At the very least Apple should not be able to do this in categories it competes in. Charging Spotify 30% is hella anti competitive because they also have Apple Music.
The best part about this is that Apple Music historically asked Android users to put in their credit cards, bypassing Android’s own IAP system. (Might have changed a few years ago)
It’s important to note this is US only, not UK. It appears to apply to net new subscriptions being solicited through iOS apps which also have in-app subscription enabled.
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.
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.
The playlist moat is deep at Spotify. Between ease of building playlists, sharing playlists, following playlists, and the "fresh finds" playlists that Spotify creates, it's tough to compete. I don't think very many people are going to go through that transition for a couple of bucks.
Funny that Epic, Spotify etc don't complain about the same cost levied by other platforms like Playstation, Xbox etc?
Usually the strategy (mostly, but hardly exclusively, followed by patent and other trolls) is to start with the smallest, weakest participants and then use them as a precident and then work your way up.
Starting with the richest of them all with decades of litigation experience seems foolish, and indeed it hasn't worked for Epic. Also a lot of people admire Apple, so why face that in the court of popular opinion when you could have build the case that they are the bad guys?
FWIW: I think Sweeny is a dick, that Spotify is financially precarious, and Apple is basically a great white: efficient, relentless, and not your friend.
They are being squeezed both by the app store gatekeepers who have a monopoly, in all but name, over distribution avenues, and by the music labels who have monopoly power over most artists.
Imagine if google had just developed a proper iMessage competitor in 2012, and made it a cornerstone product like gmail. We probably would actually have a competitive smartphone landscape in the US today.
BlackBerry had BBM on their legacy devices and it didn't stop the original iPhone from being a hit. BlackBerry released their BB10 devices in January 2013 with BBM that were very competitive, and objectively better than the iPhone at the time, and it did not stop the iPhone. Then BlackBerry released BBM on Android and iPhone allowing cross-platform communication with objectively the best messenger available at the time. It failed.
The success of the iPhone was built on the culture of iPhone-first app development and the unwillingness of companies to develop for a third platform.
Android was much more competitive with iPhone back then, as social circles hadn't yet solidified around one platform. Google was also still widely praised back then as an innovative leader. BB had lost enormous market share by 2012, it was too late.
All google had to do was make an iMessage clone, probably even could have made a better service back then, and make it the default on all android phones. Suddenly Google would have had a powerhouse feature for the main thing phones were used for in 2012: communication.
But instead Google decided to leave SMS default and instead toy around with their stupid a/b model that nobody ended up using anyway.
Readit News
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39020365
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39034951
Deleted Comment
It’s important to note this is US only, not UK. It appears to apply to net new subscriptions being solicited through iOS apps which also have in-app subscription enabled.
> https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-fires-back-spotify-pa...
https://community.spotify.com/t5/Accounts/higher-costs-per-m...
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/07/05/spotify-subscribers-no-...
Usually the strategy (mostly, but hardly exclusively, followed by patent and other trolls) is to start with the smallest, weakest participants and then use them as a precident and then work your way up.
Starting with the richest of them all with decades of litigation experience seems foolish, and indeed it hasn't worked for Epic. Also a lot of people admire Apple, so why face that in the court of popular opinion when you could have build the case that they are the bad guys?
FWIW: I think Sweeny is a dick, that Spotify is financially precarious, and Apple is basically a great white: efficient, relentless, and not your friend.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
The success of the iPhone was built on the culture of iPhone-first app development and the unwillingness of companies to develop for a third platform.
All google had to do was make an iMessage clone, probably even could have made a better service back then, and make it the default on all android phones. Suddenly Google would have had a powerhouse feature for the main thing phones were used for in 2012: communication.
But instead Google decided to leave SMS default and instead toy around with their stupid a/b model that nobody ended up using anyway.
Deleted Comment