Ondrej Holzman Spotify has been one of the most vocal critics of the App Store's terms, when the music streaming service particularly disliked the 30 percent cut Apple takes from each app sale, including subscriptions. However, the terms of the subscription will now change in the App Store. However, Spotify is still not satisfied.
Last summer Spotify started its users to warn, to not subscribe to music services directly on iPhones, but to do so on the web. Thanks to this, they get a 30 percent lower price. The reason is simple: Apple takes the 30 percent from the payment in the App Store, and Spotify would have to subsidize the rest.
Phil Schiller, who newly oversees the marketing part of the App Store, announced this week, among other things, that those applications that will operate on a subscription basis in the long term, will offer Apple a more favorable profit ratio: will give developers 70 percent instead of 85 percent.
"It's a nice gesture, but it doesn't address the core of the problem around Apple's tax and its payment system," Jonathan Price, Spotify's head of corporate communications and policy, responded to the upcoming changes. The Swedish company does not particularly like the fact that the subscription will have to continue to be fixed.
"If Apple doesn't change the rules, pricing flexibility will be disabled and therefore we won't be able to offer special offers and discounts, which means we won't be able to offer any savings to our users," explains Price.
Spotify, for example, offered a three-month promotion on the website for just one euro per month. The service normally costs 6 euros, but on the iPhone, thanks to the so-called Apple tax, as Spotify calls it, it costs one more euro. Although Spotify can now get a little more money from Apple, the price offer will have to be uniform in iPhones and the same for everyone (at least within one market).
Although Apple plans to offer developers up to 200 different price points for different currencies and countries, this does not appear to mean the possibility of multiple price offers for a single app, or the possibility of time-limited discounts. However, there are still many questions surrounding the news in the App Store, including the upcoming changes to subscriptions, which will probably only be clarified in the coming weeks.
Well, it turns out on Monday, the itunes store is starting to be quite an expensive joke. he doesn't talk about the prices of the movie... i'm a spotify fan
If it's that complicated, why should Apple do its services for free. You can see it the most with movies and music, because everyone has streaming on all devices included in the price (not free :-) ). With the application, it is actually very similar, whenever a person wants to download it, I assume that it is from Apple's server and it just costs something ;-).
However, I agree that it is necessary to move it forward. At the same time, I understand spotify that the premium payment with them will be cheaper than through an intermediary, so it depends on how everyone wants to shop.
well, simply 10 euros for renting a film for one look is bullshit. even the prices of songs and albums compared to Google Play are overpriced. but I still take it and buy, but I already feel that it's starting to be too much for me in connection with the price of the device in Europe... I've been on the Apple platform for about 7 years completely. as a customer, I don't see the point in prepaying for x services. I'll give an example: apple music, office 365 and you need netflix... I'm waiting for a miracle in the name of digital content through music, movies, applications, books, audiobooks... you need 500 a month...
The real joke is that some music is even better or the same price as on Google Play, but only in some "promotion". Otherwise, it seems that Google probably has a smaller discount, but I would really be interested in how much anyone has. Several times I have sent a question to the musicians why there is about 1/2 of the whole on the google store, but I never found out the answer ;-).
Otherwise, the digital things that we pay for in advance are much cheaper, so it's great. In any case, one big glue shop for everything for 500 won't work. Some giant company would have to take it up and then with such a "monopoly" they would charge a lot more than they would bargain almost "for free" :-D.
The film is sold for 10 EUR, renting is about half that. About 135 crowns for renting a movie seems OK to me, it's like the price of a cinema ticket.
The only thing the appstore needs is to clean it of x years of non-updated nonsense. Some don't even support retina
Not everyone has a retina.
No one is saying to cancel compatibility with older devices.
It's written in the post I'm responding to.
The gentleman said that there are many applications that do not support retina. Just because an app has a retina-ready interface doesn't mean it won't work on older non-retina devices, even if those devices will no longer be supported in future iOS.
Likewise; every discount for some means robbing others. I also don't like that for someone in the same country at the same time the same application costs different money than for another. These are the practices that Apple is trying to abolish so that the prices are the same for everyone, i.e. fair. And I agree with that. I disagree with Spotify.
The way you interpret it, it sounds as if apple was doing it in the interests of the highest morals to do good, which is the biggest nonsense. It reminds me a bit of socialism and its ideology. If the subscription didn't go through apple at all, then it's solved, so vice versa. The source of the problem is apple. And otherwise, how many companies in our country do you complain about or take to court that they have different pricing policies for the same clients and that they are mobile operators, Internet providers, and their services are sold through resellers
Except that in socialism, every app would cost the same, while Apple gives the option to price the app (within the tier) at will. Where every shopper pays the same for the same thing. There's nothing socialist about it - it's just fair.
Isn't the measure of justice how many companies someone yells at or files lawsuits against? Do you really believe that an ordinary client of a multinational (perhaps) telecommunications company has the capacity to file a lawsuit against such a company with a real chance of success? Isn't that a bit naive? And do you think it is right that two neighbors pay different prices for the same fast internet provided by the same company in the same place? When will the stores have rolls for more screamers at a different price than for less screamers? Do you think that will be okay too?