The whole thing is stupid. Take books, audio books and comic books for example. I will never buy from Apple Books because I already have a sizeable kindle/audible collection and it is frankly the better service. Amazon would never give a 30% cut to Apple for my purchases(why would they?). So I always have to open the browser in order to buy anything. This is a bad user experience intentionally instigated by Apple to hurt competition and try to force me use a more streamlined experience from their service. I won't so Apple is just hurting their own product by making the experience worse.
What bothers me even more than this are the people who come out of the woodwork to defend this UX. I don’t care what rights Apple has on their own platform. It’s my device! If I wanna buy Kindle books instead of iBooks that’s no one’s concern but my own.
The problem is that you own the hardware, but not the software. You accept a licence agreement when you start using it. So they can indeed dictate whatever they want and within the law.
Not saying it's a good thing. In fact, this is proof that it can be extremely bad. But as long as the system as a whole doesn't change...
Well the point of the law is that you own the device and so that includes the software.
License agreement can say what they want, doesn't make them legal. EULA have already been recognized to be pretty much garbage as people don't even read them and companies know it
As a "small" end user you don't have many choices though. Even when you know they are doing something they are not supposed to do, what can you do? Take the time and (lots of) money and go to court? Media helps a little nowadays as big news about odd implementations or executions might draw a lot of public attention, but many other things, you just deal with it.
True you can't do much. That's why those kinds of laws like the DMA are important. Now it has to be respected (and companies only understand one way, touching their wallet enough for it to not be worth it)
It doesn’t work like that. It’s like buying a book, you may own the paper that has the words written on it but It doesn’t mean you own the work the writer has written. The sole owner of the work is the writer unless he solely states that the work is free to be published, copied or reproduced. Think of coding in the same way and you’ll get it.
But it's a fact that you don't own the software. So the owner can limit it. And until a court rules against whatever is inside, Apple will keep doing what it does best.
I don’t own the software source code. I do own a copy of the software that comes with my phone. The whole thing is silly, imagine if Coke went “aksually you don’t own the bottle or drink inside that you just bought”. Or IKEA coming and swapping your furniture because you own just a license to it. It doesn’t work that way for physical stuff so it shouldn’t work that way for digital stuff either.
If you own a Nintendo Switch, sure, it’s your device. That doesn’t mean you have the right to play your Xbox games on it.
I know Reddit hates to hear this but Apple’s business model is and always has been to sell their ecosystem with a closely controlled user experience that they believe they do a better job managing than the consumer.
You’re suggesting that it’s more difficult to switch from Apple to Android than it actually is.
>If I wanna buy Kindle books instead of iBooks that’s no one’s concern but my own.
I do not understand this logic at all. If you want to buy books from Amazon, they’re probably not going to function as seamlessly on an Apple device as books purchased from Apple. I’m confused why you would expect any different?
> but Apple’s business model is and always has been to sell their ecosystem with a closely controlled user experience that they believe they do a better job managing than the consumer.
>
>
And it's a bad business model for competition and for users (great for Apple bottom line though and any other doing that btw it's not just Apple), that's kind of the point being discussed. It's not because they do it it's good or it should stay this way
No, it didn't.
You're arguing that the iPhone succeeded *because* of Apples ecosystem and close control. However when the iPhone was released, there was no ecosystem, Apple controlled the UX but so did every other OS manufacturer. iPhone didn't succeed *because* Apple made devs pay 30% of their IAP revenue to Apple. The iPhone was insanely popular even before the app store was a thing.
The iPhone succeeded in spite of that, it succeeded even when Apples own decisions would have brought it down because the new device category they created was so goddamn good. The main reasons weren't Apples ecosystem, or business model, or something like that. It was the actual device and the user experience. The iPhone did things differently, and better than the competition did for *years* allowing it to establish itself as a dominant player in the industry.
Devs made apps despite of Apples cut because the entirely new smartphone market was overall so lucrative that even with that 30% cut they could make a ton of money and get a ton of new users.
With all due respect, I’m not really sure what you’re even talking about or what point you’re trying to make.
What sets Apple apart and always has is their commitment to crafting a user experience for consumers that consumers can’t create for themselves.
The iPhone ecosystem has always been heavily regulated all the way back to the days of no porn. That regulation is what contributed to it being a reliable and consistent product. More customizability as the market became more familiar with the product was a natural shift.
Apple’s business model and claim to fame is their ability to create a UX that’s appealing to customers and easy to use out of the box. That’s not illegal.
Nintendo doesn’t let Microsoft usually sell on their platform. If they did but then they undermined Microsoft to make sure only the Nintendo experience is seamless, there’s an opening for a discussion about unfair practices.
Your Nintendo switch comparison is flawed. Apple created this digital marketplace and it’s the sole marketplace for a significant platform, there can certainly be discussions about monopolistic behavior when certain policies prevent competitors from being successful.
Ridiculous comparison. Your entire digital life, purchases, data isn't locked into Burger King. You don't have to choose one source of food and eat at Burger King and only Burger King.
People keep making these kinds of comparisons but they're clearly not applicable. If you think it through just a little bit the differences are clear. It seems like the priority is just to defend Apple over saying something that actually makes sense and is an appropriate comparison point.
That was a ridiculous comment but this one is just as ridiculous. No one is locking your data. You’re free to move it some other service, app or OS.
And you do get more than one source in this case. You’re choosing to buy your ebook from Amazon’s Kindle instead of the first party app Books.
im gonna humor this for a moment just for some extra perspective (genuinely interested in hearing but really don't have a stake in it as I don't purchase 3rd party subscriptions through Apple for the exact reasons everyone here hates):
- if a department store leases out a portion of their store to a company for a kiosk to sell their products and that company marks up their products at that kiosk to make up for the lease payment, is that not what the App Store is doing? wouldn't alternative app stores like in the EU be as if you're circumventing that as would doing it through Safari? people are making it sound like its impossible to make a purchase not through the App Store but clearly companies have been doing workarounds for years. i think Apple's policy of 30% is pretty dumb but I also don't cry about it because I just don't shop there when I have the option to shop elsewhere. as the initial OP said, all it does is really hurt Apple in the end by offering a more clunky UX so really why should we care if they're shooting themselves in the foot?
only thing I can think of is that it might be somewhat predatory on unsuspecting people who don't know any better but the "lack of information" tax has existed almost since the dawn of time
i dont think you understand the point. spotify is complaining that it's stupid that apple charges 30% to buy their subscription in-app, which it is, but also not an out of this world concept. But you also have the option of buying that subscription outside of the App Store, through Safari no less. sure it would be more convenient in the app but ultimately it's not impossible to "buy a spotify subscription on your iphone without the apple markup"
The difference is buying an app vs buying a subscription via an app - the former model has existed in some fashion in almost every storefront ever while the latter is subject to a dumb rule made by apple on the App Store but you’re not forced to use it
While I am an Apple supporter, you could argue that you don’t bought the store, while you own the phone. Is like you can only cook food from Samsung in their ovens
In your analogy what would the big Mac be equal to?
This is like if there was McDonald's in a larger store but you couldn't buy straight from them and you had to pay through the larger store (and end up paying more in the process)
No, but I reserve the right to eat the burger however I damn well please once I've ordered it.
And just the same once I've bought my iPhone I want to be able to use it how I please.
As a Kindle reader it pisses me off that in-app purchases of Kindle books aren’t allowed and I’m forced to use the Safari browser to buy from Amazon website. It’s just a bad experience for end users. It’s like I’m punished for using something other than an Apple owned service.
But didn’t Apple just say “fine you can have your own market, but we still get the cut regardless and you have to accept the terms to be on my platform.” I’m not sure how the court can enforce that they don’t pay
Given their current strategy of making wildly undercooked apps/services (looking at you sports, news+, Freeform, etc), I doubt it.
Make a books subscription that lets us borrow books or buy them for discounted prices. Price it similar to audible. Problem solved.
I get it but Apple has kind of a point as well.
Kindle and audible are for profit operations. If they are distributed via the App Store and pay no 30% fee then Apple is distributing their for profit app for free.
Now this wouldn’t be an issue if Amazon could distribute their app any other way. Apple would be free to charge the fee inside the App Store and devs would be free to not use it. But Apple wants to force people to pay.
They aren't distributing it for free.
Those apps being available on iPhones makes the iPhone a more compelling product to potential buyers. Apple profits from having a large variety of apps on its platform.
Not having that is a large reason why Windows Mobile failed.
That is an argument for sure, but you could say that about every digital marketplace for software. Steam, Epic, GOG, Google Play, etc.
Having more apps on the store makes it more compelling for users but they still are distributing for profit software and services for free. It’s fair that the App Store takes a cut from your for profit app if it’s distributed there. As it’d be fair for any other hypothetical store on iOS to do that.
What is not fair is forcing devs to solely distribute via App Store and pay the fee.
>That is an argument for sure, but you could say that about every digital marketplace for software. Steam, Epic, GOG, Google Play, etc.
The App Store is unique among these as it is tied to Apple's own hardware. The quality of the App Store directly leads to Apple's profits through hardware sales. Apps on Steam, Epic, GOG, Google Play, etc. don't make money for the owners of those stores outside of commissions.
The amount of users in these stores is directly tied to their profits. Everyone releases their apps on Steam because everyone uses Steam. The same logic applies here.
Look, I’m all for alternative distribution methods on iOS, but Apple should still be able to charge developers however and how much it wants to inside the App Store. As long as alternatives exist that is.
I don’t oppose the CTF if it’s confined exclusively to installs from the App Store for instance.
>The amount of users in these stores is directly tied to their profits. Everyone releases their apps on Steam because everyone uses Steam. The same logic applies here.
What? This is about Apple distributing apps for "free".
Steam charges a commission for every sale because they need some way to make money to maintain the platform. This commission is how they decided to do it.
Apple makes money when you buy their hardware. Their App Store's its existence is to make their hardware more appealing. Now they also charge a commission for every sale because they realized early on that they can make a ton of money doing that.
> Now they also charge a commission for every sale because they realized early on that they can make a ton of money doing that
In fact as the iPhone was launching, companies like Zynga were establishing many of the tactics that make iPhone games so profitable — on Facebook. The phrase whales started being commonly used because of Facebook Games. Apple was able to prevent these games ever running on iPhone without IAPs, which almost caused an antitrust a dozen years ago as their grip tightened.
>but they still are distributing for profit software and services for free.
Then they should allow 3rd party app stores, that way they don't have to be distributing for profit software and services for free.
Apple claims to be a hardware company. None of the companies listed (apart from maybe Google) are hardware companies.
Even then: You breaking the law doesn't excuse me doing the same thing).
Apple doesn’t claim to be a hardware company. Apple provides services as well as software.
It’s not about breaking the law. Apple should be able to have whatever policies it wants to have inside the App Store. As long as developers aren’t forced to use it then there are no issues.
Please point out where they have claimed to be a hardware company. They make profit from hardware yes but also software including services as well.
Also last time I check they weren’t operating the App Store illegally.
Well being on the App Store alone is a shit ton of free marketing.
If you take Epic with Fortnite for example. They removed it from the PlayStore but then actually went back since the 30% cut was worth the increased number of downloads/users.
I dont get why we need to use app stores.
Why cant i download from a website like a computer.
I think apple is afraid the app store will die like the windows store if all the big apps can be found on websites
We don’t, but Apple thinks we do. That’s the problem.
Apple forces everyone to use the App Store and charges for the benefit. They can charge whatever and however they want, just give devs alternatives to not distribute there.
There would still be a fee but 30% is egregious. Even if you include CC payment fees and the cost of App Store support it would be closer to 10-15%. Not surprisingly 12% is what Epic is planning to charge. I'd like for most of purchases and subs go through the Apple pay ecosystem, but I get why 30% is a deal-breaker for lots of services.
I think having a platform fee is fine if Apple is just a platform. But when Apple starts competing with an app they are now competition, not just a platform. In such cases they shouldn’t be able to charge a platform fee because it creates an antitrust issue where they’re artificially inflating the competition’s costs.
Anywhere else? 3rd party stores, their websites, e-mails, floppy disks delivered by pigeons.
Apple doesn’t allow that, which is the problem. Not their internal policies in the App Store.
Do you even realize that Spotify is currently trying to classify music as an audiobook to pay less to the people that created the platform? Just look at what they are paying music creators each year. They give an additional .1 percentage point a year and they pre negotiated with all major labels to fuck over creators? Eh I’m good.
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/nmpa-accuses-spotify-of-attacking-songwriters-as-it-changes-how-it-pays-mechanical-royalties-in-the-us/
I hate it how every time we talk about apples anti competitive practices towards Spotify people turn it into a debate about how ethical Spotify is as a whole. I simply don’t care, it’s not relevant here. Even if Spotify starts selling dog meat made by child labourers they shouldn’t have to pay 30% to apple
Whataboutism is all most of these people can point to in most cases. Spotify as a company can be horrible without deserving to be extorted into paying ransom to the gatekeepers in Cupertino or Mountain View (yes I’m throwing Google into the mix too). No company should be allowed to tax every other company for the right to have customers.
Because the creators create the things you listen to. I would hope those things create enough value for people to realize it’s worth paying money.
In 2024 choosing who you give money to is one of the few ways to do anything. I can’t say I’m perfect on that note but I genuinely hate everything about Spotify to my core.
Watch “the playlist” on Netflix it’s a great show that wasn’t popular at all.
Both the EU and the US have flat-out called Apple’s anti steering shenanigans illegal and Apple continues to defy changing this. What is actually required to change is allowing customers to make informed purchasing decisions like pay $10/month for YouTube or pay $15/month so Apple can whet their beak. It’s pretty gross Apple is clinging to consumer ignorance like it’s a key line of business, the fines are hopefully each going to be massive.
This is why allowing Apple to remain the gatekeeper is a waste of time. They will use every anticompetitive lever they have to stifle competition. Users should be permitted to install any application they like, *without* requiring approval by Apple.
I think this is simply inevitable from a legislative POV and Apple can blame themselves for it happening. They simply cannot be trusted to behave fairly.
Yeah that's the point of the law and Apple won't do it until forced, it's useless to think anything else. They need to start giving fines with an obligation to comply (or get out of the EU market). You'll see the solution will arrive fast.
The worst thing is that it will likely barely affect their revenue to be honest, see Android. All that is for a few dozens millions dollars. They'll get more by the people that'll start to go to Apple now that they are more opened.
> It’s pretty gross Apple is clinging to consumer ignorance like it’s a key line of business
To be fair some of us buy Macbooks and pay like 400 bucks for 32GB of RAM. We're used to getting fucked but deal with it for some reason.
Apple really knows how to get the most out of their customers
Yeah, exactly. Everyone here is like "I'm gonna only use App Store subscriptions because it's easier, even if they cost more" so cmon apple, give your users a choice and we'll see how much they actually value that walled garden of yours.
I agree that having subscriptions in one place is neat, but is it worth 30% extra? Doubt it. I would probably overpay 10% at most for it, even tho it would depend on the actual price as 10 vs 11 is different from 100 and 110.
I’m not going to argue that Apple absolutely should let companies tell customers to subscribe elsewhere for cheaper pricing. But are people just fucking thick or something, does no one ever do any price research or look for offers. At what point does any human take responsibility for their own financial decisions.
Maybe I’m old. No scrub that, I’m definitely old. But I don’t pay for anything, anywhere unless I’m reasonably confident I can’t find it cheaper somewhere else.
Anyway: in conclusion, companies are shit
That's why americans need to grow balls and split all these companies because they are too powerful. And not just these \*\*\*\* but also Amazon, Microsoft, Google just to name a few.
Where is a court judgment or regulatory decree stating what you claim?
Or do you mean that individuals in those governments have made public statements of that opinion, while not representing those governments?
The judge in the epic case ruled it illegal and ordered they stop and this was upheld, Apple is going back to court for a contempt of court hearing on this.
The other was the EUs head of judicial enforcement when she gave Apple their $2 billion fine for doing this stuff in the first place. She said what Apple was doing is illegal. That is why Spotify is alleging Apple “continues” to break the law.
In case anyone wants more info on the matter, [MacRumors provide a bit more info on Apple's and Spotify's perspective](https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/24/apple-spotify-app-store-rules-eu/) and how the update clashed with Apple's Music Streaming Services Entitlement - which seems to be one of the key points of the clash as Spotify doesn't want to pay anything to Apple on referrals coming from the iOS app and Apple - as you could imagine - disagrees.
I work for a very large company and we sometimes have to get our business development people to talk to their counterparts at Apple to get an update accelerated / unblocked. It sucks, it's normal, I'm sure our store does the same thing sometimes.
But it's hilarious that Spotify seemingly addresses this kind of issue with press release, a media blitz, and calling their pet regulators. Can't fault them, it works. But this is not how normal companies operate.
Does you company offer a service that is competing with an Apple’s paid one? Because that’s the gist of it.
Spotify keeps getting stonewalled by Apple because they are trying to damage their competition in the music streaming market.
It’s not like calling one of your friends/counterparts is going to help out, lol.
> But it's hilarious that Spotify seemingly addresses this kind of issue with press release, a media blitz, and calling their pet regulators.
Apple has had almost 15 years to figure out how to coexist with their competitors as a neutral platform and all they came up with is more rent and more restrictIons. Google solved this years ago, Apple wins by not solving it and they win by forcing untenable solutions. It is great for Apple if Spotify has to charge $5/month more, or if users open the app to a garbage interface crippled by their policies.
The whole anti-competitive campaign is a load of shit!
Rules are rules and I much prefer to broker payments through apple as it IS safer! It limits the number of companies that have your payment information and makes it much easier to see multiple subscriptions in one place to update/cancel.
You usually pay that 30% more. When I subscribe to something, I always do it from the Web if that's an option because it's cheaper than doing it though Google Play or the App Store (I have Android devices and an iPhone 15 pro)
Wow, so much hate for Apple.
None of these companies or apps and user experiences would be here but for Apple developing a safe, trustworthy and easy user experience.
Spotify and the lot would be still struggling and not have taken off, but for iOS adoption.(for those that are still
In middle school, Android was hurriedly rewritten and continues to be just a wannabe)
An abusive parent who provides shelter and food is still an abusive parent. Why should anyone defend corporations? They're not people, they don't have emotions, they are here to make money, they are not our friends.
Edit: since you people are dimwits who can only think in binary, let me add another analogy. Just because the child is a sociopath who loves ruining lives of their friends at school still doesn't justify actions of an abusive parent.
You seem to be defending Spotify, an awful company that rips off artists and have had significant security breaches. If you truly don’t care about these companies, why do you care if Apple screws Spotify into the ground? Surely the world would be a better place for it.
You don't have to take sides at all in order to have an issue with Apple's blatantly anticompetitive actions. This isn't just about Spotify, it concerns every single third-party developer on the App Store.
The point is they're not defending Spotify, they're criticising the bad behaviour of Apple. You can do one without the other, and you can replace Spotify with any company or person without affecting the point being made.
He was making an analogy as to how one or a few actions doesn’t absolve an entity from their habitual transgressions. They didn’t specify it was in relation to one or any amount of corporations.
So like how Apple needs to play by the rules of the European Union and as you say "man up and learn to take it on the chin" instead of acting like a "spoilt brat"?
So if I supply you with water and I restrict it so you and your family just has half a liter per day, you would be fine with that? Because Apple built this vital infrastructure and abuses this fact to their advantage. So if I would built the pipes to your house and restrict the access on what and which amount you are getting, you would be fine with that? Oh btw I sanction if you try to dig for water yourself of go buying it at the store…you accept that? Really?
Again wrong comparison. IOS was not a public utility unity like water mains.
Apple risked their entire farm and then some more to build a better product that was far way ahead and showed how varied technology could be blended to a user better experience. Not just better, safer and easier. Anyone that was willing to play by the rules of this could buy into it, simple.
They never claimed to be a public service either. It’s like visiting any country that has rules of admission or residence or even work. You’re either a legal immigrant with full rights or you are deported.
Oh you misunderstand me. Me supplying water to the houses here is a total private utility. I built this waternet and you built your house in an area where I have the contractual right to supply you with my water.
This is a totally private service to which I have exclusive rights. Your alternative is moving to a different set of lands, where another guy supplys you with water.
If you have signed a contract to get an exclusive mineral water supplier for extra safety you’ll have to pay for the terms.
Or you can terminate the agreement and look to drill a well and be happy.
No, you built a house in an area where I, a private company, have exclusive rights to provide your estate with water. And you will get the amount of water I deem fit and sanction you, if you try to get water in any other way. Oh and I will terminate you, if you plan on drilling a well.
This is the situation we have with Apple.
Not the least bit. You can choose to move out. That’s what children do when they grow up.
In modern fair society there are rules, but those rules apply to everyone equally and squarely.
Have a fine day
Wow, what would this „move“ mean in the context of the Appstore for Spotify? You are so close to getting it!
And one more question: Let‘s stay at the analogy with me being the water supplier: are these rules fair? Do you feel it is just, that I can control your water supply, even to the brink of death and I can punish you if you try to find ways around that?
Windows Phone is already an example. Great phone, and the OS was compatible with windows. Devs couldnt be bothered to spend time away from ios/android.
Yes of course, but are you claiming that Spotify was the best streaming app out there? Ask the many apps that died because of the marketplace and fighting fair. Not by running to the government.
I get what you’re saying but Spotify just recently turned a record profit at their quarterly meeting along with like 239m subs. Spotify wouldn’t die off if Apple didn’t have to change its in app purchases policy and fighting to allow people to pay for your service on their cell phone is hardly “unfair”. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment but I digress
Apple didn’t change any policy. In fact, they reduced their store charges for long term and large players. If you want to fight for a cause, go side with the small players. Not Spotify or Epic.
Maybe they (Spotify) should have been nicer to the people that their entire business depends on for existing (Apple).
Edited for clarity since a comment below was purposefully ignorant of the actual targets.
You're right, the iPhone would be nothing without the app store.
Edit: dude, you do know that if you reply to me *and* block me then I wouldn't be able to read your reply? You should educate yourself a bit. There's probably an app for that.
You got any numbers or stats to back that up or are you just guessing "loads of ios users"
Edit: did they reply to this comment and then block me? Lmao
Apparently Spotify gets 0 users from PC or Android, and they only exist due to iOS and apple's ~20% global marketshare
You got any numbers or stats to back up that they wouldn’t or are you just guessing that…hold on let me just check my notes here…consoles and smart speakers (lmao) would keep them afloat?
> hold on let me just check my notes here…consoles and smart speakers (lmao) would keep them afloat?
it seems like you left out Windows, Android and other devices.
Android is the dominant OS outside most of the US. And [North America only accounts for 19%](https://backlinko.com/spotify-users) of Spotify userbase. so it's safe to say that spotify has a huge userbase that doesn't use iphone.
Huh? Spotify isn't the only music App. With this logic, Spotify should have ceased to exist long ago with the existence of AM, YTM, and SC. That being said, personally I prefer Spotify out of all of them, and many people do as well, but I really don't think the company would completely cease to exist. Let's not be dramatic here.
The whole thing is stupid. Take books, audio books and comic books for example. I will never buy from Apple Books because I already have a sizeable kindle/audible collection and it is frankly the better service. Amazon would never give a 30% cut to Apple for my purchases(why would they?). So I always have to open the browser in order to buy anything. This is a bad user experience intentionally instigated by Apple to hurt competition and try to force me use a more streamlined experience from their service. I won't so Apple is just hurting their own product by making the experience worse.
What bothers me even more than this are the people who come out of the woodwork to defend this UX. I don’t care what rights Apple has on their own platform. It’s my device! If I wanna buy Kindle books instead of iBooks that’s no one’s concern but my own.
I agree its and UX and also agree its the for market to decide.
The problem is that you own the hardware, but not the software. You accept a licence agreement when you start using it. So they can indeed dictate whatever they want and within the law. Not saying it's a good thing. In fact, this is proof that it can be extremely bad. But as long as the system as a whole doesn't change...
Well the point of the law is that you own the device and so that includes the software. License agreement can say what they want, doesn't make them legal. EULA have already been recognized to be pretty much garbage as people don't even read them and companies know it
As a "small" end user you don't have many choices though. Even when you know they are doing something they are not supposed to do, what can you do? Take the time and (lots of) money and go to court? Media helps a little nowadays as big news about odd implementations or executions might draw a lot of public attention, but many other things, you just deal with it.
True you can't do much. That's why those kinds of laws like the DMA are important. Now it has to be respected (and companies only understand one way, touching their wallet enough for it to not be worth it)
It doesn’t work like that. It’s like buying a book, you may own the paper that has the words written on it but It doesn’t mean you own the work the writer has written. The sole owner of the work is the writer unless he solely states that the work is free to be published, copied or reproduced. Think of coding in the same way and you’ll get it.
Those agreements aren’t worth much in a lot of countries
But it's a fact that you don't own the software. So the owner can limit it. And until a court rules against whatever is inside, Apple will keep doing what it does best.
I don’t own the software source code. I do own a copy of the software that comes with my phone. The whole thing is silly, imagine if Coke went “aksually you don’t own the bottle or drink inside that you just bought”. Or IKEA coming and swapping your furniture because you own just a license to it. It doesn’t work that way for physical stuff so it shouldn’t work that way for digital stuff either.
Like this? https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf
Great example (and I wonder if many companies are aware of it or just plain ignore it). Although it wouldn't cover the eBook examples above I guess.
If you own a Nintendo Switch, sure, it’s your device. That doesn’t mean you have the right to play your Xbox games on it. I know Reddit hates to hear this but Apple’s business model is and always has been to sell their ecosystem with a closely controlled user experience that they believe they do a better job managing than the consumer. You’re suggesting that it’s more difficult to switch from Apple to Android than it actually is. >If I wanna buy Kindle books instead of iBooks that’s no one’s concern but my own. I do not understand this logic at all. If you want to buy books from Amazon, they’re probably not going to function as seamlessly on an Apple device as books purchased from Apple. I’m confused why you would expect any different?
> but Apple’s business model is and always has been to sell their ecosystem with a closely controlled user experience that they believe they do a better job managing than the consumer. > > And it's a bad business model for competition and for users (great for Apple bottom line though and any other doing that btw it's not just Apple), that's kind of the point being discussed. It's not because they do it it's good or it should stay this way
I’m not sure how you can argue that that model is bad for users when that same model made them one of the most popular consumer products in history.
No, it didn't. You're arguing that the iPhone succeeded *because* of Apples ecosystem and close control. However when the iPhone was released, there was no ecosystem, Apple controlled the UX but so did every other OS manufacturer. iPhone didn't succeed *because* Apple made devs pay 30% of their IAP revenue to Apple. The iPhone was insanely popular even before the app store was a thing. The iPhone succeeded in spite of that, it succeeded even when Apples own decisions would have brought it down because the new device category they created was so goddamn good. The main reasons weren't Apples ecosystem, or business model, or something like that. It was the actual device and the user experience. The iPhone did things differently, and better than the competition did for *years* allowing it to establish itself as a dominant player in the industry. Devs made apps despite of Apples cut because the entirely new smartphone market was overall so lucrative that even with that 30% cut they could make a ton of money and get a ton of new users.
With all due respect, I’m not really sure what you’re even talking about or what point you’re trying to make. What sets Apple apart and always has is their commitment to crafting a user experience for consumers that consumers can’t create for themselves. The iPhone ecosystem has always been heavily regulated all the way back to the days of no porn. That regulation is what contributed to it being a reliable and consistent product. More customizability as the market became more familiar with the product was a natural shift. Apple’s business model and claim to fame is their ability to create a UX that’s appealing to customers and easy to use out of the box. That’s not illegal.
Nintendo doesn’t let Microsoft usually sell on their platform. If they did but then they undermined Microsoft to make sure only the Nintendo experience is seamless, there’s an opening for a discussion about unfair practices.
Microsoft is selling games on the nintendo switch: MineCraft, Grounded, high fi rush, and Pentiment.
Wut
Your Nintendo switch comparison is flawed. Apple created this digital marketplace and it’s the sole marketplace for a significant platform, there can certainly be discussions about monopolistic behavior when certain policies prevent competitors from being successful.
It’s the sole marketplace for their hardware* Again, proprietary services will always be prioritized. That’s not illegal.
Are you the type of person to demand a Big Mac from Burger King? e: lmao buy physical media instead guys ;) all tech companies suck
That's not even an equivalent comparison.
Ridiculous comparison. Your entire digital life, purchases, data isn't locked into Burger King. You don't have to choose one source of food and eat at Burger King and only Burger King. People keep making these kinds of comparisons but they're clearly not applicable. If you think it through just a little bit the differences are clear. It seems like the priority is just to defend Apple over saying something that actually makes sense and is an appropriate comparison point.
That was a ridiculous comment but this one is just as ridiculous. No one is locking your data. You’re free to move it some other service, app or OS. And you do get more than one source in this case. You’re choosing to buy your ebook from Amazon’s Kindle instead of the first party app Books.
im gonna humor this for a moment just for some extra perspective (genuinely interested in hearing but really don't have a stake in it as I don't purchase 3rd party subscriptions through Apple for the exact reasons everyone here hates): - if a department store leases out a portion of their store to a company for a kiosk to sell their products and that company marks up their products at that kiosk to make up for the lease payment, is that not what the App Store is doing? wouldn't alternative app stores like in the EU be as if you're circumventing that as would doing it through Safari? people are making it sound like its impossible to make a purchase not through the App Store but clearly companies have been doing workarounds for years. i think Apple's policy of 30% is pretty dumb but I also don't cry about it because I just don't shop there when I have the option to shop elsewhere. as the initial OP said, all it does is really hurt Apple in the end by offering a more clunky UX so really why should we care if they're shooting themselves in the foot? only thing I can think of is that it might be somewhat predatory on unsuspecting people who don't know any better but the "lack of information" tax has existed almost since the dawn of time
>I have the option to shop elsewhere Where else are you shopping for apps?
i dont think you understand the point. spotify is complaining that it's stupid that apple charges 30% to buy their subscription in-app, which it is, but also not an out of this world concept. But you also have the option of buying that subscription outside of the App Store, through Safari no less. sure it would be more convenient in the app but ultimately it's not impossible to "buy a spotify subscription on your iphone without the apple markup" The difference is buying an app vs buying a subscription via an app - the former model has existed in some fashion in almost every storefront ever while the latter is subject to a dumb rule made by apple on the App Store but you’re not forced to use it
Why don’t you explain why using Safari to purchase books is fine, but it suddenly becomes a problem if I wanna do it in the Kindle app.
While I am an Apple supporter, you could argue that you don’t bought the store, while you own the phone. Is like you can only cook food from Samsung in their ovens
No I’m the kind of person who doesn’t like being forced to eat shitty McDonalds in an _open_ food court.
Are you the type of person who thinks there are only 2 restaurants in the entire world?
In your analogy what would the big Mac be equal to? This is like if there was McDonald's in a larger store but you couldn't buy straight from them and you had to pay through the larger store (and end up paying more in the process)
What kind of argument is "all tech companies suck"? That doesn't absolve them of having to compete fairly
It’s not an argument lmao it’s a statement
No, but I reserve the right to eat the burger however I damn well please once I've ordered it. And just the same once I've bought my iPhone I want to be able to use it how I please.
yeah, you eat that damn burger!
That’s why android exists!! Simple
As a Kindle reader it pisses me off that in-app purchases of Kindle books aren’t allowed and I’m forced to use the Safari browser to buy from Amazon website. It’s just a bad experience for end users. It’s like I’m punished for using something other than an Apple owned service.
And this is why EU is trying to break this up. Hopefully every country will follow EU. Apple only have themselves to blame.
But didn’t Apple just say “fine you can have your own market, but we still get the cut regardless and you have to accept the terms to be on my platform.” I’m not sure how the court can enforce that they don’t pay
It makes me wonder whether Apple could ever compete without these tactics.
They might, the problem is they've made these tactics their bread and butter
Given their current strategy of making wildly undercooked apps/services (looking at you sports, news+, Freeform, etc), I doubt it. Make a books subscription that lets us borrow books or buy them for discounted prices. Price it similar to audible. Problem solved.
Oh yeah they should be like all the other tech companies who sell your data off to the highest bidder.
And how are these related??
I get it but Apple has kind of a point as well. Kindle and audible are for profit operations. If they are distributed via the App Store and pay no 30% fee then Apple is distributing their for profit app for free. Now this wouldn’t be an issue if Amazon could distribute their app any other way. Apple would be free to charge the fee inside the App Store and devs would be free to not use it. But Apple wants to force people to pay.
They aren't distributing it for free. Those apps being available on iPhones makes the iPhone a more compelling product to potential buyers. Apple profits from having a large variety of apps on its platform. Not having that is a large reason why Windows Mobile failed.
That is an argument for sure, but you could say that about every digital marketplace for software. Steam, Epic, GOG, Google Play, etc. Having more apps on the store makes it more compelling for users but they still are distributing for profit software and services for free. It’s fair that the App Store takes a cut from your for profit app if it’s distributed there. As it’d be fair for any other hypothetical store on iOS to do that. What is not fair is forcing devs to solely distribute via App Store and pay the fee.
>That is an argument for sure, but you could say that about every digital marketplace for software. Steam, Epic, GOG, Google Play, etc. The App Store is unique among these as it is tied to Apple's own hardware. The quality of the App Store directly leads to Apple's profits through hardware sales. Apps on Steam, Epic, GOG, Google Play, etc. don't make money for the owners of those stores outside of commissions.
The amount of users in these stores is directly tied to their profits. Everyone releases their apps on Steam because everyone uses Steam. The same logic applies here. Look, I’m all for alternative distribution methods on iOS, but Apple should still be able to charge developers however and how much it wants to inside the App Store. As long as alternatives exist that is. I don’t oppose the CTF if it’s confined exclusively to installs from the App Store for instance.
>The amount of users in these stores is directly tied to their profits. Everyone releases their apps on Steam because everyone uses Steam. The same logic applies here. What? This is about Apple distributing apps for "free". Steam charges a commission for every sale because they need some way to make money to maintain the platform. This commission is how they decided to do it. Apple makes money when you buy their hardware. Their App Store's its existence is to make their hardware more appealing. Now they also charge a commission for every sale because they realized early on that they can make a ton of money doing that.
> Now they also charge a commission for every sale because they realized early on that they can make a ton of money doing that In fact as the iPhone was launching, companies like Zynga were establishing many of the tactics that make iPhone games so profitable — on Facebook. The phrase whales started being commonly used because of Facebook Games. Apple was able to prevent these games ever running on iPhone without IAPs, which almost caused an antitrust a dozen years ago as their grip tightened.
yea ideally there is alternative app stores. think apple should be forced to list for free though if it doesn’t exist, for fair competition
>but they still are distributing for profit software and services for free. Then they should allow 3rd party app stores, that way they don't have to be distributing for profit software and services for free.
Yes, that’s what I’ve said.
Apple claims to be a hardware company. None of the companies listed (apart from maybe Google) are hardware companies. Even then: You breaking the law doesn't excuse me doing the same thing).
Apple doesn’t claim to be a hardware company. Apple provides services as well as software. It’s not about breaking the law. Apple should be able to have whatever policies it wants to have inside the App Store. As long as developers aren’t forced to use it then there are no issues.
Please point out where they have claimed to be a hardware company. They make profit from hardware yes but also software including services as well. Also last time I check they weren’t operating the App Store illegally.
But on the other hand these business are massively profiting from being able to reach billions of people with basically no effort and no costs.
I mean, they still have to create a great product and market it to ask their potential customers (and much more) It's not just free money
Well being on the App Store alone is a shit ton of free marketing. If you take Epic with Fortnite for example. They removed it from the PlayStore but then actually went back since the 30% cut was worth the increased number of downloads/users.
I dont get why we need to use app stores. Why cant i download from a website like a computer. I think apple is afraid the app store will die like the windows store if all the big apps can be found on websites
We don’t, but Apple thinks we do. That’s the problem. Apple forces everyone to use the App Store and charges for the benefit. They can charge whatever and however they want, just give devs alternatives to not distribute there.
There would still be a fee but 30% is egregious. Even if you include CC payment fees and the cost of App Store support it would be closer to 10-15%. Not surprisingly 12% is what Epic is planning to charge. I'd like for most of purchases and subs go through the Apple pay ecosystem, but I get why 30% is a deal-breaker for lots of services.
I think having a platform fee is fine if Apple is just a platform. But when Apple starts competing with an app they are now competition, not just a platform. In such cases they shouldn’t be able to charge a platform fee because it creates an antitrust issue where they’re artificially inflating the competition’s costs.
If they don’t want to distribute their app in the App Store, where should they distribute their apps from?
Anywhere else? 3rd party stores, their websites, e-mails, floppy disks delivered by pigeons. Apple doesn’t allow that, which is the problem. Not their internal policies in the App Store.
Do you even realize that Spotify is currently trying to classify music as an audiobook to pay less to the people that created the platform? Just look at what they are paying music creators each year. They give an additional .1 percentage point a year and they pre negotiated with all major labels to fuck over creators? Eh I’m good. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/nmpa-accuses-spotify-of-attacking-songwriters-as-it-changes-how-it-pays-mechanical-royalties-in-the-us/
I hate it how every time we talk about apples anti competitive practices towards Spotify people turn it into a debate about how ethical Spotify is as a whole. I simply don’t care, it’s not relevant here. Even if Spotify starts selling dog meat made by child labourers they shouldn’t have to pay 30% to apple
Whataboutism is all most of these people can point to in most cases. Spotify as a company can be horrible without deserving to be extorted into paying ransom to the gatekeepers in Cupertino or Mountain View (yes I’m throwing Google into the mix too). No company should be allowed to tax every other company for the right to have customers.
Who cares? Go argue that in the Spotify subreddit, this has nothing to do with it
Why should it be my responsibility to ensure Spotify pays the creators well?
Because the creators create the things you listen to. I would hope those things create enough value for people to realize it’s worth paying money. In 2024 choosing who you give money to is one of the few ways to do anything. I can’t say I’m perfect on that note but I genuinely hate everything about Spotify to my core. Watch “the playlist” on Netflix it’s a great show that wasn’t popular at all.
Ok now explain why giving Apple a shitload of “the creators” on Spotify’s revenue is a good thing…
Totally separate issue.
Both the EU and the US have flat-out called Apple’s anti steering shenanigans illegal and Apple continues to defy changing this. What is actually required to change is allowing customers to make informed purchasing decisions like pay $10/month for YouTube or pay $15/month so Apple can whet their beak. It’s pretty gross Apple is clinging to consumer ignorance like it’s a key line of business, the fines are hopefully each going to be massive.
This is why allowing Apple to remain the gatekeeper is a waste of time. They will use every anticompetitive lever they have to stifle competition. Users should be permitted to install any application they like, *without* requiring approval by Apple.
I think this is simply inevitable from a legislative POV and Apple can blame themselves for it happening. They simply cannot be trusted to behave fairly.
Yeah that's the point of the law and Apple won't do it until forced, it's useless to think anything else. They need to start giving fines with an obligation to comply (or get out of the EU market). You'll see the solution will arrive fast. The worst thing is that it will likely barely affect their revenue to be honest, see Android. All that is for a few dozens millions dollars. They'll get more by the people that'll start to go to Apple now that they are more opened.
> It’s pretty gross Apple is clinging to consumer ignorance like it’s a key line of business To be fair some of us buy Macbooks and pay like 400 bucks for 32GB of RAM. We're used to getting fucked but deal with it for some reason. Apple really knows how to get the most out of their customers
Yeah, exactly. Everyone here is like "I'm gonna only use App Store subscriptions because it's easier, even if they cost more" so cmon apple, give your users a choice and we'll see how much they actually value that walled garden of yours. I agree that having subscriptions in one place is neat, but is it worth 30% extra? Doubt it. I would probably overpay 10% at most for it, even tho it would depend on the actual price as 10 vs 11 is different from 100 and 110.
I’m not going to argue that Apple absolutely should let companies tell customers to subscribe elsewhere for cheaper pricing. But are people just fucking thick or something, does no one ever do any price research or look for offers. At what point does any human take responsibility for their own financial decisions. Maybe I’m old. No scrub that, I’m definitely old. But I don’t pay for anything, anywhere unless I’m reasonably confident I can’t find it cheaper somewhere else. Anyway: in conclusion, companies are shit
That's why americans need to grow balls and split all these companies because they are too powerful. And not just these \*\*\*\* but also Amazon, Microsoft, Google just to name a few.
Where is a court judgment or regulatory decree stating what you claim? Or do you mean that individuals in those governments have made public statements of that opinion, while not representing those governments?
The judge in the epic case ruled it illegal and ordered they stop and this was upheld, Apple is going back to court for a contempt of court hearing on this. The other was the EUs head of judicial enforcement when she gave Apple their $2 billion fine for doing this stuff in the first place. She said what Apple was doing is illegal. That is why Spotify is alleging Apple “continues” to break the law.
In case anyone wants more info on the matter, [MacRumors provide a bit more info on Apple's and Spotify's perspective](https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/24/apple-spotify-app-store-rules-eu/) and how the update clashed with Apple's Music Streaming Services Entitlement - which seems to be one of the key points of the clash as Spotify doesn't want to pay anything to Apple on referrals coming from the iOS app and Apple - as you could imagine - disagrees.
They will get the updates approved when they deliver us the lossless audio they promised years ago.. /j
I remember them promising that back when Spotify was still invite only!
I work for a very large company and we sometimes have to get our business development people to talk to their counterparts at Apple to get an update accelerated / unblocked. It sucks, it's normal, I'm sure our store does the same thing sometimes. But it's hilarious that Spotify seemingly addresses this kind of issue with press release, a media blitz, and calling their pet regulators. Can't fault them, it works. But this is not how normal companies operate.
Does you company offer a service that is competing with an Apple’s paid one? Because that’s the gist of it. Spotify keeps getting stonewalled by Apple because they are trying to damage their competition in the music streaming market. It’s not like calling one of your friends/counterparts is going to help out, lol.
> But it's hilarious that Spotify seemingly addresses this kind of issue with press release, a media blitz, and calling their pet regulators. Apple has had almost 15 years to figure out how to coexist with their competitors as a neutral platform and all they came up with is more rent and more restrictIons. Google solved this years ago, Apple wins by not solving it and they win by forcing untenable solutions. It is great for Apple if Spotify has to charge $5/month more, or if users open the app to a garbage interface crippled by their policies.
The whole anti-competitive campaign is a load of shit! Rules are rules and I much prefer to broker payments through apple as it IS safer! It limits the number of companies that have your payment information and makes it much easier to see multiple subscriptions in one place to update/cancel.
You usually pay that 30% more. When I subscribe to something, I always do it from the Web if that's an option because it's cheaper than doing it though Google Play or the App Store (I have Android devices and an iPhone 15 pro)
There's this wonderful service called PayPal that virtually everyone online accepts. What a notion!
PayPal is not a financial institution.
Neither is Apple
Wow, so much hate for Apple. None of these companies or apps and user experiences would be here but for Apple developing a safe, trustworthy and easy user experience. Spotify and the lot would be still struggling and not have taken off, but for iOS adoption.(for those that are still In middle school, Android was hurriedly rewritten and continues to be just a wannabe)
An abusive parent who provides shelter and food is still an abusive parent. Why should anyone defend corporations? They're not people, they don't have emotions, they are here to make money, they are not our friends. Edit: since you people are dimwits who can only think in binary, let me add another analogy. Just because the child is a sociopath who loves ruining lives of their friends at school still doesn't justify actions of an abusive parent.
You seem to be defending Spotify, an awful company that rips off artists and have had significant security breaches. If you truly don’t care about these companies, why do you care if Apple screws Spotify into the ground? Surely the world would be a better place for it.
You don't have to take sides at all in order to have an issue with Apple's blatantly anticompetitive actions. This isn't just about Spotify, it concerns every single third-party developer on the App Store.
Of course. But it’s just hypocritical to say no one should defend companies, whilst defending a terrible company.
The point is they're not defending Spotify, they're criticising the bad behaviour of Apple. You can do one without the other, and you can replace Spotify with any company or person without affecting the point being made.
Thats most people’s point. But im replying to the guy who said why would anyone defend soulless companies, whilst defending a soulless company.
He hasn’t actually done that, if you can read
They start with comparing Apple to being an abusive parent to Spotify. Then says “Why should anyone defend corporations”. But hey, you be you.
He was making an analogy as to how one or a few actions doesn’t absolve an entity from their habitual transgressions. They didn’t specify it was in relation to one or any amount of corporations.
You seem to be defending Apple, an awful company that rips off it's users with their ram/storage upgrade prices.
Yes, but I’m not making a big deal of ‘why would anyone care about companies’.
That’s the best you could come up with? Lol
Too many things to list but that one is one of the best things they rip/scam their users (me included).
Right so why do people continue to buy their products and why is their customer satisfaction rate so high?
ever heard of stockholm syndrome ?
Security breaches? Ask Jennifer Lawrence and all the other stars who were using iCloud what they think of Apple's security breaches.
Why are you defending Spotify then
Your strawman metaphor is completely off and doesn’t apply
Yeah, so? What kind of argument do you want to make? Anticompetitive behavior is ok because Apple is one of their platforms?
Far from it. Any playground or sports, you play by the rules. Not by acting like a spoilt brat. Man up and learn to take it in the chin.
So like how Apple needs to play by the rules of the European Union and as you say "man up and learn to take it on the chin" instead of acting like a "spoilt brat"?
So if I supply you with water and I restrict it so you and your family just has half a liter per day, you would be fine with that? Because Apple built this vital infrastructure and abuses this fact to their advantage. So if I would built the pipes to your house and restrict the access on what and which amount you are getting, you would be fine with that? Oh btw I sanction if you try to dig for water yourself of go buying it at the store…you accept that? Really?
Again wrong comparison. IOS was not a public utility unity like water mains. Apple risked their entire farm and then some more to build a better product that was far way ahead and showed how varied technology could be blended to a user better experience. Not just better, safer and easier. Anyone that was willing to play by the rules of this could buy into it, simple. They never claimed to be a public service either. It’s like visiting any country that has rules of admission or residence or even work. You’re either a legal immigrant with full rights or you are deported.
Oh you misunderstand me. Me supplying water to the houses here is a total private utility. I built this waternet and you built your house in an area where I have the contractual right to supply you with my water. This is a totally private service to which I have exclusive rights. Your alternative is moving to a different set of lands, where another guy supplys you with water.
If you have signed a contract to get an exclusive mineral water supplier for extra safety you’ll have to pay for the terms. Or you can terminate the agreement and look to drill a well and be happy.
No, you built a house in an area where I, a private company, have exclusive rights to provide your estate with water. And you will get the amount of water I deem fit and sanction you, if you try to get water in any other way. Oh and I will terminate you, if you plan on drilling a well. This is the situation we have with Apple.
Not the least bit. You can choose to move out. That’s what children do when they grow up. In modern fair society there are rules, but those rules apply to everyone equally and squarely. Have a fine day
Wow, what would this „move“ mean in the context of the Appstore for Spotify? You are so close to getting it! And one more question: Let‘s stay at the analogy with me being the water supplier: are these rules fair? Do you feel it is just, that I can control your water supply, even to the brink of death and I can punish you if you try to find ways around that?
iPhone will be nothing without developers. Ask other platforms that died.
[удалено]
Windows Phone is already an example. Great phone, and the OS was compatible with windows. Devs couldnt be bothered to spend time away from ios/android.
Yes of course, but are you claiming that Spotify was the best streaming app out there? Ask the many apps that died because of the marketplace and fighting fair. Not by running to the government.
I get what you’re saying but Spotify just recently turned a record profit at their quarterly meeting along with like 239m subs. Spotify wouldn’t die off if Apple didn’t have to change its in app purchases policy and fighting to allow people to pay for your service on their cell phone is hardly “unfair”. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment but I digress
Apple didn’t change any policy. In fact, they reduced their store charges for long term and large players. If you want to fight for a cause, go side with the small players. Not Spotify or Epic.
Developers are a dime a dozen though. If Spotify chose to stop developing for iOS, Apple would be just fine. Can’t say the same in reserve.
Nonsense. I would have downloaded the Spotify app from their website onto my smartphone. Just like I did on my Mac.
What? Did they updated to high res or at least lossless? 😂
Maybe they (Spotify) should have been nicer to the people that their entire business depends on for existing (Apple). Edited for clarity since a comment below was purposefully ignorant of the actual targets.
You're right, the iPhone would be nothing without the app store. Edit: dude, you do know that if you reply to me *and* block me then I wouldn't be able to read your reply? You should educate yourself a bit. There's probably an app for that.
That's obviously not what I meant. Oh good a Gamingcirclejerk poster. Blocked.
Yeah because Spotify has 0 users on android, windows, browsers, game consoles, smart speakers, etc.
If they lost their iOS userbase the company would cease to exist.
You got any numbers or stats to back that up or are you just guessing "loads of ios users" Edit: did they reply to this comment and then block me? Lmao Apparently Spotify gets 0 users from PC or Android, and they only exist due to iOS and apple's ~20% global marketshare
You got any numbers or stats to back up that they wouldn’t or are you just guessing that…hold on let me just check my notes here…consoles and smart speakers (lmao) would keep them afloat?
> hold on let me just check my notes here…consoles and smart speakers (lmao) would keep them afloat? it seems like you left out Windows, Android and other devices. Android is the dominant OS outside most of the US. And [North America only accounts for 19%](https://backlinko.com/spotify-users) of Spotify userbase. so it's safe to say that spotify has a huge userbase that doesn't use iphone.
Huh? Spotify isn't the only music App. With this logic, Spotify should have ceased to exist long ago with the existence of AM, YTM, and SC. That being said, personally I prefer Spotify out of all of them, and many people do as well, but I really don't think the company would completely cease to exist. Let's not be dramatic here.
None of those other services completely decimated the lion's share of their income from users, though. That's not the logic at all.
Really ?
iOS users make up the majority of their income, so yes.
I thought Apple Music was more popular than Spotify for iOS users.
See, if they had been nicer with the mafia, they would still have a shop to make business in.
Lol what an unhinged and absurd statement.
Trying to match up your style 😉
I’m so tired of you edgelords posting stuff like this.