Support NeoGAF

[Red]

The ToS violation was never revealed, making the whole thing even sketchier.

http://www.wired.com/2012/10/amazons-remote-wipe-of-customers-kindle-highlights-perils-of-drm/

I think if I were to start from scratch, I'd go streaming. I don't listen to a huge amount, but it's enough that I wouldn't want to pay to rebuild. So I completely understand the allure of streaming. Heck, stuff like shared and collaborative playlists from friends is enticing enough to me that I'll probably end up signing up for a free account on some service anyway!

However, I've been collecting mp3s for years and years so I'm really only paying for new music occasionally. I don't think I find 10 new songs a month, so it's not only preferable, but also cheaper, for me to buy my music at this point.

Yeah, in those cases it makes sense for you to keep doing what you're doing. That's what I was trying to say before. If you don't listen to a lot of new music all the time, streaming might not be for you. If you do, unless you're drowning in cash, streaming makes more financial sense.

I'd like to return to the mp3 thing for a minute... you're right in saying more devices that play mp3s exist, but I don't think they constitute "a wider variety of platforms." Most electronics produced today which support mp3s also support streaming, with maybe the only exceptions being dedicated mp3 players. If there is a difference in ubiquity, it's a small one. I still say convenience leans toward streaming. If you buy physical and want a digital copy, you need to rip the disc, which is a small extra step, but still a step. And in order to rip a CD, you'd need a CD drive. And those are going the way of floppy drives. You need more hardware in order to read and rip a CD than you would to just stream the music.

 

[borghe]

You have nothing to back up your point though and as I posted earlier the DOJ clearly disagrees with you. Also Beats former CEO Ian Rogers says "the decision to sell within the Apple app was fairly straightforward: More than half of Beats users use iPhones, and it’s very hard to get an iOS user to subscribe if you don’t sell in-app". So yes I think it does have a meaningful impact.

http://recode.net/2014/04/18/beats-...starts-selling-subscriptions-from-apples-app/

but again, you are talking two different things. One is the Apple platform as a facilitator for sales (which no red blooded capitalist will argue against, and EVERY company with a product to sell will cry about). The other is Apple instituting policies that have an effect OUTSIDE of sales and margins.

You keep implying a=b.

What Apple did with Amazon wasn't trying to make money off of them. The opposite. Apple was trying to actively push them off of the App Store through policy that, even outside of money, it was never realistic to expect Amazon to be able to or want to comply with. THAT is anti-competitive.

In the case of Spotify and such, Apple is merely one of multiple ways for these companies to facilitate sales... One that they can choose to opt in or out of. This is NOT anti-competitive.

big difference.

 

[unpopularblargh]

but again, you are talking two different things. One is the Apple platform as a facilitator for sales (which no red blooded capitalist will argue against, and EVERY company with a product to sell will cry about). The other is Apple instituting policies that have an effect OUTSIDE of sales and margins.

You keep implying a=b.

What Apple did with Amazon wasn't trying to make money off of them. The opposite. Apple was trying to actively push them off of the App Store through policy that, even outside of money, it was never realistic to expect Amazon to be able to or want to comply. THAT is anti-competitive.

In the case of Spotify and such, Apple merely is one of multiple ways for these companies to facilitate sales... One that they can choose to opt in or out of. This is NOT anti-competitive.

big difference.

No it's not.

The only difference is that Spotify stuck it out and raised their price on iOS. Amazon, on the other hand, just removed IAP all together.

A) Apple's 30% cut forced Spotify to raise their in-app price. Spotify's at an artificial disadvantage of Apple's making

B) Amazon didn't want to pay the 30% to Apple so they removed IAP alongside many other e-book services. Amazon's at an artificial disadvantage of Apple's making.

C) Spotify and Amazon pay Apple the 30% and have IAP in their apps and make less money than Apple who has competing services. Both Amazon and Spotify are now at an artificial disadvantage of Apple's making.

You know where none of this happens? Android. Alongside Windows and Mac.

Also to people who keep bringing up that Google and Amazon have done or are still doing shady things doesn't mean Apple gets a get out of jail card. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[1044]

Me and my friend discovered the Apple tax through Hearthstone. $50 iTunes cards were on sale for $40, so we figured we could save on Hearthstone stuff this way even though we don't play on Apple devices. Good thing we carefully checked before buying the iTunes cards because even with the sale we would have lost money over purchasing through Android or bnet.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

You have nothing to back up your point though and as I posted earlier the DOJ clearly disagrees with you. Also Beats own former CEO Ian Rogers says "the decision to sell within the Apple app was fairly straightforward: More than half of Beats users use iPhones, and it’s very hard to get an iOS user to subscribe if you don’t sell in-app". So yes I think it does have a meaningful impact.

http://recode.net/2014/04/18/beats-...starts-selling-subscriptions-from-apples-app/

And you don't really, either. The DOJ is arguing about Apple's intent, but apparently they didn't come up with any data actually proving harm to Amazon's bottom line. Like I said, totally willing to concede if that data exists somewhere.

Also, I'm pretty sure Beats had much bigger, unrelated issues with its attempt to gain traction (like app quality, marketing, etc). And how can he make a definitive statement without that data, anyway? Did they split-test a model with subscriptions in the app vs one which forced users to sign up somewhere else first?

I'd like to return to the mp3 thing for a minute... you're right in saying more devices that play mp3s exist, but I don't think they constitute "a wider variety of platforms." Most electronics produced today which support mp3s also support streaming, with maybe the only exceptions being dedicated mp3 players. If there is a difference in ubiquity, it's a small one. I still say convenience leans toward streaming. If you buy physical and want a digital copy, you need to rip the disc, which is a small extra step, but still a step. And in order to rip a CD, you'd need a CD drive. And those are going the way of floppy drives. You need more hardware in order to read and rip a CD than you would to just stream the music.

Like I said before, CDs and vinyl are a corner case. The music for non-streamers is typically purchased in mp3 form.

Now that the streaming apps have embraced Chromecast, Airplay, Bluetooth, etc, you're correct that the gap in supported devices is shrinking, which is awesome. Music also luckily doesn't have the issue that a lot of video content does, where you might be allowed to stream the content using your PC or Roku but not your phone or tablet.

I like being able to share and listen to music without anyone requiring any kind of special app or account at all. For example, if I want to share a song with a friend or feature it on my website, if the song comes from a streaming service, my friend and my website visitors need to sign up for that service in order to listen vs. just emailing the mp3 or uploading the file.

There are even more reasons that I didn't bother mentioning why I'll probably never switch fully over to streaming (if at all), but I think at this point we understand each other so no need to get into those ; )

 

[borghe]

It's not a slippery slope. Google doesn't charge 30% for IAP if the app isn't using Google's own system (Wallet in this case). Amazon doesn't pay Google a cut because they use their own checkout system. Amazon on Android offers IAP in the app itself unlike on iOS becasue of this. Google also sells books on Android. Just like both Google and Spotify offer streaming music services at the same price without Google charging Spotify an extra 30%.

No one is saying that Apple can't offer their own services but they shouldn't intentionally hinder competing services with BS business practices.

Your examples (it's really just the same example multiple times) involve Apple allowing sales within the app but outside of IAP. However that goes against a number of things that Apple works to do (outside of the money part).

Provide vetted items/services for IAP (IAP needs approval)
Provide a consistent experience for IAP
Provide a consistent payment method for IAP
Provide increased security through App Store IAP

But beyond ANY of that, nothing (outside of the Amazon argument that I actually agree with) shows ANYTHING toward the above stuff actually being anti-competitive. It doesn't actually make it HARDER for Spotify to compete with Music. Spotify can see just as many sales through App Store as it does not through it. Less profit? Sure, but they'll see less profit if they sold subscription cards in Target or the grocery as well. That's the price you pay for making your service more accessible to subscribe to. If you want to make more money, then make it less accessible to subscribe to and only allow people to sign up through your web site.

Again, the Amazon thing was completely different. That wasn't about squeezing money out of Amazon. It never was and if you think it was, you miss the point. There is no way it was logistically possible for Amazon to maintain an IAP inventory on Apple of 500K items, with probably 500+ new items every month.. Apple's actions weren't "we're going to get money out of you". Their actions were mostly "yeah, we don't want you selling on here. If you actually manage to do it.. ha, good luck with that."

huge difference. Apple is more than happy for Spotify to be as successful as they can be. Apple did NOT want Kindle books sold directly from an iOS app.

No it's not.

The only difference is that Spotify stuck it out and raised their price on iOS. Amazon, on the other hand, just removed IAP all together.

A) Apple's 30% cut forced Spotify to raise their in-app price. Spotify's at an artificial disadvantage of Apple's making

huh? You don't seem to know much about how business and retail works. "I want to sell my product here. Can I sell my product here?" "Yes you can, but we want a cut of it" And at no point do you show Spotify at being at a COMPETITIVE disadvantage. Not making as much money due to a middle man has NOTHING to do with competition. Middle men sales cuts are a part of business and it's Spotifies choice as to where and who they sell their subscriptions through. It has nothing to do with competition.

B) Amazon didn't want to pay the 30% to Apple so they removed IAP alongside many other e-book services. Amazon's at an artificial disadvantage of Apple's making.

Again, you absolutely missed the point even to the point of missing it in the DOJ info. The DOJ complaint was never about money, but about the fact that there was no realistic way, logistically, that Amazon would ever comply. It was never about money.

C) Spotify and Amazon pay Apple the 30% and have IAP in their apps and make less money than Apple who has competing services. Both Amazon and Spotify are now at an artificial disadvantage of Apple's making.

Making more or less money has nothing to do with competition. Competitive advantage comes down to ACTIVELY disuading users from picking one service over the other. If Spotify priced at $9.99, Apple would/is doing nothing to actively disuade users from signing up. That Spotify charges $3 more for the service is THEIR choice to not eat the cost of THAT sales facilitator.

You know where none of this happens? Android. Alongside Windows and Mac.

Windows/Mac is absolutely comparing apples to space ships. Completely disparate. Android, Google chooses to take an entirely different role as a sales facilitator. Google chooses to say "basically we don't give a fuck what is or isn't in the store. please click this ad." Apple chooses a much more proactive role in the user experience of sales on their store. One isn't right and one isn't wrong. Ultimately it comes down to where the publishers want to sell their product through. Web? App Store? Target? Best Buy? Local grocery? All of those have their own levels of cuts they see. Why would Apple be any different? Just because Google is? Pretty disingenuous considering the App Store is arguably a key business for Apple, whereas Google Play and even Android don't make up even 15% of Google's bottom line.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I was wondering why it was $13 now. That's a pretty hefty premium apple is charging. They should be glad I'm using their ecosystem instead of charging 1/3 more

 

[borghe]

I was wondering why it was $13 now. That's a pretty hefty premium apple is charging. They should be glad I'm using their ecosystem instead of charging 1/3 more

apple isn't doing it. Spotify is.

It's no different than this

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G3LBCO8/?tag=neogaf0e-20

And I promise you that store probably sees at least 20% ($6) on that gift card also. Yet Spotify DOESN'T charge $36 for the gift card. Only $13 for the App Store sub. Because people will pay it.

So who is at fault here?

 

[unpopularblargh]

Your examples (it's really just the same example multiple times) involve Apple allowing sales within the app but outside of IAP. However that goes against a number of things that Apple works to do (outside of the money part).

Provide vetted items/services for IAP (IAP needs approval)
Provide a consistent experience for IAP
Provide a consistent payment method for IAP
Provide increased security through App Store IAP

But beyond ANY of that, nothing (outside of the Amazon argument that I actually agree with) shows ANYTHING toward the above stuff actually being anti-competitive. It doesn't actually make it HARDER for Spotify to compete with Music. Spotify can see just as many sales through App Store as it does not through it. Less profit? Sure, but they'll see less profit if they sold subscription cards in Target or the grocery as well. That's the price you pay for making your service more accessible to subscribe to. If you want to make more money, then make it less accessible to subscribe to and only allow people to sign up through your web site.

Again, the Amazon thing was completely different. That wasn't about squeezing money out of Amazon. It never was and if you think it was, you miss the point. There is no way it was logistically possible for Amazon to maintain an IAP inventory on Apple of 500K items, with probably 500+ new items every month.. Apple's actions weren't "we're going to get money out of you". Their actions were mostly "yeah, we don't want you selling on here. If you actually manage to do it.. ha, good luck with that."

huge difference. Apple is more than happy for Spotify to be as successful as they can be. Apple did NOT want Kindle books sold directly from an iOS app.

Do you have information that you can back this up with?

Apple doesn't want Spotify to succeed. Especially now when they have a competing paid service. Not too mention all those reports of Apple wanting to dismantle Spotify's free tier (http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/4/8540935/apple-labels-spotify-streaming). It's the same with Amazon. The whole reason Apple instituted a 30% fee and imposed serious restrictions on IAP was to hinder competition.

Spotify said okay we'll raise our price. Amazon otoh went fuck you and went home. Two different outcomes to the same issue.

You think they're two different issues for some reason when they're not. They just had different outcomes.

Anyways I'm done. I think this was a bad move on Apple's part. That's it.

 

[borghe]

Spotify said okay we'll raise our price. Amazon otoh went fuck you and went home. Two different outcomes to the same issue.

Spotify has been priced at $12.99 since they've been on the App Store. Back when Apple Music was nothing but a rumor for years. No, they didn't fucking raise the price now "because they were at a disadvantage". They've ALWAYS been at that price because they passed the 30% IAP cut on to their customers. And their customers paid it. For years. Without Apple Music.

So tell me again how great Spotify has been in all of this? they knowingly and willingly fucked over a portion of their subs, and only now with the launch of Music are crying about it.

As for Apple's actions with the free tier... that has little to nothing to do with Spotify as a money maker. The fact is that the free tier GREATLY devalues music. Period. Apple (or anyone else) dismantling it ends up being a HUGE plus financially for EVERYONE who makes money on music (including Spotify). The problem is that Spotify has MINDSHARE among it's 50M or so free users. So Apple dismantling the free tier ends up putting Spotify on 1:1 even footing with literally all of their other competitors. Scummy? Not really. The artists either will or they won't. So do free users lose out? Sure, but you already have 50M users out there who believe music should cost absolutely nothing to have access to, despite it actually having a cost to make and distribute.

If Apple's (or whoever's) attempt to dismantle/restrict the free tier fails... no worries. Eventually Spotify will just do it themselves. And it's only going to get worse now with Apple Music. Because the users that leave spotify won't comes from the 50M free users. They will come directly off of the 20M paid users.

The free tier for Spotify has been tremendous for their marketing.. But it's long term viability was always sketchy. Unlike the oddity of amazon, companies can't make money by annually losing money. And when your free service is growing way faster than your paid service, change is going to need to happen sooner than later.

Anyways I'm done. I think this was a bad move on Apple's part. That's it.

except apple literally did nothing EXCEPT launch Music. Everything Spotify is doing or has done they've been doing for YEARS since before Music was even rumored. That's the truly amazing part. Spotify fucks over a portion of their users for years, no one says shit. Apple Music launches and Spotify sends out a salty email and all of the sudden "awww.. poor spotify. I feel so bad for them."

 

[unpopularblargh]

Spotify has been priced at $12.99 since they've been on the App Store. Back when Apple Music was nothing but a rumor for years. No, they didn't fucking raise the price now "because they were at a disadvantage". They've ALWAYS been at that price because they passed the 30% IAP cut on to their customers. And their customers paid it. For years. Without Apple Music.

So tell me again how great Spotify has been in all of this? they knowingly and willingly fucked over a portion of their subs, and only now with the launch of Music are crying about it.

As for Apple's actions with the free tier... that has little to nothing to do with Spotify as a money maker. The fact is that the free tier GREATLY devalues music. Period. Apple (or anyone else) dismantling it ends up being a HUGE plus financially for EVERYONE who makes money on music (including Spotify). The problem is that Spotify has MINDSHARE among it's 50M or so free users. So Apple dismantling the free tier ends up putting Spotify on 1:1 even footing with literally all of their other competitors. Scummy? Not really. The artists either will or they won't. So do free users lose out? Sure, but you already have 50M users out there who believe music should cost absolutely nothing to have access to, despite it actually having a cost to make and distribute.

If Apple's (or whoever's) attempt to dismantle/restrict the free tier fails... no worries. Eventually Spotify will just do it themselves. And it's only going to get worse now with Apple Music. Because the users that leave spotify won't comes from the 50M free users. They will come directly off of the 20M paid users.

The free tier for Spotify has been tremendous for their marketing.. But it's long term viability was always sketchy. Unlike the oddity of amazon, companies can't make money by annually losing money. And when your free service is growing way faster than your paid service, change is going to need to happen sooner than later.

Um... They did raise it in comparison to how much they've always charged on other platforms. Spotify's always been 9.99 on Android and PC/MAC. Also that still doesn't change or or invalidate the reason for why they charged more on iOS.

 

[borghe]

Um... They did raise it in comparison to how much they've always charged on other platforms. Spotify's always been 9.99 on Android and PC/MAC. Also that still doesn't change or or invalidate the reason for why they charged more on iOS.

yeah, raised it over a year ago

https://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Accounts-and-Subscriptions/12-99-charge/td-p/848957

so where was their white knight email to their users a year ago, or any time prior to Music launching?

 

[unpopularblargh]

yeah, raised it over a year ago

https://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Accounts-and-Subscriptions/12-99-charge/td-p/848957

so where was their white knight email to their users a year ago, or any time prior to Music launching?

I never said Spotify was a "white knight". My whole argument has been that Apple's IAP policy is awful in comparison to other platforms.

 

[borghe]

I never said Spotify was a "white knight". My whole argument has been that Apple's IAP policy is awful in comparison to other platforms.

Other platforms? You mean like Steam? or Origin? or GOG? or GMG? or Target? or PSN? or Best Buy? or Amazon? Which other platforms? One other platform. A platform where sales on the platform are a minuscule fraction of their entire revenue. Hardly an ingenuous or fair comparison.

Companies that run stores that sell things take a cut. That is normal. Google opts out of that cut in certain cases quite simply because they can afford to, as a marketing advantage (to developers). It has little to do with if they actually ideologically believe it's better or not. If Google Play ever became a serious contributor to Google's bottom line, you can believe their policies would be shored up quite a bit also.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Other platforms? You mean like Steam? or Origin? or GOG? or GMG? or Target? or PSN? or Best Buy? or Amazon? Which other platforms? One other platform. A platform where sales on the platform are a minuscule fraction of their entire revenue. Hardly an ingenuous or fair comparison.

Companies that run stores that sell things take a cut. That is normal. Google opts out of that cut in certain cases quite simply because they can afford to, as a marketing advantage (to developers). It has little to do with if they actually ideologically believe it's better or not. If Google Play ever became a serious contributor to Google's bottom line, you can believe their policies would be shored up quite a bit also.

Stop bashing Google in an Apple-bashing thread!

 

[KHarvey16]

yeah, raised it over a year ago

https://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Accounts-and-Subscriptions/12-99-charge/td-p/848957

so where was their white knight email to their users a year ago, or any time prior to Music launching?

Just to add, it actually appears at one point, if this user is to be believed, you could purchase subscriptions through Google and they were more expensive there as well. It looks like the ability was removed later on and another answer was added:

https://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Accounts-and-Subscriptions/Payment-methods/td-p/1000558

 

[Husker86]

n to music without anyone requiring any kind of special app or account at all. For example, if I want to share a song with a friend or feature it on my website, if the song comes from a streaming service, my friend and my website visitors need to sign up for that service in order to listen vs. just emailing the mp3 or uploading the file.

But...that's illegal. I mean, just embed/link to YouTube if you want to share.

In the somewhat rare case of an album getting removed from a streaming service, just buy it at that point. Google Music and Apple Music both let you merge streaming and your own library.

I know you're not looking to be convinced that streaming is the only way, but it is by far the best value, with minor, if any, inconveniences.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

But...that's illegal.

Free, legal music exists, you know...

but it is by far the best value, with minor, if any, inconveniences.

For your needs, in your opinion.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Other platforms? You mean like Steam? or Origin? or GOG? or GMG? or Target? or PSN? or Best Buy? or Amazon? Which other platforms? One other platform. A platform where sales on the platform are a minuscule fraction of their entire revenue. Hardly an ingenuous or fair comparison.

Companies that run stores that sell things take a cut. That is normal. Google opts out of that cut in certain cases quite simply because they can afford to, as a marketing advantage (to developers). It has little to do with if they actually ideologically believe it's better or not. If Google Play ever became a serious contributor to Google's bottom line, you can believe their policies would be shored up quite a bit also.

Game store fronts on a separate OS were not my point. I meant on Android, Windows and Mac. You know the three of the four most widely used operating systems alongside iOS.

Also your second paragraph doesn't negate anything I've said. I do feel that Google's way is better in this instance. Does that mean I think they're flawless in everything they do or have done? No. My whole point and all my posts have been about how and why I think Apple's IAP policy is awful.

Also Google's revenue from the Play Store is more than minscule. http://qz.com/235992/revenue-from-the-google-play-store-will-overtake-apples-app-store-in-2018/

 

[Jotamide]

I want everyone to come up with their streaming music services. Competition is good.

 

[border]

I can't have much sympathy for them. Spotify struck a deal with the devil but didn't actually want to pay the cost, and preferred to make their subscribers pay instead. Now that a new competitor puts them at a price disadvantage, they're trying to weasel their way out of it.

They should have anticipated that somebody was going to be willing to undercut them, and worked harder to drive subscriptions outside of in-app purchases.

 

[borghe]

Game store fronts on a separate OS were not my point. I meant on Android, Windows and Mac. You know the three of the four most widely used operating systems alongside iOS.

of course they weren't YOUR point, but they are THE point. Stores that sell products take a cut. Period. Most such stores don't allow you to circumvent the store's sales mechanism to provide your own. Pepsi can't set up a store inside of Target and sell Pepsi cheaper than Target does. That Google ALLOWS this, is certainly their call. But at the same time they are the exception and not the rule. As for Mac and Windows, they are operating systems. Their "sales platforms" are essentially to the point of not existing/mattering. So saying "the x biggest operating" systems is irrelevant. What percentage of Windows application sales do you believe happen on the Windows store? If it were even 1% I would be shocked.

Also your second paragraph doesn't negate anything I've said. I do feel that Google's way is better in this instance. Does that mean I think they're flawless in everything they do or have done? No. My whole point and all my posts have been about how and why I think Apple's IAP policy is awful.

yes, and it's awful because it's "not like google's". There's not really much objectivity there, especially when ther are like 500 other digital store fronts on the internet that are ALSO not like Google's...

Also Google's revenue from the Play Store is more than minscule. http://qz.com/235992/revenue-from-the-google-play-store-will-overtake-apples-app-store-in-2018/

your article seems bit flawed in its projections compared to actual results

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/15/app-store-google-play-revenue-q1-2015/

but beyond that, from google's own earnings

http://www.businessinsider.com/stats-on-googles-revenues-from-youtube-and-google-play-2015-7

Google Play is included in a category with ALL other Google incomes (including Google Play licensing itself) , and all combined aren't even 10% of Google's total revenue. Really, I have no desire to pick on Google.. I only say that Google allows what they do as a competitive advantage when dealing enticing development. If Google/Android were the first choice for development of for-profit apps, and/or the service's makeup of company revenue were more significant, those policies would surely change.

I actually feel bad for what looks like my Google criticism.. because it's not. Just different priorities and opportunities.

I can't have much sympathy for them. Spotify struck a deal with the devil but didn't actually want to pay the cost, and preferred to make their subscribers pay instead. Now that a new competitor puts them at a price disadvantage, they're trying to weasel their way out of it.

They should have anticipated that somebody was going to be willing to undercut them, and worked harder to drive subscriptions outside of in-app purchases.

100% this. Spotify is absolutely in the fucking wrong on this. They could have pulled subs from IAP on iOS and bitched then. They could have charged $9.99 for premium subs on IAP and bitched then. They could have charged $12.99, but from the start made a targeted campaign toward users letting them know this was happening, offering credits for those who switched quickly, talking about how unfair apple is, etc.

Instead, they passed the charge directly onto their users, remained silent for over a year collecting their money, and as soon as Apple started eating their lunch, attempt to play the victim.

fuck them.

edit - if you look on THEIR OWN GOD DAMN FORUMS, not ONCE does an official employee even acknowledge "yes we charge more on App Store, but you can save by signing up directly with us" in any of the threads made in the last year. They never once officially commented on it in any of the threads I've looked in. fucking shady as fuck.

 

[Blackhead]

I can't have much sympathy for them. Spotify struck a deal with the devil but didn't actually want to pay the cost, and preferred to make their subscribers pay instead. Now that a new competitor puts them at a price disadvantage, they're trying to weasel their way out of it.

They should have anticipated that somebody was going to be willing to undercut them, and worked harder to drive subscriptions outside of in-app purchases.

... ?

the devil = Apple
a new competitor = Apple
somebody undercutting = Apple

why can't you Apple apologists just say it out in plain terms?

 

[werks]

So here's the problem with what you and werks are saying, and ultimately where the DOJ argument falls flat.

The DOJ is arguing about behavior after the fact with Amazon. Fine, it looks shady, or does it?

Shady? No it was illegal and caused eBook prices to rise industry wise. The consumers were directly harmed by Apple's collusion with the book publishers. Apple didn't not just collude either, they organized and convinced the book publishers to collude.

Before the collusion that led to the agency model:

1. Amazon (and everyone else) purchased ebooks from publishers at whole sale rate (ie $8)
2. Amazon sold the books to consumers at rates that made sense to it's business model (ie $9, $10 etc. Or even less than the purchase price for special sales). This led the entire ebook industry to compete on price and led to cheaper books for the consumer.

Apple convinced all the publishers that rather than compete with each other, they should all collude on price and switch to the agency model. This led to:

1. Amazon (and everyone else) not being able to set their own prices. Publishers set price of the book and vendor got 30% of the profit.
2. Ebook prices increased from lack of competition.
3. Apple removed non-itunes IAP and forced amazon (and everyone else) to their not sell books in app or lose all revenue by using iTunes IAP. (Publisher got 70%, Apple demanded the other 30%)
4. Every single ebook service stopped offering IAP.
5. Apple's iBook service not only changed the entire industry's price model to stop price competition and harmed the consumer (Apple wouldn't have to compete with amazon on price, everyone had the same price), no other ebook service could even offer IAP ebooks on IOS.
6. If any ebook service offered IAP purchases on IOS, this would be the result. Publisher sets price at $10, ebook service gets $0, publisher gets $7 and Apple gets $3.
7. No business model in the world allows for 100% of revenue to go to cost and apple ibook became the only way to buy books on IOS.

I would also like to address that the DOJ is arguing behaviour after the fact. As if the anticompetitive behaviour was a byproduct of some innocent policy. Apple's intent was to be anticompetitive from the start.

http://qz.com/118293/the-steve-jobs-email-exchange-that-perfectly-captures-apples-strategy/

In late 2010, Android phones were just overtaking the iPhone in US market share, driven largely by Americans buying cheaper smartphones running Google’s operating system. Apple still maintained a revenue advantage, but privately, executives at the company were fretting about the notion “that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android.”

That’s the upshot of a new, revealing email exchange, first noticed by GigaOm, which was released today by the US government in its lawsuit against Apple over e-book pricing. Like other emails that have emerged in the case, these provide a rare window into the internal strategy of the world’s largest technology company.

On the evening of November 22, 2010, senior vice president Phil Schiller was watching television and dashed off this note to Steve Jobs (then the CEO), Eddy Cue (then the executive in charge of iTunes), and Greg Joswiak (vice president of marketing):

I just watched a new Amazon Kindle app ad on TV.
It starts with a woman using an iPhone and buying and reading books with the Kindle app. The woman then switches to an Android phone and still can read all her books.
While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of mobile devices, the secondary message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android.
Not fun to watch.


This is the ad—”What if you switch?“—Schiller was probably referring to:

As Apple diversifies the types of electronics its sells, its strategy has increasingly come into focus: Provide hardware, software, and media that works best when all of your devices are made by Apple. In other words, lock people in. Movies purchased from iTunes, for instance, work seamlessly on your iPhone, iPad, and Mac, but don’t try to playing them on devices made by competitors. (You can, but it’s not worth the trouble.)
In the case of this Amazon ad that had Schiller so alarmed, the point is that e-books purchased from Apple’s iBookstore, which had launched earlier that year along with the iPad, only work on Apple devices. But if you buy your e-books from Amazon, you can read them on any device for which there’s a Kindle app.

Jobs responded to Schiller’s email later that night:

What do you recommend we do?

The first step might be to say they must use our payment system for everything, including books (triggered by the newspapers and magazines). If they want to compare us to Android, let’s force them to use our far superior payment system. Thoughts?
Steve
Sent from my iPhone

What Apple ended up doing, the following year, is insisting that Amazon and similar retailers give Apple a 30% cut of e-book purchases made through their apps. Amazon responded by removing in-app purchases altogether, meaning people could read—but no longer purchase—books in the Kindle app for iPads and iPhones. That remains the case today.

Apple’s “you only need us” strategy has been enormously successful, thanks to the simplicity of its products, which encourage people to keep their media within Apple’s ecosystem. But with even more competition for smartphones and tablets, the question posed by Amazon’s ad—”What if you switch?”—likely remains just as scary to Apple today.

Apple was worried that the competition to iBook was platform agnostic and that provided Amazon a competitive advantage. Instead of competing with amazon by making iBook platform agnostic or accepting Amazon's competitive advantage, apple took steps to drive out ALL competition from IOS.

So now let's look at 2011-2013. Spotify comes. Offers a service, you can sign up through the App Store. Oh look, you can also sign up for Google Music, Pandora, etc and pay through the App Store. You can also get a subscription to Entertainment Weekly, You can also buy coins for Candy Crush, etc... companies offer IAP, apple sees a cut.

Before Apple took steps to drive out amazon, everone offered IAP for music streaming services, after the change, only a few remained with increased cost to the consumer.

But Apple releases it's own Music service, and now "well they have to pay apple for their competing service (which they had to do BEFORE it was a competing service), so that's not fair!!!"

You are arguing a point that's not true. Apple iTunes competed with spotify long before Apple Music. They offer the same commodity under different business model. Changing the TOS drove out music sub services or increased their price, either way it provided iTunes with a competitive advantage. It just wasn't so glaring obvious since they used a different business and pricing model.

This is kind of my point. No one argues that they have a "competitive advantage" because they see additional revenue from sales off of PSN/XBLA/etc. They (along with App Store, along with Google Play, etc) are merely purchase facilitators.

Your argument is entirely false and obfuscates the real issue. Apple Music and all it's competitors are selling the same commodity with a fixed price of ~70% of revenue. Your comparison would be valid under the following scenario:

1. Bungie sells the rights to Destiny PS4 at $42 per copy wholesale.
2. Both Sony and Activision buys Destiny wholesale to sell on PS4
3. Sony sells Destiny for $60
4. Sony demands $18 (30%) from Activision to sell on PS4
5. Activision can sell Destiny for market price at 0% profit, or it can increase it's price past the market value.

But that scenario doesn't exist.

Beyond that, the Amazon argument seems to be completely different than the Spotify argument. In the case of Spotify, Spotify is merely offering a subscription that apple gets a chunk of.

In the case of Amazon... arguably, apple did make it horrible for them, as they couldn't sell their 500K books in the app, unless they also listed all 500K books as IAP in the App Store. Beyond the 30% cut, the thought of managing that kind of data on the app store is simply a nightmare. I don't think Apple ever intended to make money off of Kindle books. I think they flat out were looking to make it unreasonable for Amazon to even SELL Kindle books on the app store.

You are again making a false argument to support your case. Why would Amazon have to maintain 500K books as IAP, is that what apple does with iBook? No Amazon would just have maintain whatever price point per book and mechanism for charging would be exactly the same as iBook.

The issue was always money. 70% (Publishers) + 30% (Apple) = 0% for Amazon.

The ebook and music scenario startlingly similar. The agency model required 70% of revenue to go to the publishers. Apple demanding 30% for IAP left 0% for anyone else.

Industry wide music streaming contracts all require for 70% revenue for the publishers. Paying Apple 30% left 0% for spotify if they charged market rate for an unlimited music sub ($10)

This is not the same as Spotify at all. Spotify doesn't come down to "competitive disadvantage" at all. Even if Spotify just charge $9.99 on App Store (which they fucking should be doing), that 30% comes down to Apple facilitating the sale. If Spotify chooses, they can choose to not have Apple facilitate sales (like Netflix, etc). Does THAT potentially put them at a competitive disadvantage? Yes, but then it's there choice. Simply making less money than Apple per subscription ($7 vs $10) really has nothing at all to do with competition.

LOL. Do you understand basic math?

$10 music sub - $7 for publishers leaved exactly $3 for spotify. Paying that $3 to Apple doesn't create a competitive disadvantage? They SHOULD be charging $10 on ios? LOL, maybe you went to a business school that taught you to run a business with 100% cost but the rest of us didnt.

The problem isn't less money, it NO MONEY. Spotify would make $0 if it charged $10 (market rate) for streaming sub.

In the eBook case, Apple colluded to create a 70% cost for amazon and then demanded the other 30% by making iTunes the only payment system. Driving out competition.

In the music case, the industry already had a over 70% and demanded the other 30% by making iTunes the only payment system. Driving out most competition and increasing the price of the rest. They benefited from it by making streaming less attractive because of higher cost and iTunes music download more attractive. After launching Apple music, this competitive advantage has been very clear because no one else can compete with Apple music on iOS.

In every scenario, it reduced competition and harmed the consumer.

 

[borghe]

... ?

the devil = Apple
a new competitor = Apple
somebody undercutting = Apple

why can't you Apple apologists just say it out in plain terms?

because it still doesn't make what Spotify did to their users any less shitty in the slightest?

 

[werks]

Other platforms? You mean like Steam? or Origin? or GOG? or GMG? or Target? or PSN? or Best Buy? or Amazon? Which other platforms? One other platform. A platform where sales on the platform are a minuscule fraction of their entire revenue. Hardly an ingenuous or fair comparison.

Companies that run stores that sell things take a cut. That is normal. Google opts out of that cut in certain cases quite simply because they can afford to, as a marketing advantage (to developers). It has little to do with if they actually ideologically believe it's better or not. If Google Play ever became a serious contributor to Google's bottom line, you can believe their policies would be shored up quite a bit also.

I know you are being obtuse but here goes.

Android platform: Download spotify app, create account and pay $10 in app.
Windows Mobile platform: Download spotify app, create account and pay $10 in app.
Windows Desktop platform: Download spotify app, create account and pay $10 in app.
Mac OS platform: Download spotify app, create account and pay $10 in app.
Linux platform: Download spotify app, create account and pay $10 in app.

IOS: $13

 

[Sir Abacus]

1. Amazon (and everyone else) purchased ebooks from publishers at whole sale rate (ie $8)
2. Amazon sold the books to consumers at rates that made sense to it's business model (ie $9, $10 etc. Or even less than the purchase price for special sales). This led the entire ebook industry to compete on price and led to cheaper books for the consumer.

Amazon were actually selling a $12-14 book at $10 below cost to force publishers to lower wholesale prices. They were counting on the rest of the industry to demand lower wholesale prices to compete with the below cost sales and then use the most favored nation clause in their contract to lower their own wholesale price. All the while they could count on gaining market share and squeezing out smaller competition by being the only source of $9.99 books.

Amazon have subsequently used that market share to leverage big publishers to more agreeable deals but isn't passing on any subsequent benefits to customers.

 

[border]

... ?

the devil = Apple
a new competitor = Apple
somebody undercutting = Apple

why can't you Apple apologists just say it out in plain terms?

A new competitor, Apple or otherwise, was going to undercut them. The streaming music business is big enough that someone will always be willing to take a loss to get their foot in the door -- it's not as if they aren't already competing with Tidal, Google Play Music, Rhapsody, Xbox Music, Rdio, etc.

Spotify wanted to have their cake and eat it too by forcing iOS users to cover the extra cost of in-app billing. I don't see how pointing that out means I am apologizing for Apple.

 

[Epix]

In before...

"Apple rejects Spotify app from App Store due to violating the recently updated EULA stating app providers can't discourage App Store in app purchases"

 

[Blackhead]

A new competitor, Apple or otherwise, was going to undercut them. The streaming music business is big enough that someone will always be willing to take a loss to get their foot in the door -- it's not as if they aren't already competing with Tidal, Google Play Music, Rhapsody, Xbox Music, Rdio, etc.

Spotify wanted to have their cake and eat it too by forcing iOS users to cover the extra cost of in-app billing. I don't see how pointing that out means I am apologizing for Apple.

Apple isn't taking a loss

 

[werks]

Amazon were actually selling a $12-14 book at $10 below cost to force publishers to lower wholesale prices. They were counting on the rest of the industry to demand lower wholesale prices to compete with the below cost sales and then use the most favored nation clause in their contract to lower their own wholesale price. All the while they could count on gaining market share and squeezing out smaller competition by being the only source of $9.99 books.

Amazon have subsequently used that market share to leverage big publishers to more agreeable deals but isn't passing on any subsequent benefits to customers.

Amazon was selling a few best sellers below cost. You are making it sound like they sold all books below cost to drive out the competition. Having loss leading items is a standard retail practice.

Amazon did nothing but compete. EBook prices went up industry wide after Apple's collusion and went down immediately after the DOJ settlement.

 

[Kinsella]

A new competitor, Apple or otherwise, was going to undercut them. The streaming music business is big enough that someone will always be willing to take a loss to get their foot in the door -- it's not as if they aren't already competing with Tidal, Google Play Music, Rhapsody, Xbox Music, Rdio, etc.

Spotify wanted to have their cake and eat it too by forcing iOS users to cover the extra cost of in-app billing. I don't see how pointing that out means I am apologizing for Apple.

Hard to undercut free.

 

[borghe]

Not ignoring or cherry picking. If I didn't touch anything you feel I'm avoiding, call it out.. but man.. that is a hella text wall.. off the top of my head.

Your argument is entirely false and obfuscates the real issue. Apple Music and all it's competitors are selling the same commodity with a fixed price of ~70% of revenue. Your comparison would be valid under the following scenario:

1. Bungie sells the rights to Destiny PS4 at $42 per copy wholesale.
2. Both Sony and Activision buys Destiny wholesale to sell on PS4
3. Sony sells Destiny for $60...

But that scenario doesn't exist.

your logic is off a bit.. Activision is the publisher. A more apt example is:
EA sells Battlefield on Origin and pays $0 to sell a $60 game. EA also sells Battlefield on Valve and pays $18 to sell a $60 game. Obviously EA would LOVE that everyone buy the game from Origin. But people use Steam and want to buy from Steam. That Steam also sells Left4Dead is regardless.

You are again making a false argument to support your case. Why would Amazon have to maintain 500K books as IAP, is that what apple does with iBook? No Amazon would just have maintain whatever price point per book and mechanism for charging would be exactly the same as iBook.
The issue was always money. 70% (Publishers) + 30% (Apple) = 0% for Amazon.

The policy in question was that anything sold inside the app needed to have App Store availability also. So if Kindle offered 500K books at the time (I believe it was around there) for sale in the app, it needed to ALSO make all 500K books available on the App Store. The issue was NEVER money in the case of amazon (and only Amazon). It was that, logistically, Amazon could not meet Apple's policy. To do so, they would have had to have suspended sales inside the app until they posted every single book on the app store. Not doing so would haev allowed amazon to pull the app at any given time.

$10 music sub - $7 for publishers leaved exactly $3 for spotify. Paying that $3 to Apple doesn't create a competitive disadvantage? They SHOULD be charging $10 on ios? LOL, maybe you went to a business school that taught you to run a business with 100% cost but the rest of us didnt.

The problem isn't less money, it NO MONEY. Spotify would make $0 if it charged $10 (market rate) for streaming sub.

so pull the subscription from IAP? But wait.. what about the free tier? Because artists get paid on that, and ad revenue comes nowhere NEAR enough to cover it. So if you're not supposed to make $0 in business, why is Spotify making LESS THAN $0 from their free tier? Availability. Mindshare. Conversions. Upsells, etc. All stuff still possible with Apple users (whether App Store IAP of removing subscriptions from the app entirely and being web-only)

In the eBook case, Apple colluded to create a 70% cost for amazon and then demanded the other 30% by making iTunes the only payment system. Driving out competition.

again, read above. cost had nothing to do with it. It came down to amazon not being able to realistically being able to maintain the same IAP inventory as in-app/store inventory. apples to oranges with the music situation.

In every scenario, it reduced competition and harmed the consumer.

ha, it was absolutely Spotify's choice the HARM THE CONSUMER for OVER a year before saying "oh hey, here's how you can save money." And even then.... a fucking email list? Seems mighty and noble in light of being the 5th highest grossing app on the app store. I bet their drowning their sorrows all the way to the bank on that one.

I agree that what apple pulled with amazon was shady. no, not illegal.. with almost a dozen other platforms AND market dominance, competition is alive and well. but yeah, it was a dick move. with that being said, it had nothing to do with apple wanting money and amazon balking. it came down to apple instituting a policy that amazon had no feasible way of complying with.

hence why the music situation is different, because that DOES come down to money, and where you sell your product. All of which are options and choices that Spotify is free to make.

 

[railGUN]

If you run a business, where 70% of your revenue goes to X, and then choose to place your app in a store that takes a 30% cut, leaving you exactly 0 dollars profit, that's totally, completely, entirely on you, the business, not the store you chose to place your app on.

Spotify can go and R&D smartphones and tablets, put them into production, spend millions of dollars advertising them, build a massive storefront, run that storefront, spend millions advertising that storefront, customer support that storefront, handle the business transactions of that storefront and then place their app on that storefront, thus alleviating that 30% going to another company.

Or, they can use Apple's App Store and eat the 30% and try to make it up elsewhere.

Or, they can use Apple's App Store and offset that 30% to the customer, thus putting them at a competitive disadvantage to Apple's pricing.

 

[border]

Apple isn't taking a loss

The point isn't that it's a true "no profit" loss, just that someone was going to undercut their $12.99 plan sooner or later anyhow. Charging $13/month was never going to be a really viable long-term strategy in that marketplace, and they shouldn't have leaned on it in the first place.

Though I'd be curious how much they've really relied on IAP subscriptions anyhow. Prior to this article I didn't even know they had a more expensive Apple-only subscription.

 

[Earthstrike]

of course they weren't YOUR point, but they are THE point. Stores that sell products take a cut. Period. Most such stores don't allow you to circumvent the store's sales mechanism to provide your own. Pepsi can't set up a store inside of Target and sell Pepsi cheaper than Target does. That Google ALLOWS this, is certainly their call. But at the same time they are the exception and not the rule. As for Mac and Windows, they are operating systems. Their "sales platforms" are essentially to the point of not existing/mattering. So saying "the x biggest operating" systems is irrelevant. What percentage of Windows application sales do you believe happen on the Windows store? If it were even 1% I would be shocked.


yes, and it's awful because it's "not like google's". There's not really much objectivity there, especially when ther are like 500 other digital store fronts on the internet that are ALSO not like Google's...



your article seems bit flawed in its projections compared to actual results

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/15/app-store-google-play-revenue-q1-2015/

but beyond that, from google's own earnings

http://www.businessinsider.com/stats-on-googles-revenues-from-youtube-and-google-play-2015-7

Google Play is included in a category with ALL other Google incomes (including Google Play licensing itself) , and all combined aren't even 10% of Google's total revenue. Really, I have no desire to pick on Google.. I only say that Google allows what they do as a competitive advantage when dealing enticing development. If Google/Android were the first choice for development of for-profit apps, and/or the service's makeup of company revenue were more significant, those policies would surely change.

I actually feel bad for what looks like my Google criticism.. because it's not. Just different priorities and opportunities.


100% this. Spotify is absolutely in the fucking wrong on this. They could have pulled subs from IAP on iOS and bitched then. They could have charged $9.99 for premium subs on IAP and bitched then. They could have charged $12.99, but from the start made a targeted campaign toward users letting them know this was happening, offering credits for those who switched quickly, talking about how unfair apple is, etc.

Instead, they passed the charge directly onto their users, remained silent for over a year collecting their money, and as soon as Apple started eating their lunch, attempt to play the victim.

fuck them.

edit - if you look on THEIR OWN GOD DAMN FORUMS, not ONCE does an official employee even acknowledge "yes we charge more on App Store, but you can save by signing up directly with us" in any of the threads made in the last year. They never once officially commented on it in any of the threads I've looked in. fucking shady as fuck.

I'm having trouble understanding what you are arguing against. As soon as apple started eating their lunch? They've been eating it for every sale that spotify has made through the app start both before and after this fiasco. You seem to be fine with apple charging a 30% fee like any other profit maximising business would, which is ok. Why not be fine with spotify also making a profit maximising decision, like actively trying to get users to unsubscribe from the apple store so less user and integrated in the apple system to the point that apple music subs are less likely?

 

[Blackhead]

Hard to undercut free.

That's why Apple was pushing the labels to discontinue Spotify's free tier as Apple was simultaneously asking the labels for a $8 Apple Music price point.

The point isn't that it's a true "no profit" loss, just that someone was going to undercut their $12.99 plan sooner or later anyhow. Charging $13/month was never going to be a really viable long-term strategy in that marketplace, and they shouldn't have leaned on it in the first place.

Though I'd be curious how much they've really relied on IAP subscriptions anyhow. Prior to this article I didn't even know they had a more expensive Apple-only subscription.

The only someone who can undercut $12.99 by 30% like that on iOS is Apple. Rdio etc also pass on the cost to consumers

 

[Dalek]

If you run a business, where 70% of your revenue goes to X, and then choose to place your app in a store that takes a 30% cut, leaving you exactly 0 dollars profit, that's totally, completely, entirely on you, the business, not the store you chose to place your app on.

Spotify can go and R&D smartphones and tablets, put them into production, spend millions of dollars advertising them, build a massive storefront, run that storefront, spend millions advertising that storefront, customer support that storefront, handle the business transactions of that storefront and then place their app on that storefront, thus alleviating that 30% going to another company.

Or, they can use Apple's App Store and eat the 30% and try to make it up elsewhere.

Or, they can use Apple's App Store and offset that 30% to the customer, thus putting them at a competitive disadvantage to Apple's pricing.

BOOM.

 

[borghe]

I'm having trouble understanding what you are arguing against. As soon as apple started eating their lunch? They've been eating it for every sale that spotify has made through the app start both before and after this fiasco. You seem to be fine with apple charging a 30% fee like any other profit maximising business would, which is ok. Why not be fine with spotify also making a profit maximising decision, like actively trying to get users to unsubscribe from the apple store so less user and integrated in the apple system to the point that apple music subs are less likely?

sorry for the misunderstanding. I am absolutely fine with Spotify doing whatever business decision they need to to make a profit. 100%. Up to and including charging more on the app store (or google or wherever) or removing their sub from IAP on those stores.

The shitty part I am complaining about (not arguing for or against) is that they made this business decision over a year ago (fine), but didn't actually make an attempt to educate their customers on this decision until AFTER Apple actually posed competition.

Charge whatever you want, but for god sake educate your customers. Don't screw them over for a year and only THEN educate them after a threat approaches from over the horizon.

That's what I don't understand. How can Spotify get away with leaving their customers in the dark and paying more for over a year and still have people sympathizing with them as the victim in all of this? Oh, Apple's involved... nevermind.

 

[Marty Chinn]

your logic is off a bit.. Activision is the publisher. A more apt example is:
EA sells Battlefield on Origin and pays $0 to sell a $60 game. EA also sells Battlefield on Valve and pays $18 to sell a $60 game. Obviously EA would LOVE that everyone buy the game from Origin. But people use Steam and want to buy from Steam. That Steam also sells Left4Dead is regardless.
.

EA purposefully doesn't put their games on Steam because of this and only sells their current games on Origin. What's also different here is that the consumer has the choice to install both Steam and Origin on PC, Mac, and Linux so both EA and Valve can see 100% of the revenue and nobody raises prices to compensate. Apple doesn't give the consumer or developer that option or choice on iOS. So I don't think your comparison here holds up.

 

[border]

EA purposefully doesn't put their games on Steam because of this and only sells their current games on Origin. What's also different here is that the consumer has the choice to install both Steam and Origin on PC, Mac, and Linux so both EA and Valve can see 100% of the revenue and nobody raises prices to compensate. Apple doesn't give the consumer or developer that option or choice on iOS. So I don't think your comparison here holds up.

On iOS the consumer most certainly has the choice to sign up over the web and get a $9.99/month subscription. And this is without downloading some janky client like Origin.

 

[KHarvey16]

On iOS the consumer most certainly has the choice to sign up over the web and get a $9.99/month subscription. And this is without downloading some janky client like Origin.

And for developers making software on iOS, the cut associated with selling on the App Store is not unlike the licensing fees console makers collect on all games sold for their system.

 

[Marty Chinn]

On iOS the consumer most certainly has the choice to sign up over the web and get a $9.99/month subscription. And this is without downloading some janky client like Origin.

Weird, how you talk about Origin being janky yet the solution on iOS is to go externally to the web which is in itself a janky solution compared to doing it in the app like on other platforms.

 

[border]

Buying something on the internet with a web browser is not what I consider a janky experience. We do it every day, and with a subscription service it's a one-time hassle. You have to pay for Netflix on the web -- is that at all janky to you?

Having to install a completely different client and executable and launch it every time you want to play a particular subset of games is pretty cruddy though.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Buying something on the internet with a web browser is not what I consider a janky experience. We do it every day, and with a subscription service it's a one-time hassle. You have to pay for Netflix on the web -- is that at all janky to you?

Having to install a completely different client and executable and launch it every time you want to play a particular subset of games is pretty cruddy though.

Leaving the app to do something that should be done in the app is a janky experience. It's pretty obvious when I'm going between Android and iOS how I have to exit an app to do the same thing and not only do that, actively type in the url or find the url if the url isn't an obvious name in order to do so since iOS won't even let you have a link in the app to take you there. Is it going to kill Apple? No, but let's not pretend it's not better elsewhere especially since people want to compare it to other platforms anyway to defend Apple.

 

[S¡mon]

Man, still enough people here defending Apple.

If your argument is "well, Apple charges 30% for all apps, it's their platform, so that's that"... okay, but in my opinion everything changes as soon as Apple becomes a direct competitor.

Apple has an audience of hundreds of millions, if not over a billion, people worldwide. They are now starting to offer a music streaming service at $9.99, while all their competitors are forced to charge almost 30% extra to make the same amount of revenue. In my opinion, a 30% cut is exorbitant. It is anti-competitive (it is literally impossible for competing music streaming services to make the same amount of revenue at the same price) and it can be anti-consumer as it can lead to up to 30% higher prices.

Just my two cents.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Leaving the app to do something that should be done in the app is a janky experience. It's pretty obvious when I'm going between Android and iOS how I have to exit an app to do the same thing and not only do that, actively type in the url or find the url if the url isn't an obvious name in order to do so since iOS won't even let you have a link in the app to take you there. Is it going to kill Apple? No, but let's not pretend it's not better elsewhere especially since people want to compare it to other platforms anyway to defend Apple.

Spotify, Netflix, etc aren't really app-first services though. I'm guessing most of their registrations come from the web, and then after that people start exploring the apps and other clients -- not the other way around. I'd be interested in some data on that.

Also just because there's a better experience out there doesn't make every worse experience "janky".

 

[KHarvey16]

Leaving the app to do something that should be done in the app is a janky experience. It's pretty obvious when I'm going between Android and iOS how I have to exit an app to do the same thing and not only do that, actively type in the url or find the url if the url isn't an obvious name in order to do so since iOS won't even let you have a link in the app to take you there. Is it going to kill Apple? No, but let's not pretend it's not better elsewhere especially since people want to compare it to other platforms anyway to defend Apple.

I'm pretty sure almost every app that relies on a paid subscription handles that payment externally. Can you sign up for HBO or MLB.tv or Netflix in the android apps?

 

[Marty Chinn]

Spotify, Netflix, etc aren't really app-first services though. I'm guessing most of their registrations come from the web, and then after that people start exploring the apps and other clients -- not the other way around. I'd be interested in some data on that.

I'd think apps like Kindle, Audible, Comixology, etc are app first services though and Apple's policies applies to services like them too.

Also just because there's a better experience out there doesn't make every worse experience "janky".

Heh, you'd think how some people piss on Android being janky because Apple does it better than every experience worse is considered janky. I'd agree though that there are varying degrees of difference in quality in experience. I'd also say in this case, Apple's implementation of not using Apple's IAP is janky especially since they won't even allow a link in the app. A link in the app would make it much less janky than it is now.

I'm pretty sure almost every app that relies on a paid subscription handles that payment externally. Can you sign up for HBO or MLB.tv or Netflix in the android apps?

Is HBO Now even on Android yet? I know Spotify and Pandora allow you to sign up and pay in the app.

 

[Dalek]

I used Audible over 10 years ago before there was ever Apps or iPhones. My account from that time still exists.