5 ms·

Then people will use Apple Music which is exactly the leverage Apple has. Apple let Spotify test the market of music streaming. Entered the market at basically

Then people will use Apple Music which is exactly the leverage Apple has. Apple let Spotify test the market of music streaming. Entered the market at basically the same price. Then charges Spotify 27% to compete with them directly.

puppymaster 3y ago
but thanks to Epic court case Spotify can now put a big fat banner on their app that says 'go to this link to subscribe to Spotify premium'.
- eddd-ddde 3y ago
  Does that mean that subscribing on the app has a commission but subscribing on a web site on the browser app does not?
  - reilly3000 3y ago
    Right, if a user subscribes via app it uses Apple’s payment system and Apple is paying merchant processing fees, vs if they subscribe directly with Spotify they handle processing fees, chargebacks, support etc. The ~30% was relatively reasonable when the App Store launched with most transactions being $0.99 one-time purchases, but isn’t very equitable for things like $15/mo subscriptions.
  - Jcampuzano2 3y ago
    If they go to the browser themself - without clicking a link in the app - to subscribe, then no commission has to be paid. However, if they clicked a link from within the app itself to subscribe then they must pay the commission, even if the payment eventually happened from within a browser. In other words, no matter how the subscription/payment happened, if it originated from within the app (whether via a link to an external site or via apples payment system) you must pay a commision.
    - blashyrk 3y ago
      Can the application developers then send links via email/text instead? Either way it's mind boggling how the court didn't shut this disgraceful racketeering down
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Can I sell a physical item at any store and advertise at the same store that you can buy directly and save money?
        smoldesu 3y ago
        It's not a store, though. It's a phone. People generally don't shop at establishments they already paid for. Even if they did, it wouldn't be an apt analogy because other stores can't sell that same item anyways. So with that in mind, it's more like paying for an apartment where you have to order your groceries and furniture over Apple's room service. When other businesses want dial-out functionality, Apple taxes them 27% of the transaction to enter the building. When you offer to walk outside and help accept the delivery, Apple locks the doors on you and tells you to buy a second apartment. Enough people have bought these apartments (and like them) that they want to change the bad door policy but keep the posh interior. Now Apple wants to play the victim despite claiming an ample 40% profit margin every time someone buys a room.
        blashyrk 3y ago
        I don't think that's a good analogy because in this scenario only one store can even exist in the first place. Would you be okay with Apple taking 30% from food ordering app companies when making orders through an Iphone? Because it's basically the exact same thing they're doing here.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        That’s fair. In that case, the answer is not to force Apple to allow others to advertise lower prices in their store. But to force Apple to allow other app stores.
- voisin 3y ago
  They still have to pay the commission if the user does so within seven days.
  - VBprogrammer 3y ago
    Assuming this is true, it would be very tempting to add a simple check before displaying the banner that the install date was more than 7 days ago.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jcampuzano2 3y ago
      No, the ruling is that they have to pay the commission within 7 days of a subscription/payment occurring via a link in an app distributed on the app store. There's no way around it. The only way around it is if the user naturally finds/discovers the link to subscribe to a service via another method outside of the app itself. If the act of subscribing happened via clicking a link in the app, the commission must be paid.
      - VBprogrammer 3y ago
        Thanks, that's very different from what the parent suggested.
  - notyourwork 3y ago
    Which by itself it crazy to me.
  - josefresco 3y ago
    Why not a banner that just says "Save 30% Subscribe to Premium on Our Website" With no link.
    - explain 3y ago
      Not allowed
stronglikedan 3y ago
They certainly haven't leveraged that supposed leverage, since Apple Music doesn't even come close to Spotify from a usability standpoint. I'd wager most people would stick to Spotify in that case, were I a betting man.

puppymaster 3y ago

but thanks to Epic court case Spotify can now put a big fat banner on their app that says 'go to this link to subscribe to Spotify premium'.

eddd-ddde 3y ago
Does that mean that subscribing on the app has a commission but subscribing on a web site on the browser app does not?
- reilly3000 3y ago
  Right, if a user subscribes via app it uses Apple’s payment system and Apple is paying merchant processing fees, vs if they subscribe directly with Spotify they handle processing fees, chargebacks, support etc. The ~30% was relatively reasonable when the App Store launched with most transactions being $0.99 one-time purchases, but isn’t very equitable for things like $15/mo subscriptions.
- Jcampuzano2 3y ago
  If they go to the browser themself - without clicking a link in the app - to subscribe, then no commission has to be paid. However, if they clicked a link from within the app itself to subscribe then they must pay the commission, even if the payment eventually happened from within a browser. In other words, no matter how the subscription/payment happened, if it originated from within the app (whether via a link to an external site or via apples payment system) you must pay a commision.
  - blashyrk 3y ago
    Can the application developers then send links via email/text instead? Either way it's mind boggling how the court didn't shut this disgraceful racketeering down
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Can I sell a physical item at any store and advertise at the same store that you can buy directly and save money?
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        It's not a store, though. It's a phone. People generally don't shop at establishments they already paid for. Even if they did, it wouldn't be an apt analogy because other stores can't sell that same item anyways. So with that in mind, it's more like paying for an apartment where you have to order your groceries and furniture over Apple's room service. When other businesses want dial-out functionality, Apple taxes them 27% of the transaction to enter the building. When you offer to walk outside and help accept the delivery, Apple locks the doors on you and tells you to buy a second apartment. Enough people have bought these apartments (and like them) that they want to change the bad door policy but keep the posh interior. Now Apple wants to play the victim despite claiming an ample 40% profit margin every time someone buys a room.
      - blashyrk 3y ago
        I don't think that's a good analogy because in this scenario only one store can even exist in the first place. Would you be okay with Apple taking 30% from food ordering app companies when making orders through an Iphone? Because it's basically the exact same thing they're doing here.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        That’s fair. In that case, the answer is not to force Apple to allow others to advertise lower prices in their store. But to force Apple to allow other app stores.
voisin 3y ago
They still have to pay the commission if the user does so within seven days.
- VBprogrammer 3y ago
  Assuming this is true, it would be very tempting to add a simple check before displaying the banner that the install date was more than 7 days ago.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jcampuzano2 3y ago
    No, the ruling is that they have to pay the commission within 7 days of a subscription/payment occurring via a link in an app distributed on the app store. There's no way around it. The only way around it is if the user naturally finds/discovers the link to subscribe to a service via another method outside of the app itself. If the act of subscribing happened via clicking a link in the app, the commission must be paid.
    - VBprogrammer 3y ago
      Thanks, that's very different from what the parent suggested.
- notyourwork 3y ago
  Which by itself it crazy to me.
- josefresco 3y ago
  Why not a banner that just says "Save 30% Subscribe to Premium on Our Website" With no link.
  - explain 3y ago
    Not allowed

stronglikedan 3y ago

They certainly haven't leveraged that supposed leverage, since Apple Music doesn't even come close to Spotify from a usability standpoint. I'd wager most people would stick to Spotify in that case, were I a betting man.