Spotify vs Apple - Food fight!

What really sucks is that Walmart won't allow me to setup a "garage sale" in the middle of their store without paying them a handsome fee, if at all. Something needs to be done about their anti-competitive behavior
 
Well, credit card processing adds about 2% to a transaction. Apple is taking a 30% cut for simply processing Spotify's monthly subscription fees, 15% after a year. Google charges 15% from day one. There really aren't any other providers, unlike most retail. Worse, Apple won't allow apps to promote other ways to subscribe outside of the Apple store. Sounds a lot like a monopoly/duopoly to me.

I'd say Spotify has an argument, and Liz is a bit of a pit bull. Will be watching with interest. Please don't let this thread drift into politics.
 
Last edited:
If the contractual agreement between Apple and third party developers says 30% of in app purchases goes to Apple then sorry, it's Apples way or the highway. I'm not saying it's fair or right. It's just the agreed contract between parties.

And I'm a huge Elizabeth Warren supporter. Further comment can't be made as that would violate political restrictions.
 
Rockyhill said:
If the contractual agreement between Apple and third party developers says 30% of in app purchases goes to Apple then sorry, it's Apples way or the highway. I'm not saying it's fair or right. It's just the agreed contract between parties.
Click to expand...
When there are only two companies controlling distribution of virtually all mobile apps, and they limit payment methods for subscriptions to services they had nothing to do with building, and they also provide competing services, there is a big problem that governments call anti competitive, and frown upon. This isn't likely to just go away. I expect the EU will take Apple on here.
 
chicks said:
Well, credit card processing adds about 2% to a transaction. Apple is taking a 30% cut for simply processing Spotify's monthly subscription fees, 15% after a year. Google charges 15% from day one. There really aren't any other providers, unlike most retail. Worse, Apple won't allow apps to promote other ways to subscribe outside of the Apple store. Sounds a lot like a monopoly/duopoly to me.

I'd say Spotify has an argument, and Liz is a bit of a pit bull. Will be watching with interest. Please don't let this thread drift into politics.
Click to expand...
They aren't just charging for credit card transactions. They are charging for the "building."

If I want space in a mall to peddle my goods, they don't just charge 2 percent of the transaction. They charge me for the space. There was no promise from Apple that they would invent the iPhone and the App Store and continually improve them with their own resources and allow anyone to play in their space for free. It seems a bit unfair to suggest that anyone should put their blood, sweat, and tears into a project and make it a huge success and then be required to allow competitors to move into that space for free. In that same vain, they should not be required to allow them to advertise for stores outside of their store from their space. I have never gone to Best Buy for a TV and seen a sign from Samsung that said you can look at their TVs in BB, but if you want to buy them, just head over to HHGreggs.

Of course, who knows what the courts will say. They write up the rules as they go along. However, Apple is not a monopoly in this area. Spotify has plenty of other avenues to place their app including a web player that could work via a web browser on any iOS device. Spotify is all over the place, so it will be difficult to suggest that Apple has a monopoly for music services.
 
Sorry, but I can go to dozens of stores to purchase a TV, lots of competition. I can go to exactly one store to purchase apps for an iPhone. No competition allowed. Then, I'm forced to use Apple's store to pay my monthly subscription fees, because Apple won't allow me to know about alternative subscription methods, because they won't allow in-app subscriptions or even knowledge about alternative payment methods. Worse, they won't allow me to install apps from any source but their app store. Catch 22. Highly anticompetitive. Looks like the FTC has been reviewing their practices for a year now.

Google, meanwhile, allows subscriptions outside its store, and even allows in-app sign-ups for external subscriptions. Exactly what Apple should be doing.
 
Last edited:
chicks said:
Sorry, but I can go to dozens of stores to purchase a TV, lots of competition. I can go to exactly one store to purchase apps for an iPhone. No competition allowed. Then, I'm forced to use Apple's store to pay my monthly subscription fees, because Apple won't allow me to know about alternative subscription methods, because they won't allow in-app subscriptions or even knowledge about alternative payment methods. Worse, they won't allow me to install apps from any source but their app store. Catch 22. Highly anticompetitive. Looks like the FTC has been reviewing their practices for a year now.
Click to expand...
Every iPhone has web browsers. No one is stopping Spotify from being played on iOS.

The point you are making is that you can buy TVs in other stores. Spotify is available all over the place.. certain receivers, specific speakers, cars, web players, the echo, Android, Mac, Windows, Roku, PlayStation, TVs, Nvidia Shield, Sonos, etc... The point you are making is that they have some right to be in the Apple Store because Apple sells a lot of iPhones. It is like saying I have the right to sell my TV in Walmart, because they sell a lot of TVs.

What the FTC is doing is irrelevant until they actually file and win a case against Apple.
 
And those are the rules Apple established to play on their OS. Take it or leave it.They used to be a little more open source (Power Computing) but that died on the vine years ago.​
 
Nothing to do with the app hosting, it's Apple forcing payments of the iPhone app subscriptions to Spotify's service, which Apple has not part in providing, and competes with, to be done through the Apple store. Then, not allowing Spotify to charge more for subscriptions through Apple's store, not allowing Spotify to promote its own subscription services, or offer alternative subscription payment services through the iOS apos. Highly restrictive, highly anticompetitive. Not practiced by Google. Little wonder the FTC is reviewing these practices.
 
chicks said:
Nothing to do with the app hosting, it's Apple forcing payments of the iPhone app subscriptions to Spotify's service, which Apple has not part in providing, and competes with, to be done through the Apple store. Then, not allowing Spotify to charge more for subscriptions through Apple's store, not allowing Spotify to promote its own subscription services, or offer alternative subscription payment services through the iOS apos. Highly restrictive, highly anticompetitive. Not practiced by Google. Little wonder the FTC is reviewing these practices.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, Spotify had twice the number of paid subscribers on their service than Apple. They have said they now have over 100 million people using their service ( including freemium). Also, Spotify has said their growth has quickened since Apple Music came to market. So far they have 160 million downloads from the App Store. Very hard to make the point they are damaged by Apple's practices when they have specifically said they have benefited from the competition:

"Since Apple Music started we've been growing quicker and adding more users than before."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-future-idUSKCN0Y023B


Edit: One thing I forgot to add. Apple is not forcing anyone to pay for Spotify inside the app. I have been a subscriber to Spotify on several occasions and I have mainly used the service on iOS. I simply went to Spotify's website and signed up for the subscription, downloaded the app, and typed in my username and password. Apple made nothing on the transaction.
 
Last edited:
+48V said:
Erm, defending Google in the realm of anticompetitive practices is a bit of slippery slope. Jus sayin'
Click to expand...
Lol. True dat. But in this particular realm, they're far more fair than Apple, allowing advertising of, and use of, external subscriptions inside Android apps. Apple is simply being greedy here, and highly anticompetitive; pretty clear to everyone except Apple fanboyz.
 
chicks said:
Lol. True dat. But in this particular realm, they're far more fair than Apple, allowing advertising of, and use of, external subscriptions inside Android apps. Apple is simply being greedy here, and highly anticompetitive; pretty clear to everyone except Apple fanboyz.
Click to expand...
Google makes money on learning your behavior. When you download an app, they use that information to build your profile. They have simply leveraged their market in a less direct way.
Of course, they want you to be sent to the web so they can take the information they gathered and apply it with targeted ads.

Google has an unfair advantage on the web with the most used browser, the most used search engine, etc. It is unfair that I should have to pay them for advertising. They should simply supply that service for free.
 
Last edited:
I have nothing against Apple's hardware products, they're first rate. I use an iPad Air, and now an Air 2, provided by Megacorp. They're almost as good as my personal Samsung tablet, except for the missing buttons and not as good screens. I subscribe to Apple Music, pay for it via the Apple store. Great service.

In this case, I think they're absolutely wrong, and need to change their practices, because they are being unfair to competing music services. If the tables were turned, and it was Google doing this, you can bet the Apple Boyz would be screaming.

I use Google's open source libraries, AngularJs, Angular Material, Google Charts, and many more, in my job every day. They are the among the best, most widely used libs available, and they are free. They have contributed as much as anyone to the Open Source community, more if you consider Android.

I can't think of a single Apple lib I've ever used, certainly not open source. Let's just say that I admire Google's contributions to the advancement of technology. Meanwhile, I observe Apple suing over the rounded corners of a phone, which they had nothing to do with inventing, avoiding tax payments, and many, many other odious practices. Not what I would consider a good corporate citizen. This subscription practice is simply par for the course. They do it because they can get away with it. I do hope that they will be compelled to change.
 
Last edited:
A few of the many articles on Google's anticompetitive behavior listed below:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...e-over-anti-competitive-practices-sources-say

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tubemogul-calls-google-anti-competitive-in-new-ad-campaign-1457362166

http://fairsearch.org/googles-anticompetitive-practices-hurt-consumers/

https://www.engadget.com/2015/09/25/ftc-google-android-antitrust/

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/n...-new-mobile-search-monopoly-antitrust-lawsuit

Impossible to talk about corporate tax rates without getting political. However, I will say that those people close to retirement that have money parked in a 401k ( which Apple is one of the most popular stocks) wouldn't be too happy to see Apple bring that money to the US. There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance. Tax evasion is the one to avoid.
 
Ha, just checked the domestic stock portions of my retirement funds. All have Apple as the #1 holding, Alphabet as #2. Being index funds, they follow the makeup of the index they're tracking. Guess I better become an Apple fanboy myself, lol. Not sure where their future growth is going to come from now that smartphones have reached saturation, though, and Jobs is gone...
 
chicks said:
Ha, just checked the domestic stock portions of my retirement funds. All have Apple as the #1 holding, Alphabet as #2. Being index funds, they follow the makeup of the index they're tracking. Guess I better become an Apple fanboy myself, lol. Not sure where their future growth is going to come from now that smartphones have reached saturation, though, and Jobs is gone...
Click to expand...
Not uncommon at all. People may want to take a look at their 401k plans before jumping on the anti-Apple bandwagon.

I don't think Apple will be lucky enough to find another Steve Jobs, but their current competition doesn't really have a Steve Jobs, either. I don't think Cook has the vision of Steve Jobs, but he is a decent business person, so maybe he uses Apple's stockpiles of money to buy growing companies that have "future tech" and people with vision? Of course, they have to figure out a way to keep the visionaries in those companies rather than turning them into big corporation zombies that get weighed down by executive management...or by trying not to run them off like the Siri/Viv guys.

They could also buy companies like Sony when the price is right and use their technologies to grow into other areas. Apple has a lot of money, which gives them plenty of opportunity for future growth. I also think that Apple still has growth opportunities in emerging markets if they can get through those government's red tape. It remains to be seen, but I would rather have 200 billion dollars to try to create future growth.
 
Well, they just paid for my new car, lol. I should like them more than I do. ;)

MW-ES618_Apple2_20160727151805_NS.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BillyBatts
Apple Music VS Spotify
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
SterlingOne
S
uofmtiger
Apple Music Gains Marketshare of Both Plays and Overall Revenue
Replies
2
Views
373
uofmtiger
uofmtiger
+48V
Stationhead--Stream Influencer for Artists
Replies
0
Views
233
+48V
+48V
uofmtiger
Apple Buys Shazam
2
Replies
25
Views
994
travellersol
travellersol
uofmtiger
Free trials push Apple Music ahead of Pandora and Spotify
Replies
5
Views
569
BillyBatts
BillyBatts
Back
Top Bottom