Exactly what my local store does. They pay the wholesaler 10 and sell to me for 15.
And I wouldn't have a problem with that in general, except it feels dirty to claim Apple are saints for graciously allowing apps like spotify to be sold on their platform. They're already being paid for doing so through phone sales. Leveraging the monopoly they hold over the ios app store against Spotify, one of their competitors, is exactly what antitrust legislation is designed to prevent.
Whether what Apple is doing is legal or not I guess the courts will decide. But it's certainly factually incorrect to imply that you're not free to buy from anywhere else.
I really don't see this being that much different from the famous United States v. Microsoft Corp. case[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
EDIT: comments have made clear that Windows had a monopoly on the personal computer space, whereas Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone or tablet space.
It wasn't until the end of the 90s when macs started making an impression on peoples desktops, with the imac, but oddly enough if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operati... is to be believed, windows still has a 95% share of the desktop/laptop market.
I'm not saying Apple is right to do this. I'm saying the monopoly on their own product is not the correct argument. Apple is not a monopoly. If they lose this case it won't be based on this.
* Contractually barring licensees from offering competing OSes, or selling boxes without Windows installed.
* Leveraging their OS dominance to get dominance in other markets such as linking OS licensing with licenses for other software.
* Pinching competitor's technology using their advantages as platform owner and rolling it into their own products (Stac).
There was more, but those were the main ones.
Such as leveraging their preferred status to get dominance for Apple Music (by being able to charge less since they aren't subject to a 30% Apple Store 'fee')?
Actually, the "Walmart is a choice" claim also only holds up if there actually are multiple stores nearby, because who is going to drive fifty miles to the next store? Food deserts are a thing.
This is a false idea of "choice" and it is just yet another way producers and sellers try to shift responsibility to the end consumer who is largely powerless in most cases.
On Android you can side-load APKs, have alternative app stores like F-Droid and even install custom operating systems. So no, that is again not comparable.
> It’s (…) not some perfidious Apple plot
Sure
> just the nature of the market
Dammit, NO. The market is a human-made artificial construct, not some natural freaking law like gravity that is inevitable and unavoidable. And given that it is human-made we can change it, and make choices on what we demand from it.
But, if I have an iPhone, the only application store I can use is controlled by Apple.
In other words: if I am an artist and I want to offer my music via streaming I have plenty of options. If one of them does have a deal that I find unfair, I can choose others.
If I am a developer and I want to offer my app to iPhone users, I have only one option. And if I am banned from this store for any policy infringement (which sometimes is ridiculous and totally arbitrary) I have no other option to offer my app to iPhone users.
I agree with Android it's slightly different because side loading is at least possible, but I doubt many people are going to find your widget if it's not on the play store.
You're not forced to have an iPhone.
For example, Google banning their apps on Windows Mobile and Amazon Firestore. Google blocking Windows Phone users from accessing maps/mail via a user-agent check. That and Google actively blocking Microsoft developing a native Youtube app.
Is it any surprise that customers were unsatisfied?
Google is rightfully scolded for requiring that users sign away their information and following their every move (often using dark patterns).
Apple should be put on hot coals too for how they are abusing their position. Spotify is an excellent illustration because Apple is both the platform and a competitor. I don't understand why an Apple consumer would support their anticompetitive stance.
It's much better than Android even without that though. Especially since Google became more aggressive with tricking users to sign away their privacy.
However I’m not suggesting that local stores are in the wrong either but it does illustrate how consumers have choice there is no such competition inside Apples walled garden. And that is the real crux of why their margins are high: it’s because developers and iPhone owners are locked into the App Store
The obvious counteragument here is that people don’t have to buy iPhones - and that is true. However people do and they still expect their app prices to be low, so developers are the ones who ultimately lose out as they either have to support Apple or be left out entirely and they’re the ones who then have to lower their prices to compete.
It’s also worth noting that the physical store, in your example, would have greater overheads than an App Store of equivalent size so Apples markup shouldn’t include the same operational cost.
There is massive competition to the garden itself.
I did already acknowledge that and pointing out why it doesn't work in practice.
In a normal high street setting manufacturers and distributors set their prices and the shops then add their mark up on time. If the prices are too high then consumers will shop in another local store. Which means those stores either have to negotiate a lower selling price or reduce their own margins (or offer an alternative incentive to shop there in spite of the high prices - like free coffee)
With iOS consumers don't have the option of going to another App Store, which then flips the order of control. It means Apple can dictate their markup and app developers are then forced to lower their own margins if they want to appear attractive to other shoppers.
Correct, it's certainly unfair competition but what I'm saying is that it's still not a monopoly, not that it's "fair". When you paid for the iPhone you also paid for the services bundle that you bought as a package. Now if Apple controlled 90+% of the market this would fall under antitrust laws (MS+IE situation all over again). But they only control 15%. Users have the option of going for the the same/equivalent service provided by other vastly more popular phones and their app store(s). So every link in the chain has a perfectly good equivalent.
And even Spotify has a choice. They can shaft Apple and become Android only, since Android has 85% of the market. The reason they're not doing it right now I assume is because they would also shaft themselves, the AppStore might bring a very big chunk of their revenue (historically iOS users are bigger spenders).
Practical example of single supplier without an actual monopoly: If you buy a GM car you're left with one option for a subscription telematics service: OnStar. You can't get Lexus Link for example. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to call this a monopoly.
I agree - which is why I specifically did NOT call it a monopoly.
> When you paid for the iPhone you also paid for the services bundle that you bought as a package....
You're still missing my point:
> And even Spotify has a choice. They can shaft Apple and become Android only, since Android has 85% of the market. The reason they're not doing it right now I assume is because they would also shaft themselves, the AppStore might bring a very big chunk of their revenue (historically iOS users are bigger spenders).
EXACTLY. Thus Spotify effectively doesn't have a choice. It's pay Apples tax or don't have support at all.
This is compounded when you factor in that the in-app sales that Apple wants to take a cut from for businesses like Spotify are sales that Apple's had no stake in. Since you like car metaphors: it's like a taxi driver buying a car and the the dealer expecting to take a cut from all the taxi fairs even though the dealer's involvement ended the moment the car rolled off their forecourt.
> I don't think it ever occurred to anyone to call this a monopoly.
Again, I never called the App Store a monopoly. Others might have but I deliberately didn't because I'm already aware that it legally is not a monopoly. However that doesn't mean they don't still have total control over app sales on their own platform - legal terms aside.
I'm not sure I follow this. When I say choice for Spotify I mean Apple or Google. The industry still allows them to get the same service from the other 85% of the market. I interpret that as "choice", having options. When I go to Malls'R'Us to rent a storefront I only have them as a choice. But I can go to another mall without anyone claiming foul about competition.
Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. Rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none.
And to pick up on the mall analogy above, some storefronts cost more than others especially if they bring in more revenue for the store. And the owner of the mall also has full control over this. Is this not an equivalent situation?
I know I now sound unsympathetic to Spotify's situation but after reading (and later validating) some of the claims Apple is making in this article I can't help but feel like Spotify kind of cheated when they published their call for action by leaving some important stuff out. I had my pitchfork out only to realize the truth is a little more nuanced.
> Having no choice is when you want internet but there's only one provider. because rejecting that provider doesn't mean you get different internet, or worse. You get none.
But ignoring Apple's App Store does mean they then get no service for "iDevices" (not just the iPhone).
So their choice on iOS is pay the tax or don't have a presence. This is complicated by the fact that they would then lose customers who want a music streaming on multiple platforms including iOS. So Spotify's choice is really just an illusion.
> But isn't this what you'd expect when renting a storefront in a mall?
Indeed it is. You usually get a little more choice because you can have different landlords in a given high street (albeit you did specifically say "mall" where that choice wouldn't exist) but even in those cases shop owners are regularly complaining that increases in rent are pushing them out of business. and in fact the UK has seen a lot of independent stores go out of business because of exactly that.
If I want my music in the Spotify catalog who decides what's my cut and what's Spotify's cut of the money my music is generating? They have 100% control there so if I want to list my music there what are my choices? Pay up or not have a presence.
Apple's choice is to give them access to millions of customers with big pockets (statistically), maintain the whole infrastructure for this, not get anything because the app is "free" but actually not even be allowed to drop them? What kind of choice is that? Should an app even be called "free" if it offers nothing without paying? Isn't that like asking for tax exemptions for a nonprofit organization that makes a profit?
Would it be OK if Apple changed the rules so apps had to offer full functionality without further paid unlocks or simply charge for the app as a service in the App Store at whatever monthly price the developer chooses?
The fact that Spotify lied or misled about these details that are pretty obscure to most people (including me until I specifically read about them) kind of disqualifies them from playing victim in my perspective. They want all the benefits with none of the strings.
Indeed. This same argument has been ranging on for years about music streaming services and ebooks via Amazon too. So it's not just Apple who get put under the spotlight.
> Apple's choice is to give them access to millions of customers with big pockets (statistically), maintain the whole infrastructure for this, not get anything because the app is "free" but actually not even be allowed to drop them? What kind of choice is that? Should an app even be called "free" if it offers nothing without paying? Isn't that like asking for tax exemptions for a nonprofit organization that makes a profit?
I think that's a little disingenuous. Apple don't chose to let app developers on board - Apple do it because their platform depends on it. Smart devices live and die depending on the developers that support it.
I also agree there is an infrastructure cost but as I said in an earlier post, it's not equivalent to the infrastructure costs of bricks and mortar despite Apple retaining the same kind of mark up. This is where people get narked off. But as I said elsewhere, I also accept Apple has the right to charge whatever they think they can get away with. I mean that's just basic business.
Your point about free apps is an interesting one however if we're honest, Apple do still make money even from free apps. Developers have to pay a small fortune to get their apps included in the App Store - from MacBook sales (if they weren't already Mac users), developer licences and app submissions. I think (but please correct me if I'm wrong here) Apple also have their own ad network for iOS as well? So they would obviously get a cut of that too. In any case I'm not trying to disagree with you here - more just say that Apple are hardly making a loss on free apps even without taking into account in-app sales.
> Would it be OK if Apple changed the rules so apps had to offer full functionality without further paid unlocks or simply charge for the app as a service in the App Store at whatever monthly price the developer chooses?
In fairness Amazon's app store states something like full functionality. I can't remember the specifics but they push back on apps that are in-app orientated in a scammy way while still allowing developers to be contributed for their work. It's a system which works pretty well - at least from an end user perspective. In fact that was one of the biggest things I missed when I "upgraded" my son's Kindle to a regular Google Play-powered Android tablet.
> The fact that Spotify lied or misled about these details that are pretty obscure to most people (including me until I specifically read about them) kind of disqualifies them from playing victim in my perspective. They want all the benefits with none of the strings.
I don't think Spotify has mislead anyone any more than Apple are misleading people. As you said, they all have an agenda - but that's just the nature of business. The question is really who's controlling the deck and are they doing so unfairly. The answer to the former is quite clearly Apple - but the jury is still out on the latter.
It's not really. Crying wolf is a bit hypocritical seeing how both engage in the exact same practices but only one is coming up with the sob story.
> I don't think Spotify has mislead anyone any more than Apple are misleading people
They came in the court of public opinion asking for fair treatment while misleading and giving half the story in their very loud complaint. They lost their moral high ground. Even worse since they're a company doing the exact same thing to artists. My point is, when you're in the same pigsty keep a low profile ;).
I agree it’s hard to argue who’s right and wrong but your opinion seems to be based purely on a knee jerk emotional reaction - which isn’t a compelling stance to take.
And it's not a kneejerk reaction. I plan on using both Apple and Spotify in the future. But anything Spotify want to get they should also give. Doe it look like they are to you?
So I really wouldn't take Apples rebuttal at face value either. It doesn't line up with what any other the other streaming services (both current nor the ones that closed shop because they simply couldn't afford the exorbitant rights being demanded) have claimed over the years, and it certainly doesn't line up with what I experienced back when I was involved in the music scene myself (which was some years ago now - but sadly it's an industry that showed no sign of adapting even then)
Not true. They can simply not offer in-app purchases. The Kindle App doesn’t pay any “tax” to Apple. Consumers have access to the Kindle App without Apple getting any “cut” of Amazon purchases even as Apple has Books.
I think this is an incorrect analogy. This is why Apple only charges for physical goods, not digital ones. The rationale is they distributed your product to customers you would never have had access to without them:
- they spend marketing dollars to get those customers;
- they develop and maintain a platform so you can run your business on it.
By simply publishing their app on the App Store, Spotify gets access to 15% richest customers of the smartphone market. If you’re charging customers for something they consume on that device, then I think it’s fair to pay a share.
That being said, I have no idea how this will play out in court. Intuitively, 30% the first year sounds like a lot of money for a distribution fee.
Would the app developers "never have access" to those consumers though? Because if the iPhone didn't exist then consumers would just use another handset. Just like we did before the iPhone and just like a significant amount of people do currently.
There's definitely a blurred line somewhere though. I agree to Apple having a fee for app sales though I think 30% is a bit steep but I agree Apple ultimately get to decide how much they want to charge. I agree that some apps might try to circumvent that fee by offering in app sales instead so Apple are trying to close off that particular loophole. However I don't agree that Spotify fall into that same category because their "in app sales" is actually a subscription service to a much larger product. However where do you draw the line?
> I think this is an incorrect analogy.
Obviously I wouldn't agree but I can completely understand why you'd say that given how open to interpretation analogies can be.
To be honest I hate posting them in debates because if you agree with the point then you'll agree with the analogy but if you don't agree with the point then you'll naturally find a reason the analogy doesn't fit. And given analogies aren't meant to be 100% representative, it means there's always plenty of ways to disprove it. Thus analogies are never persuasive in a debate. Worse still, sometimes you end up going down a rabbit hole of arguing analogies rather than discussing the actual point at hand.
For this reason, I usually try to avoid them.
What about the rationale that nobody would have bought their iPhone in the first place if it wasn't for apps?
The 30% is interesting, but so is the Verge article I read about Google lowering their fees from 30% forever to 15% forever: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16502152/google-play-sto...
I’m sure no one is in the right here, morally speaking. But as far as I can tell, big business is as far as you get from morals.
The App Store is a service rendered to its customers, the likes of Spotify. In the form of the hosting of the app, and all the backend behind that like in-app storage (iCloud). The code review and ‘security guarantee’ that Apple holds over Google and other rivals is also a cost.
IMHO this boils down to subsidy, on the part of digital services companies, publishing apps, subsidise the free and “real world” goods and services company’s that go unlevied for their participation.
It’s a bit like at carnivals, when food trucks pay to get a place, and are often expected to pay a commission on their profits too. But the charity stands, and free ‘workshops’ for kids etc. don’t pay to be their, because their providing a different service.
> Apple's walled garden is _A_ store.
Well obviously. Please quote me where I said otherwise.
> One of several.
Feel free to list all the other app stores on the iPhone.