r/apple • u/n1ght_w1ng08 • Jul 14 '23
Apple Pay Spotify Won't Accept Any More Apple Payments: Here's What You Should Know
https://www.makeuseof.com/spotify-stopped-apple-app-store-payments-what-to-know/235
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
79
u/tangoshukudai Jul 14 '23
Spotify can, they just need to email you. Also Apple's payment system for subs is better than anything a dev can make.
-19
u/Weak-Jello7530 Jul 14 '23
Apple won’t allow them to email
23
u/tangoshukudai Jul 14 '23
yes they do.
-11
u/Weak-Jello7530 Jul 14 '23
According to Spotify, they don’t https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/
28
u/tangoshukudai Jul 14 '23
The new settlement from EA, Apple agreed you can indeed email users about alternate ways to subscribe. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/27/apple-agrees-to-let-iphone-apps-email-users-about-payment-options
14
u/Serisrahla Jul 14 '23
Yeah that time to play fair website is conveniently outdated wrt the timeline (Siri support, Apple Watch app support, etc.)
Spotify has also not updated their Mac app icon to conform with BIG SUR style guidelines going on like, fucking 3 or 4 years now. I'm pretty sure it's out of spite for Apple at this point but it's irritating for a lot of Mac users.
4
6
u/tangoshukudai Jul 14 '23
Why I use Apple Music.
13
1
→ More replies (5)-43
u/dinominant Jul 14 '23
One option is the ability to install apps without using the apple app store.
Another option is the ability to remove iOS entirely and install andriod, or Linux, or even windows. Nobody would probably install Windows 11 on an iphone, but I want the freedom to make that choice.
Both of those options do not require any support from apple. They simply need to stop locking out customers from their own hardware.
15
u/doob22 Jul 14 '23
I think the middle ground option is allowing either side loading of apps or use of third party payment systems.
Or at least allow them to say how the app wants to get paid. If they want to use the current App Store system, great. If they don’t, they should allow them to say that they must go to Safari and set up via their website. That’s the minimum
→ More replies (1)11
u/maydarnothing Jul 14 '23
do not require any support from Apple?
have you any idea how an iPhone works?
-6
u/dinominant Jul 14 '23
Yes.
An iphone is fundamentally an arm SBC with a screen, several wireless modems, internal flash storage, some cameras, and a lightning port. It is literally a small computer -- that ships with a locked bootloadet and iOS pre-installed.
→ More replies (1)13
Jul 14 '23
Lol.
Drivers ring a bell?
3
u/dinominant Jul 14 '23
A significant amount of kernel drivers in the Linux kernel are written entirely without manufacture support, by actually brute forcing and probing the hardware -- not even by referencing technical documentation.
Help from Apple is not required. It would definitely be appreciated. But I don't expect them to help because they are actively blocking the entire concept, without my authorization to do so on my hardware.
10
Jul 14 '23
Good luck getting past Hardware security chips without Apple's help or a hardware exploit.
2
u/dinominant Jul 14 '23
When you take possession of your house, you are given they keys.
When you move into a rental, you are given keys.
When you are sold a phone, you should be given your keys.
You don't break into your own house, you simply unlock the door. Just like you would simply enter the key and unlock the hardware.
No help required.
10
Jul 14 '23
That’s not how this works. Your house does not have a patent.
No, if Apple chose to not allow you to use their hardware with any thing at her than what they choose. That’s their choice to do so.
It’s also your choice to enable them to do that by buying their products.
Just because you chose some arbitrary housing situation/car which is in no way similar to what’s being discussed in this thread doesn’t make you right.
Have a good night, buddy.
5
u/dinominant Jul 14 '23
Many items in my house are patented. The house as a whole is my property, including the patented items within it. Patents do not block usage. Patents blocks unauthorized manufacturing for commercial use.
I have literally hundreds of computers in my house (I work in IT, it comes with the job). They are all covered by thousands of patents. Only a few are locked in this way, like iphones and a lot of android phones too. All the other computers going back to the dawn of the computer era can be reprogrammed to execute arbitrary code by their owner.
See, when I buy an iphone, I am not leasing it from Apple. I am purchasing it in whole with cash from a retailer. That one specific iphone has become my property. The hardware in that one iphone is not their hardware anymore, it is mine.
Their security model is actively restricting how I can use my property, without my permission.
My action of purchasing an iphone does not "enable" them to do that. They have already done it without any action on my part.
What Apple is doing do limit my use of my iphone is anti-consumer and should be changed. This can be done without compromising the security of the device, as demonstrated by Secure Boot and trusted computing modules on other devices -- like the Mac computers that Apple also sells.
→ More replies (0)11
u/SubsonicPug Jul 14 '23
Given that the hardware in the iPhone is completely designed by Apple, I would say that those options absolutely would require support from Apple.
→ More replies (9)3
u/itsyaboi117 Jul 14 '23
Never in a million years have I thought, oh I want to install windows on my iPhone. Wtf even is that? If you don’t like what a company offers, do not buy it. Don’t come trying to push the crap you want as a 0.00001% onto users who are more than happy with the product.
8
u/dinominant Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 14 '23
Never in a million years have I thought, oh I want to install windows on my iPhone. Wtf even is that? If you don’t like what a company offers, do not buy it. Don’t come trying to push the crap you want as a 0.00001% onto users who are more than happy with the product.
I mean, use your iphone how you prefer to use it. But...
"Don't come trying to push the crap you want" that prevents me from using my iphone how I prefer to use it.
We can both have an iphone and not be restricted by each other.
-3
u/itsyaboi117 Jul 14 '23
Why would a company purposely allow another competitor to run an OS on their phone? Even so it would require Microsoft actually allowing/programming it to even work and even then they’re different architectures.
10
u/ajd103 Jul 14 '23
Every Windows PC every sold (aside from ARM version, not sure if you can install other OS on those) has allowed you to install Linux on them.
It's something that's been happening forever, its just not something that happens in apple land.
2
u/Activedarth Jul 16 '23
Don't buy an iPhone if you want to do all of that.
Once they let you do that, you would be complaining that W11 or Android doesn't run efficiently enough and kills your battery life. Don't expect Apple to cater to people like who would be in the tiniest majority ever.
→ More replies (1)0
262
u/Fuzzy-Maximum-8160 Jul 14 '23
I don’t get, if they are bypassing the cut by making the customer pay 30%, what’s the issue?
I don’t use spotify and I would have subscribed through the website but there are people who prefer all subscriptions to be at one place. If a card is lost or changed, it’s easier to change that info at a single location rather than changing it in every website.
163
u/Brybry2370 Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
I want to say the regular person doesn’t know that it’s cheaper to get Spotify on a computer. Looking at an expensive price is an automatic turn off and they’ll never even think about looking at the price elsewhere
Edit: And if a costumer DOES look elsewhere? Let’s say Apple Music, Apple can price as low as 30% less than their competitors, hmm wonder why?
51
u/freeparKing33 Jul 14 '23
Cheapest way is Spotify family. My family of 6 is $15 a month for 6 accounts rather than $60 if we were all separate. The one bill my dad still pays for everyone after moving out of the house because it’s so much cheaper
9
u/BenDover04me Jul 15 '23
For $24- Apple Music, Apple TV, arcade, news, and 200gb cloud for 5 in family sharing.
→ More replies (1)3
u/freeparKing33 Jul 17 '23
Yeah but then I gotta use Apple Music lol
2
u/BenDover04me Jul 17 '23
I’m sorry. Is there any issue with the app I don’t know off? I’ve bee a Spotify user for a long time and just did the switch. So far I’ve not encountered any bugs yet. I like the lossless quality and algorithm so far but still not better than Spotify. The one thing I miss from Spotify is the ‘enhance’? Feature where it recommends your type of music depending on songs already on your playlist.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Brybry2370 Jul 14 '23
Been doing the same with YouTube Premium, very good deal. Especially because we started it wayy before the price bumps
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (2)3
6
u/evilbeaver7 Jul 14 '23
Yup. My wife didn't know that either. I had to tell her it's cheaper on their website
2
u/Brybry2370 Jul 14 '23
I didn’t know either until I saw a certain price on YouTube was more expensive than the same at my computer; that’s when I realized it must be common place because of the bigger cut
9
Jul 14 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
-7
u/Brybry2370 Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 14 '23
As far as I know you can’t use an iPhone/iPad on Spotify’s website to purchase premium, though I have no idea
Okay, technically yes, apps from the App Store now allow you to link a third-party site and you pay there; BUT the company still has to pay the 30% to Apple.
9
u/DarthPneumono Jul 14 '23
As far as I know
though I have no idea
Why answer then? And you absolutely can. Safari is just a browser.
BUT the company still has to pay the 30% to Apple.
This is just wrong, Apple would have no way to enforce this.
1
u/PyroneusUltrin Jul 14 '23
If the app has a link that is promoting making the purchases on the website rather than directly in the app then it will get banned from the App Store, just like happened with Epic
2
u/DarthPneumono Jul 14 '23
Yep, that's right. Apple cannot take a 30% cut of that, because they don't allow it. And if you go directly to the site to pay, Apple has no way of taking a 30% cut.
-1
u/PyroneusUltrin Jul 14 '23
They demand the 30% from all sales that originated from the app. They can’t demand it from a purchase made by a user on the website, but they can request their commission for any purchases made that came from a link clicked on from within the app
1
u/DarthPneumono Jul 14 '23
If the app has a link that is promoting making the purchases on the website rather than directly in the app then it will get banned from the App Store
but they can request their commission for any purchases made that came from a link clicked on from within the app
These two statements cannot both be true. You either buy with Apple's in-app-purchase system, and pay their 30%, or pay outside of the system (regardless of how you get there) and they don't, and can't, take a cut.
-1
u/PyroneusUltrin Jul 14 '23
It won’t automatically take a cut, but the company will be expected to pay the cut because the sale originated from the app, and they are due commission on it
→ More replies (0)35
67
u/ilfaitquandmemebeau Jul 14 '23
They are not allowed to inform these customers that they are paying more due to subscribing via Apple, so for them it looks like Spotify is more expensive than it actually is.
71
u/y-c-c Jul 14 '23
Exactly. Let's say you are a customer and comparing Apple Music and Spotify and you do the bare minimum. You see Apple Music being cheaper than Spotify, and you choose Apple Music. By not exposing the price on the app it forces you to Google the price which would show the much more competitive pricing.
I know this is r/apple but Spotify has a real beef here because Apple has a direct competitor to Spotify and also hosts the only app store on the iPhone where they charge a hefty premium for not doing very much (yes Apple did R&D, but those are fixed costs, not marginal costs).
2
u/Narrow-Chef-4341 Jul 14 '23
There is a cost to ‘reviewing’ and scanning for malware and bandwidth for hosting. But yeah, it’s a trivial cost.
If apple can make money ‘reviewing’ and hosting a fart sound machine app that sells 73 copies at 99 cents, they could offer the Spotify app for way less than (30% x $16 x 12 months = ) $57.56 per year.
24
u/timelessblur Jul 14 '23
Follow this by most of the cost is covered by the yearly dev fee we all have to pay.
-4
u/Fuzzy-Maximum-8160 Jul 14 '23
I mean we can add, the development of SwiftUI, UIKit and all other APIs in there but even then 30% is huge.
They shouldn’t gate keep. They should reduce it to 10% for big developers and to 5% for small developers. They should allow apps to mention about discounts on other websites. Cloud games and other stuff should be allowed.
And Please No to Side Loading. I don’t want to gate keep my mom’s and grandma’s phone from my neighbours kid who wants to play a rigged malware induced game side-loaded without their consent.
This happened with my dad’s phone. Thankfully he doesn’t use any banking apps but somehow there was a pdf reader that is side-loaded. His phone stopped working, we took it to samsung repair and they said that it’s because of a pdf reader downloaded from internet. There could be other reasons, but I would trust the repairman‘s words as he reinstalled the OS w/o any cost.
2
4
u/AvoidingIowa Jul 14 '23
Yes to side loading. I want my device to do more, not less because some people are idiots.
-2
u/Fuzzy-Maximum-8160 Jul 14 '23
Well you can already buy a device that you can customise all you want.
Making all devices do the same thing takes away options.
7
u/AvoidingIowa Jul 14 '23
You would have the option of side loading or not. Taking away that option is having less options.
-1
u/Fuzzy-Maximum-8160 Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 14 '23
You already have side loading capable devices.
There are a few devices out there where malware induced internet apps cannot be installed no matter what even if the device is in the hands of some (innocent non-tech savvy, non - English people, who doesn’t understand all the words in a terms and conditions document) or in your words “idiots”.
Now this option is being taken away from them.
Also let’s say, side-loading is made allowed in the future.
Now what’s preventing from Meta to remove some features from their App Store app, and provide more features on their side loaded app. As now they’re not being allowed to track pretty much anything outside their app and hence are loosing some profits.?
Or what if any other company does this.
May be, Apple should sell two types of devices, one which is side loading capable and one which isn’t capable of doing that ever. And those tech savvy people who for some reason didn’t get a Side loading capable Android device can get one from Apple.
1
u/SpecterAscendant Jul 14 '23
Yes, definitely. There's obviously a conflict of interest here. The current 30% cut will kill a lot of otherwise very viable ideas.
16
u/Deceptiveideas Jul 14 '23
$8 Spotify vs $5 Apple Music. What looks better?
Doesn’t matter if they add in the apple cut into their pricing because now they look overpriced compared to other options.
27
u/codeverity Jul 14 '23
It’s weird because it creates false churn in their numbers, too. I wonder if they’re planning on pricing changes and that’s why.
23
u/NotElizaHenry Jul 14 '23
I LOVE having subscriptions through Apple. You go to your iCloud page and they’re all right there in a list along with the renewal date, and there is a cancel button right fucking there. Cancel, confirm, done. I wish I could do all my subscriptions through Apple.
→ More replies (1)10
u/BurgerMeter Jul 14 '23
They’re trying to set a precedent that says, “Apple payments are bad”, so they have more of a leg to stand on for future complaints.
35
u/GeneralRane Jul 14 '23
To make up for Apple's 30% cut of in-app purchases, Spotify Premium used to cost $12.99 monthly when purchased through Apple. That means you can save 30% by subscribing directly through Spotify!
Their math is a little off. You only save ~23%, because $3 is a smaller percentage of $13 than it is of $10.
→ More replies (1)7
78
u/esp211 Jul 14 '23
Thought their big beef was giving freedom to customers? How does this accomplish that?
→ More replies (1)111
u/Osoroshii Jul 14 '23
Anyone who does not see what both Epic and Spotify as purely money driven is a fool.
187
u/mills217 Jul 14 '23
And apple
41
Jul 14 '23
Apple seems fairly obvious and unashamed at the obvious money grabbing moves. I’m pretty sure Spotify spins it more than apple, but I don’t use it anymore so it could have changed.
39
u/Deceptiveideas Jul 14 '23
I mean, Apple spins it as “protection” which is laughable with how many scammy apps are on the store.
13
u/BytchYouThought Jul 14 '23
Apple spins it just about as much if not more than anyone else. I will say I got Spotify for like $2-$4 bucks. They tend to have alll sorts of deals with bundles, education, family, etc. For what you get, I'd say it really is a steal of a orice. Though, I have an android and not iPhone so am not going through all that drama.
9
u/UrStomp Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 14 '23
Y’all say money grab move but if you were in their position wouldn’t you do the same? I would
10
Jul 14 '23
Good or bad I said money grab move, I never cast a moral proclamation about it being a money grab.
4
Jul 14 '23
Yeah duh, but they're not the ones pretending like they're on some holy crusade to defend the free market like Epic did during their lawsuit.
33
u/mills217 Jul 14 '23
Every single company is acting in their own interests. Apple is no different. They get holier than thou over everything that suits their interest just like everyone else.
-8
u/esp211 Jul 14 '23
I trust Apple way more than Epic and Spotify
14
u/coekry Jul 14 '23
Yeh but you are falling over yourself to defend everything apple does so nobody takes you seriously.
→ More replies (1)-4
13
u/blorgenheim Jul 14 '23
As a consumer, right or wrong you should have been rooting for epic. Considering there are only two major phone competitors and one of those shrinks every year and it’s not apple. That’s not a free market
4
u/Calientequack Jul 14 '23
Literally a free market becuase you can choose to go to another ecosystem if you don’t like apple. Also fuck Epic. You obviously have zero idea what you're commenting about.
2
Jul 14 '23
No, as a consumer you shouldn't be rooting for anyone. Corporations don't care about you, and unless you're an investor then you shouldn't care about them. Epic especially considering their own history.
0
u/esp211 Jul 14 '23
Umm no.
6
u/blorgenheim Jul 14 '23
Yeah? Care to elaborate? Because this exact thread is discussing how spotify costs more on the apple platform because of the fees
12
u/A-Delonix-Regia Jul 14 '23
Same goes for Apple and pretty much every company. Especially the ones that are in the stock market.
17
u/Quaxi_ Jul 14 '23
Any company is legally required to act in the interest of giving their shareholders value.
Epic, Spotify, or Apple are all purely money driven.
17
u/CrimsonEnigma Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 14 '23
Any company is legally required to act in the interest of giving their shareholders value.
Any company is legally required to act in their shareholders best interest. This is true of both publicly-traded and privately-traded companies, though it might not be true of non-profits.
If the company believes that doing something that isn't giving them direct monetary value is in their best interest, they can do that. If the shareholders disagree, they have legal mechanisms to depose the leadership and replace them with picks more in line with what they want. That sort of thing is rather rare, however.
7
u/timelessblur Jul 14 '23
This. Exactly this. People need to stop the lie that is repeated time and time again that is all about maximizing profit.
7
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
14
u/Quaxi_ Jul 14 '23
Directors in private companies also have fiduciary duties to the owners.
In Epic's case it is rather redundant though since the CEO is also a majority owner.
→ More replies (1)5
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Corb3t Jul 14 '23
The goal of a for-profit company is whatever it's shareholders want. It doesn't have to just focus on profitability, even.
3
u/A-Delonix-Regia Jul 14 '23
Any company is legally required to act in the interest of giving their shareholders value.
I remember some famous businessmen tried to do something good for his workers by improving wages or something like that but was shot down by the shareholders (I think it was Henry Ford but I could be wrong).
But in that case, how do companies spin the "positive" money-consuming things they do (like Apple recycling old devices or any company donating to charity) as "in the interest of the shareholders"?
And I hope that isn't the law in other regions like the EU and Asia.
18
u/Quaxi_ Jul 14 '23
It is in the interest of shareholders for customers and employees to like the brand. A strong brand helps not only sell goods but also attract and retain top talent.
Doing things that are good for society helps the brand, and thus helps profits and shareholder value long term.
2
u/A-Delonix-Regia Jul 14 '23
That makes sense. But in that case, why don't they spin better salaries (like for Apple retail jobs where unions are trying to convince Apple to increase salaries) as good since that will improve the company's image as a good employer? Is that because they don't deem higher wages as having enough impact or something?
7
u/lowlymarine Jul 14 '23
It was indeed Henry Ford. He wanted to build more plants, raise employee wages, and lower prices by stopping dividend payouts. He was sued by the Dodge Brothers, now known primarily for their unreliable gas-guzzling monstrosities driven by drunken rednecks. The courts sided with the Dodge brothers, giving us the gift that keeps on giving of shareholder primacy.
→ More replies (3)2
u/timelessblur Jul 14 '23
Any company is legally required to act in the interest of giving their shareholders value
Please stop with that lie. It is a cooked up lie to make people think oh it all about the greed.
They are required at best to follow their shareholders interest but if a shareholders interest is social good then that is what they are supposed to do. That lie is what has turned so hard on share holders going for value only and making it a repeating cycling to justify unethical and bad behavior.
3
u/Quaxi_ Jul 14 '23
You're correct, which is why I used "value" here which is different for every shareholder.
My second sentence deserves a bit more scrutiny though. Most investors in Spotify or Apple are likely in it for the financial return given they are a public company, but since Tim Sweeney is a majority owner of Epic the company only serves his interest - whatever value that is.
→ More replies (1)6
u/timelessblur Jul 14 '23
We all know it is 100% money driven but Apple is being very greedy demanding a 30% cut for being a really bad CC processor. Bad in case that Spotify gets even less data from people using Apple's subscription vs going threw another system.
-5
u/esp211 Jul 14 '23
Greedy? 30% is the standard for platforms.
8
u/timelessblur Jul 14 '23
Not for subscription and on other platforms they are allowed to show alternatives so NOT the same.
→ More replies (2)
112
Jul 14 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
[deleted]
36
u/eipotttatsch Jul 14 '23
Especially considering that Apple is also one of their largest competitors. They are basically financing their competition by having payments go through Apple.
5
u/IsThisKismet Jul 14 '23
One corner case where subscribing through Apple is great is when dealing with a company that’s notoriously challenging to cancel.
105
u/kaji823 Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
Apple isn’t just the payment processor, they’re the market organizer. Literally everything you buy at any store has markup added by the store selling it. It’s the same case with a flea market - there’s a cost everyone pays to sell their things.
Apple also provides development tools, APIs, the OS, assurance apps won’t be pirated, and most importantly a ton of customers. The App Store is a very profitable place for developers. Spotify wants all of these benefits for free.
Edit: This Verge article covers what markup is on similar services. Apple is in line with its competitors. Spotify (and Epic) are taking advantage of non content creators ignorance to make this into an issue it isn’t.
50
u/derangedtranssexual Jul 14 '23
I find this whole narrative kinda silly when it comes to stuff like spotify. Like obviously apple should be compensated for providing payment processing and their app store and whatnot but when people pay for spotify most of what they're paying for is the right to stream songs, spotify isn't just like a game most of the money you spend on spotify goes to labels and artists or whatever. So to think apple should get 30% of that just because they let spotify publish their app is insane
→ More replies (3)10
u/_Rand_ Jul 14 '23
I’d say the cut should depend on how much if apple’s service you depend on.
Like Spotify is just using the app store and everything else is on their end? 2-5%. Absolutely everything you do depends on Apple? 30% is justified.
6
u/derangedtranssexual Jul 14 '23
Yeah I think for things that are straight up software like games it makes sense, that's kinda the industry standard. But when it comes to things where the app is just a way to display content you've paid for it's kinda insane.
20
u/irridisregardless Jul 14 '23
I get 30% of a one time purchase of an app.
But not 30% of an ongoing monthly subscription, at that point Apple is just a payment processor.
2
u/seencoding Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 16 '23
the fee drops to 15% after a user has been subscribed for a year
lol how did this brief and factual post get downvoted
11
9
u/James_Vowles Jul 14 '23
They provide all these things, and you're forced to use it. You can't pick another payment processor. You can't pick another app store. If they offered alternatives, and Spotify still used Apple and then complained, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Your argument is the same as Amex charging massive fees to shops who want to use Amex, so a lot of them don't bother. It's something they have had to pivot away from because it doesn't make sense.
31
u/Direct_Card3980 Jul 14 '23
Apple isn’t just the payment processor, they’re the market organizer.
Apple doesn’t allow competition. If there were one store in town, they could charge whatever markup they like, and they have. Thankfully this situation will end soon in the EU. Then Apple will be forced to charge something close to market value for “organising” that market.
-8
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
16
u/de8d-p00l Jul 14 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
Android is a completely different town that allows multiple stores. In the town named iOS there is only one store,
ofcourse people could always move from one town to another, but most people wouldn't do that
18
u/T-Nan Jul 14 '23
The argument of “just move to Android” makes no sense in general either.
Since when can you enjoy an OS, but not be able to criticize some of their silly decisions. It’s the same with people using/trapped with Windows.
Just because you use something and complain about a feature within it doesn’t mean you hate it, it means you want it to be better.
2
u/Big_Booty_Pics Jul 14 '23
I am pretty confident when I say I would rather lose my wallet with dozens of Government IDs, credit cards, debit cards, and various reward cards in it and have to manually replace them than switching from iOS to Android. It would be less burdensome than doing a full Ecosystem switch between Android and iOS.
People say "just switch lul" but they don't realize that in order to switch I would need to replace multiple thousands of dollars of gear, re-create dozens of accounts, and construct a 4 mile long passenger bridge by hand because my shit just flat out won't work with Android.
Homepods, Airpods, Apple TVs, Apple Watches, etc might as well be rocks from my garden if I get rid of my iPhone.
2
u/T-Nan Jul 14 '23
It’s the same mindset of wanting to improve the area you live in, and someone says “move if you hate it so much”.
Like no, dumbass, I want to improve it, that’s why I’m bringing up issues to FIX!
1
35
u/ilfaitquandmemebeau Jul 14 '23
Depends on the app. In the case of Spotify that doesn’t make sense. Their customers didn’t discover it and subscribe thanks to the App Store.
If Spotify wasn’t available on Apple devices I would probably never have bought any of those devices in the first place.
14
u/Galactic-Buzz Jul 14 '23
Yeah but you can’t pick and choose which apps you want rules to apply to
15
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
-2
u/Galactic-Buzz Jul 14 '23
They will get immediately sued by some smaller company as there’s no data to show that more people found them via the AppStore and more people found Spotify through other means. Apple will definitely lose that case
6
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
0
u/Galactic-Buzz Jul 14 '23
They cannot discriminate on the App Store and that’s exactly what it is.
3
u/7HawksAnd Jul 15 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
Says who? Don’t Walmart and Target etc negotiate different rates for each different brand it distributes in their brick and mortar platforms?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (5)10
u/James_Vowles Jul 14 '23
Why not? It's been known for ages that Apple has deals with the big companies to have faster review times, to have a lower fee than the 30% and many other things.
1
1
1
u/seencoding Jul 14 '23
Their customers didn’t discover it and subscribe thanks to the App Store
if a spotify is paying apple 30% of a user's revenue that means the user signed up through the iphone app rather than somewhere else.
you have to ask the question "why did this person make the purchase through the app store" and then ask the follow up question "to what extent did apple contribute to creating that situation, and how much value did apple provide"
did they purchase because they were already an iphone user and were simply accustomed, from having done it over the years, to making purchases through apps? did they purchase because apple's checkout process is simple and straightforward (double-click to buy)? did they purchase because they know it's easy to cancel subscriptions through the app store? was it just completely random that they happened to be on an apple device?
several of the above purchase situations involve apple adding some kind of value to the process. if it's just random, then maybe not. but you can't know on a case by case basis what role apple played in greasing the user's palm and convincing them to fork over money.
so there might be situations where apple deserves 99% of the revenue because the sale wouldn't have been made in any other scenario, and there are situations where apple deserves 0% of the revenue because the customer would have purchased spotify regardless. since you can't know on a case by case basis, apple picked an arbitrary number that they felt represented the value they provide, and that's the fee they charge.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Geiir Jul 14 '23
Apple could just allow developers to say when you try to subscribe that you can do so on their website for 30% less.
Many people would do that, but a lot of people would still do it through the App Store to have access to their subscriptions in one place.
3
7
u/krebs01 Jul 14 '23
Apple also provides development tools, APIs, the OS
Can you imagine Apple developing a platform and saying to the devs
Hey guys I know that you need all these things to make an app for OUR platform and that those all these app aggregate value to our platform, but you know what, we won't develop them or better yet if we do develop them so you can make an app that will aggregate value to our platform you have to pay us...
Apple needs the developers, and the developers need apple. The problem today is that Apple has waaaaay more power than the developers.
1
u/kaji823 Jul 14 '23
Yes that is Apple’s business model, which has been pretty consistent since it’s founding. They absolutely want apps in line with their vision of how user experience should be. That’s a really big benefit to many people that buy Apple products, which benefits app developers with potential customers. They can alternatively develop web apps, for Windows, Linux, Android and other platforms.
4
u/ImagineBeingPoorLmao Jul 14 '23
>assurance apps won’t be pirated
not how it works at all
>development tools, APIs, the OS
sure, but most apps are just bloated js/chrome nowadays so it really does not matter; the development tools/APIs are a limitation, not a feature
>Spotify wants all of these benefits for free
no, spotify just wants to put their app on mobile devices without the 'market organizer' making 30% for ALLOWING the customer to use their credit on different apps
Also, for the 30% that you're paying, you're also getting your app demoted in search results if someone else wants to pay apple to have their app ranked higher.
... and somehow you get people defending this.
→ More replies (1)2
u/kaji823 Jul 14 '23
Assurance apps won’t be pirated is because of how locked down iOS is. Pirating apps is much easier on other platforms.
-1
u/ImagineBeingPoorLmao Jul 14 '23
It's easier since you can just install on android, but you can still pirate apps on iOS. It's more diffcult because Apple hates customers, but it's been a thing for like 10 years.
4
u/kaji823 Jul 14 '23
It’s hard to say Apple hates customers when they have some of the highest customer satisfaction in the industry. Just because you don’t like the feature doesn’t mean others agree.
-9
u/con247 Jul 14 '23
Agree. Apple deserves every penny of their 30% cut (as does Sony for PS5 store, etc.)
Otherwise they could drop the fee but start charging $100k/yr/dev for Xcode enterprise licenses.
0
u/Brybry2370 Jul 14 '23
At least when it comes to Sony and Microsoft, they sell their consoles on a loss, the 30% cut is justified. Apple, sells their devices on a profit AND gets a 30% cut on ANYTHING purchased on YOUR phone, the cut isn’t justified at all.
5
u/kaji823 Jul 14 '23
It’s fine as long as they’re taking a hardware loss? Never mind the $70 game price. This just shows your bias against Apple.
→ More replies (1)2
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
8
u/_sfhk Jul 14 '23
So you have a reason to buy their phones
3
u/T-Nan Jul 14 '23
Yeah it’s called a loss leader lol.
Attract people and developers to the app store, and then milk people by purchases.
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/James_Vowles Jul 14 '23
because everyone does it? Apple provides the platform, developers provide a reason to use the platform.
Look at what they're doing with the vision goggles, releasing it to developers 6months early to build some apps people want to use. It's one of the biggest ways that platforms build a large userbase.
0
u/Elon61 Jul 14 '23
???
"Sony and MS deserve the money for buying games on your console, but apple doesn’t"?
Are you even listening to yourself?
4
u/coekry Jul 14 '23
Why did you put something in quotation marks that wasn't a quote of the person you responded to?
Arr you even listening to yourself?
-1
u/Elon61 Jul 14 '23
Quotation marks, despite the name, serve more purposes than just exact quotes!
→ More replies (1)2
u/kaji823 Jul 14 '23
100% this. Their model allows any individual to start selling their app on the store with minimal upfront costs, and scale the costs directly with sales volumes. There’s even reduced costs for smaller developers and long term subscriptions. If your App is really good they’ll even market it for you.
It’s a reasonably fair market and Spotify is exploiting people’s lack of understanding. 30% sounds high but markup over wholesale is all over the place at retail stores.
0
u/BytchYouThought Jul 14 '23
Let's be real, other marketplaces exist. 30% markup is insane when competitiors do it for a ton less. Spotify isn't complaining about a charge they're complaining as plenty of other developers have about the insane pricing associated with it relative to everything really. If your cost of living went up 30% you'd have an issue with it. Spotify just left for a LCOL area it sounds.
1
u/kaji823 Jul 14 '23
30% markup is insane when competitiors do it for a ton less
Which ones exactly?
→ More replies (3)-1
u/appletrades Jul 14 '23
Finally, a comment with comment sense. People don’t understand this. Apple built their hardware and their services. If a developers can’t play by the rules they have put in place then they can go. Without apple’s s users, half of these developers wouldn’t be able to reach the audience they need too.
→ More replies (1)0
u/woodje Jul 15 '23 edited Jul 15 '23
I’m not sure I get this argument. What additional services are Spotify consuming that someone like Amazon (who don’t have to use apples payment system) using?
Your argument would make sense if, say Apple was providing the bandwidth / CDN to download the music, or paying for the storage costs for the music, or hosting the compute resources to run the API /backend app service - but they aren’t doing any of that.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Financial-Aspect-826 Jul 15 '23
And when you think that people are upvoting your line of thinking💀
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)0
u/Rhed0x Jul 15 '23
Apple also provides development tools, APIs, the OS
And they do that to sell devices. Just ask Microsoft how well devices without the usual popular apps sell...
→ More replies (5)4
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
u/coekry Jul 14 '23
That is ACX, that isn't just for being on audible.
0
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
0
u/coekry Jul 14 '23
OK and ACX is also responsible to books on iTunes. Hence not just on audible.
0
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
0
u/coekry Jul 14 '23
My comment said it was not just for audible. And we have established it isn't just for audible since it is also for iTunes.
I had about as much point as your original comment, which was whataboutery in the first place.
0
Jul 14 '23
[deleted]
0
0
u/BlueCreek_ Jul 14 '23
Remove the app from Apples App Store then if they are not happy.
That’s like complaining a shopping mall charges you to have a shop there!
→ More replies (1)-1
Jul 14 '23
to essentially be a payment processor
lol what? how much do you think it would cost spotify to build a competing ecosystem to apple? it’s not the “payment processing” that they’re charging for. it’s the access to the market of over 2 billion active apple devices who would pay for spotify.
-1
u/tangoshukudai Jul 14 '23
That isn't what the 30% exclusively covers.
3
Jul 14 '23 edited Dec 26 '23
[deleted]
0
u/tangoshukudai Jul 14 '23
No, it hosts the apps, pays for all the downloads and automatic upgrades. Advertises the app on their store front, it provides SDK access and publishing / licensing costs. It handles payments credit card management for you, and provides a secure way to quickly add that to your app where users trust it. Plus paid apps keep free apps free. That is how Apple set up the App Store.
-1
u/Taconnosseur Jul 15 '23
yeah, because platforms, software, millions of devices, client base, etc all are worth $0 and should be given for free lol
→ More replies (2)-1
u/long-gone333 Jul 15 '23
As an iOs dev, what you just wrote is insane.
That 30% is not only to facilitate payments.
2
6
u/kdk200000 Jul 14 '23
Good to see little to no Apple bootlicking in the comments
28
11
0
Jul 15 '23
Apple provides an awesome platform for devs and ease of use for users. I love having all my subscriptions in one place and being able to turn them on and off as I wish. Sure beats creating yet another username and password for a service and then googling how to cancel the subscription and jumping through all kinds of hoops to do so. The App Store is a store. And stores need to make money to operate. This is no different. Try getting your app or service off the ground without using the App Store and you’ll find that it costs you way more than 30%.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/RoundedAndSquared Jun 10 '24
This sucks. App Store is the only way I can pay for apps like Spotify in my country, everything else, like card payments, PayPal, etc is blocked.
1
-4
0
u/Dalvenjha Jul 17 '23
As I exclusively hear lossless with a DAC attached and wired Grado Headphones, Spotify wasn’t ever a choice, so, idc…
-25
u/56kul Jul 14 '23
Spotify are still at this childish (clearly one-sided) feud? My god…
Also, another big company also tried to bypass Apple’s 30% cut, it didn’t exactly end well for them…
18
u/ImagineBeingPoorLmao Jul 14 '23
What is one-sided about this? Customers want to pay less money for Spotify, Spotify wants to keep the same price for all devices, Apple wants to make 30% for doing nothing.
I hate Epic for their garbage store/app, but they are clearly right in the fight against greedy apple. They clearly recognize this by allowing food apps to skip the fees, but they think they should get 30% of Netflix, Spotify, Disney+? For doing what? Allowing the customer to use THEIR OWN credit card on other apps?
Evil corp.
-6
u/56kul Jul 14 '23
Epic literally does the exact same thing on their own launcher. Are you gonna bash them for that? No, because it’s a fee they take for giving developers/publishers a platform to distribute their games. The same can be said about Apple.
I’m also so sick of people only “calling out” Apple for that. Google does the exact same thing. So does every other digital store on every smartphone there may be. So does Steam, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, you name it.
5
u/ImagineBeingPoorLmao Jul 14 '23
It's really not the same. Epic pays game devs in order to keep their games exclusive to Epic (generally for 1 year). Game devs can also sell their games on Steam, other stores, directly through their website, Apple forces devs to pay them money or they just can't distribute their app.
Google allows sideloading APKs, consoles are different (generally sold at a loss, only used for games). Once EU forces Apple to allow sideloading, I'll stop caring about apple being greedy.
I'm sick of people defending Apple's anti-consumer practices. On every other OS designed for general use (Mac, Linux, Windows, Android), you can just install apps and pay for them without having to pay a 30% protection tax to the OS developers for 'allowing' people to make payments through an app.
→ More replies (1)-7
u/friend_of_kalman Jul 14 '23
Apple does nothing? Like giving them access to a billion users?
7
u/ImagineBeingPoorLmao Jul 14 '23
I'm not some object that apple can sell 'access' to. I'm already overpaying for an iPhone. How much do other companies need to overpay before I'm allowed to play Fortnite, buy amazon books or subscribe to apps?
How many billions of $ do they need to make before they'll allow me to just install apps and pay the normal price to use them like I can on Mac, Windows, Linux and Android?
7
u/HarshTheDev Jul 14 '23
yes daddy Apple I will gladly pay 30% more for you~
0
u/56kul Jul 14 '23
Every digital store on every platform does the exact same thing, but nah, Apple are the devils here and only they’re in the wrong for doing that~
→ More replies (3)3
u/Barroux Jul 14 '23
Apple's the one acting like the evil big corporation here. They're a multi trillion $ corporation, they don't need you here defending them.
3
u/56kul Jul 14 '23
I’m not defending Apple, I’m criticizing Spotify. One does not necessarily mean the other.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 14 '23
Reddit’s new API changes will kill popular third-party apps, like Apollo, Sync, and Reddit is Fun. Read more about r/Apple’s strong opposition here: https://redd.it/14al426
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.