Tomas Chlebek Apple launched its streaming service, Apple Music, ten days ago. But the 30% revenue share from it isn't the only money the company makes from streaming music. As you know, Apple takes 30% of the profits of all sales in the App Store, which also applies to in-app payments. This means that if a user pays for Spotify Premium directly from the iOS app, less than a third of it belongs to Apple.
In order not to lose profit, Spotify solves this "problem" by increasing the price of its services purchased in the iOS application compared to those purchased directly on the website. So while Spotify Premium costs 7,99 euros in the app, on website only 5,99 euros – 30% less.
Whether Spotify wants to save money for its users or reduce Apple's "parasitism" on its service, it's currently sending out an email to iOS subscribers that begins with the words: "We love you just the way you are. Don't change. Never. But if you want to change how much you pay for Spotify Premium, we'll be happy to help. In case you didn't know, the normal price for Premium is just 5,99 euros, but Apple charges 30% of all sales through iTunes. If you move your payments to Spotify.com, you pay nothing for the transaction and save money.”
These words are followed by instructions on how to cancel Spotify Premium auto-renewal via the iOS app. Use the link to cancel the subscription for €7,99, after which it is enough to renew it directly on the Spotify website at the lower price of €5,99 at the end of the last paid month.
The last step refers to a "Happy-Go-Lucky" playlist, which should fit the mood of a person with a little more money in the account.
Spotify isn't the only one criticized by Apple for its approach to paying for streaming services in the App Store, but it's the most visible. But not long before the launch of Apple Music, it turned out that Apple has also reservations to the way its direct competitor does business in the field of music. The Cupertino-based company and major record labels are pushing to end the ad-laden music streaming service Spotify offers. The App Store payment policy outlined in the introduction is, next to this problem, the less discussed and less controversial solution.
Spotify risks being kicked out of the AppStore, where it is written in the terms and conditions that it has the right to intervene if it detects circumvention of the iTunes payment system
That would be a very interesting situation if thousands of paying users suddenly had nowhere to listen. They would hardly switch to A-music with enthusiasm :)
And what else would they have left?
People paying fees in hard currency ... they don't care if they pay two dollars more/less.
Spotify "sticks its head" in a noose.
Although I don't like the European Union, I find the Apple tax of 30% on foreign services, and not on its own, quite unfair. I think Spotify, if it pressured the EU, would be able to come up with something. As we know the EU, it can come up with a special edition of Windows with browsers or almost ban photography in public spaces.
What is unfair? That those who want to sell via the app store simply have to pay for it?
It took a lot of money and effort to build the App Store. Selling third-party apps in it without Apple's fee could be compared to selling bananas in Tesco at Tesco's purchase price, with the difference that Tesco's costs of selling, such as store layout and staff salaries, are far lower than Apple's costs of building an App Store. In that sense, it would be extremely unmarketable behavior.
It is interesting how someone who does not like the EU wants to use its mechanisms to enforce non-market practices. Should the EU regulate the amount of the commission? No, just force Apple to allow other app stores to install and let them compete with each other on price.
I note that no one discussed the ban on taking photos of public spaces in the EU, only the ban on monetizing photos of foreign objects in the sense that everyone could take a photo of your house and even sell it, but you would the owner of the captured object could claim a share of the profit. I don't know what you don't like about trying to protect the owner of, for example, the Dancing House in Prague from being able to take a picture of it, put it on a postcard and sell it without sharing the profit with the owner.
I'm not surprised that an uncritical reader of newspaper headlines doesn't like the EU. However, he formed an opinion without any idea what the unloved opinions were really about.
http://ec.europa.eu/ceskarepublika/news/150618_fotografovani_pred_budovami_cs.htm
Imagine a situation where Apple owns one "umbrella store" that covers smaller merchants (Kaufland, Lidl, Billa, ...) and there is nowhere else to buy food.
Everything works fine, merchants compete with their prices and Apple pays a 30% tax on food, which of course cost something to build this space (legislative conditions, place for sale, ...), thanks to the Apple tax, it will be returned to him many times over. And then Apple decides to enter this segment, so it will also cover its own store, let's call it "Apple food". What won't happen? Of course, Apple doesn't have to pay taxes to itself. Thanks to this, unfair competition arises, where Apple has a huge lead of 30%.
The result is clear: Kaufland, Lidl and others who competed with each other got a new competitor who put rocket engines on this treadmill, as opposed to runners in ordinary sneakers. With this move, they lost an extreme amount of customers because they heard about the price.
To the EU. You're right, it wasn't an order under the threat of a penalty, nor a pure ban. It was precisely the fact that commercial photography of buildings without the consent of the building's author would not be possible! Do you want to tell me that a person who certainly received a large sum of money for the design of the building should still be allowed to pay money for this building, which is visible to everyone outside? And do you know that when you upload a photo to Google, Facebook and others, these companies can handle it differently, making your photo commercial? Asking someone for a share of a building that is publicly available to all eyes seems like an overkill to me. What do you think?
How would you apply it to a photo that is taken from a height, for example, and shows a lot of houses, would each owner of the house be entitled to a share? Or the architect of those houses? What would be the limit? Why even invent something like this and complicate everyone's life? What about the guy who made Christmas lights around the house? He would be entitled too, after all he put the work into it. We can probably agree that it's nonsense. Perhaps you can answer yourself what I don't like about it.
You don't have to insult me as a reader of newspaper headlines when you know nothing about me, given the opinion you hold, I can also draw a picture of you and include you in the basket of KSČM, ANO, ČSSD voters. But I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. The world is colorful.
Have a nice day.
Kaufland, Lidl and Billa could set up their own umbrella store in your hypothetical example. In terms of copyright, musicians, actors, painters or photographers collect money for creating a work and also for its further distribution. Architects get a cut of this income. But even so, artists are generally among the lowest-earning people.
This is how Audioteka works, I pay for Deezer on their website and download it via the app. As for audiobooks, I don't need an application from the AppStore, I pay on the Czech website, I download them to a Mac and via iTunes to an iPhone. It looks complicated but it takes a while. Music can be played directly from the web. Apple knows this and does nothing.