' amount of profit. It's damaging to society.

why get an iPhone series mobile handset if you can't afford the ecosystem?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

I can't believe iOS users are justifying why they can't buy books with kindle or pay a higher fee for IAP subs in iOS.

But I can buy Kindle books and I don't pay extra for subscriptions. It's really not that hard nor that inconvenient to just use the web browser to do these things.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Good for Spotify. As a non-customer of Apple I don't care what they charge for their products and services that their customers choose to buy. But I hate how they throw their weight around to extract subsidies and fees from cross-platform services. If Spotify ate the Apple tax all Spotify customers would essentially be eating it. Spotify refusing makes me feel like my subscription is a better value since my whole $10 is going to Spotify rather than indirectly to Apple.

What ? Spotify could just let subscribers go through their website through the app and remove the in app purchase whenever they want... They are themselves NOT removing the in app purchase option . As I said before they are only being opportunists to be in the news cycle

 

[Marty Chinn]

But I can buy Kindle books and I don't pay extra for subscriptions. It's really not that hard nor that inconvenient to just use the web browser to do these things.

It's funny how barriers like this are defended when the Apple experience is praised about ease. These barriers aren't on Android. It's an anti consumer practice and a worse consumer experience but maybe the people defending it just don't know any better.

 

[Pepiope]

And if you're a student, you can get premium for $5 a month.

Only for a year. Once that ends, I will just drop them.

 

[Maninthemirror]

It's funny how barriers like this are defended when the Apple experience is praised about ease. These barriers aren't on Android. It's an anti consumer practice and a worse consumer experience but maybe the people defending it just don't know any better.

Anti consumer would if you couldn't buy kindle books. Anti consumers would be if the app itself was restricted as being an iBooks competitor. There is a competitive structure, you can use either or neither. If consumers were not happy , developers wouldn't be making more on their apps percentage wise on Apple than on android devices. I think of android marketplace as a cluttered room where you sort it out and the apple AppStore as where the maid came in the cleaned it up , sure you might like it dirty but you find everything that is good and that is better for developers exposure

 

[Marty Chinn]

Anti consumer would if you couldn't buy kindle books.

You can't buy Kindle books in the app like you can in iBooks or in the Amazon app or Kindle app on Android. That's a barrier that iBooks doesn't have or exists on Android. Making things more difficult for the competition ends up hurting the consumer. I call that anti-consumer.

Anti consumers would be if the app itself was restricted as being an iBooks competitor. There is a competitive structure, you can use either or neither.
If consumers were not happy , developers wouldn't be making more on their apps percentage wise on Apple than on android devices.

This isn't about paying for apps though. This is about paying for services that are used by apps. There's a pretty distinct difference there.

I think of android marketplace as a cluttered room where you sort it out and the apple AppStore as where the maid came in the cleaned it up , sure you might like it dirty but you find everything that is good and that is better for developers exposure

But it's not. Have you used the Google Play Store lately? It's pretty much the same experience as the App Store and in some ways better. It's not this cluttered mess compared to the App Store. The biggest difference though is if I try to sub inside the Spotify app on iOS, I'm charged $12.99. If I try to do it on the Android app, it's $9.99. How is that good for the consumer?

 

[werks]

What ? Spotify could just let subscribers go through their website through the app and remove the in app purchase whenever they want... They are themselves NOT removing the in app purchase option . As I said before they are only being opportunists to be in the news cycle

No they cant. That's against the app stores TOS. The DOJ even said that the change to the app store TOS was to drive the competition away from ios.

They are not removing IAP because Apple will not allow ANY transaction in an app without getting a cut.

It's the same reason I can see all my books in the kindle app but I can't click buy on any new ones, even though I'm logged into my amazon account, I'm talking to amazon servers, amazon is providing the eBook thru their server, amazon has a robust payment system and has my credit card on file. If amazon have me a buy button, the app would be rejected.


https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-eb...e-is-lying-about-how-in-app-purchasing-works/

The federal government outlined a revised punishment for Apple in the ebook pricing case Friday. It argued that Apple changed its in-app purchase rules to retaliate against Amazon. And it wants to make big changes in the way Apple does business in the iTunes Store...

In its revised remedy, the DOJ delves deeply into its criticism of Apple’s in-app purchasing policy, which it now claims Apple changed in 2011 “to retaliate against Amazon for competitive conduct that Apple disapproved of.” As background, in 2011, Apple changed in-app purchase rules to require that any content sold through apps must also be sold through the iTunes Store, and forbid publishers and retailers from sending users to websites outside their apps to make purchases. As a result, Amazon removed the Kindle Store from its app and retailers like Barnes & Noble and Kobo followed suit.

These rules applied to all types of digital content — including magazines and newspapers — not just ebooks. But, the DOJ argues, they were primarily put into place “to make it more difficult for consumers using Apple devices to compare ebook prices among different retailers, and for consumers to purchase ebooks from other retailers on Apple’s devices.”

 

[Deleted member 12837]

It's funny how barriers like this are defended when the Apple experience is praised about ease. These barriers aren't on Android. It's an anti consumer practice and a worse consumer experience but maybe the people defending it just don't know any better.

Or maybe the people attacking it are just lazy if they really consider leaving the app for a payment a "barrier" (especially if it's a subscription, something you only touch one time!)

I'm not saying it wouldn't be an improvement for consumers if IAPs were opened up to multiple forms of payment, but the bitching and moaning over it is completely overblown. If it were as outrageous as some of you are suggesting, the market wouldn't support it. Consumers and developers both would be leaving in droves. But it's not happening.

 

[neogaffer1]

I don't think they are paying $7 per $5 subscription. Are they paying $7 per free subscriber? Is Apple paying $42 for the 6-person plan that costs $15?

One of the Spotify contracts leaked recently, and it showed that Spotify pays insane amounts of money and has to deal with awful terms just to get the music on their service.

How much does Spotify really pay artists? This territory has been covered before, particularly by the company's chief executive, Daniel Ek. It's a complicated formula, but as Ek has said, the streaming company essentially gives 60 percent of its revenue to rightsholders — and Sony takes a cut based on its proportion of overall streams. However, as Verge reports, if customers were to use Spotify a certain number of times, a different revenue formula kicks in, which amounts to between $0.00225 cents and $0.0025 per stream. Of course, the labels have to share a portion of that money with artists, depending on their contracts.

Or maybe the people attacking it are just lazy if they really consider leaving the app for a payment a "barrier" (especially if it's a subscription, something you only touch one time!)

I'm not saying it wouldn't be an improvement for consumers if IAPs were opened up to multiple forms of payment, but the bitching and moaning over it is completely overblown. If it were as outrageous as some of you are suggesting, the market wouldn't support it. Consumers and developers both would be leaving in droves. But it's not happening.

No, it's just janky as shit for devs to have to kick people to the web browser just to make a purchase, and incredibly anti-consumer as well. Can't believe people are actually defending this.