Support NeoGAF

[badb0y]

The fact that people actually defend Apple about this is quite sickening, but then i am reading same people also skipping some facts they ask about and then just go "whatever" and drop that subject completely.

God thanks i have an Android phone.

How is it sickening? You have a choice. Some of you guys are so melodramatic....

 

[Gravy Boat]

I'd bitch if Valve somehow managed to prevent competing services on the entire PC platform and required all software to be sold through Steam, yeah.

Ok, so you're against Steam Boxes then?

 

[TomShoe]

Messy reply.

Too bad it's better than Spotify by miles.

>MFW opinions

It's not about hating Apple, it's about protecting "free" music services like Spotify and Pandora, which Apple and the millions of cronies behind Taylor Swift are trying to kill. What they're trying to do is grossly anti-consumer, and I can't support it.

 

[Gravy Boat]

>MFW opinions

It's not about hating Apple, it's about protecting "free" music services like Spotify and Pandora, which Apple and the millions of cronies behind Taylor Swift are trying to kill. What they're trying to do is grossly anti-consumer, and I can't support it.

How are Apple trying to kill free music services anymore than anyone else? Last time I checked I was still able to use Spotify for free on iOS, ads and all. No distributor wants music to be 'free', everyone would far rather you pay for your music rather than having them rely on ad revenue.

 

[Mindwipe]

How are Apple trying to kill free music services anymore than anyone else? Last time I checked I was still able to use Spotify for free on iOS, ads and all. No distributor wants music to be 'free', everyone would far rather you pay for your music rather than having them rely on ad revenue.

I imagine by virtue of the reports that Apple was leaning on the music labels to withdraw Spotify's rights to run a free tier in order to prop up Apple Music.

 

[Mindwipe]

Ok, so you're against Steam Boxes then?

I'm not terribly convinced by Steam boxes as a platform, but it's worth pointing out they have a full Linux underlying OS and you can install what you want on them. The bootloaders aren't locked in any way either.

It's really in no way comparable to Apple's rentseeking on iOS, abusing it's root keys to behave in an extremely anti-competitive way to prop up sales platforms that aren't competitive otherwise.

 

[TomShoe]

How are Apple trying to kill free music services anymore than anyone else? Last time I checked I was still able to use Spotify for free on iOS, ads and all. No distributor wants music to be 'free', everyone would far rather you pay for your music rather than having them rely on ad revenue.

Absolutely. However, Apple isn't trying to kill free music services because they're against free music, it's about making their Apple Music platform more appealing than the competition. Having free music tiers is a big advantage Spotify & co. currently hold over Apple Music, especially for people that are new to music streaming and don't feel the need or don't use it enough to be worth paying for. If Apple can successfully force companies like Pandora to give up their free music tiers, it removes a large advantage the competition has as well as opens up a large base of displaced users whom they can attempt to add to their own service.

That being said, the music rights holders, the ones primarily against free music streaming, have a lot of power over Apple, given Apple is trying to add as much music to their platform as possible. A lot what's going on with Apple vs. Spotify & Co. is their doing as well. I believe free, ad-supported music streaming is a sustainable method of music delivery, provided one has enough userbase to make royalty payments satisfactory. Being free is already enough of an incentive. The music labels are just trying to prioritize short-term profit by their actions, IMO.

 

[Gravy Boat]

I imagine by virtue of the reports that Apple was leaning on the music labels to withdraw Spotify's rights to run a free tier in order to prop up Apple Music.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware they were doing anything like that.

I'm not terribly convinced by Steam boxes as a platform, but it's worth pointing out they have a full Linux underlying OS and you can install what you want on them. The bootloaders aren't locked in any way either.

It's really in no way comparable to Apple's rentseeking on iOS, abusing it's root keys to behave in an extremely anti-competitive way to prop up sales platforms that aren't competitive otherwise.

Think of it more then like XBL or PSN. These are services provided by a company who has built both the physical platform and the digital distribution platform. It would make no sense for them to give their competitors a better standing than they have on their own turf. I don't see it as anti-competition because it's their own ecosystem.

In cases like Spotify, Apple isn't forcing them to up the price for iOS subscriptions, Spotify is choosing to do that. This 30% isn't specific to Spotify as far as I'm aware, it's equal and consistent across all IAPs. Spotify agreed to this when they decided they wanted to launch their service on iOS, and it just seems a bit convenient that they only now have a problem with it when they're facing the threat of real competition for what is probably the first time. There's also nothing stopping them from just disabling subscriptions through the app, forcing people to sign up through the website. It's a one time thing that would take the user less than 5 minutes, so it's hardly an assault of inconvenience.

Apple are within their rights to charge whatever they want for the use of their hardware, distribution and access to their user base. It's fine to criticise it, but it's far from anti consumer or anti-competition. I guess it's one of those 'vote with your wallet' situations, which I'm guessing most of the outraged have already done anyway.

If Apple can successfully force companies like Pandora to give up their free music tiers, it removes a large advantage the competition has as well as opens up a large base of displaced users whom they can attempt to add to their own service.

Can you give examples of ow they're doing that, or trying to do that? Not trying to be argumentative, I don't really follow this stuff so I'm genuinely not aware of how they're doing that.

That being said, the music rights holders, the ones primarily against free music streaming, have a lot of power over Apple, given Apple is trying to add as much music to their platform as possible. A lot what's going on with Apple vs. Spotify & Co. is their doing as well. I believe free, ad-supported music streaming is a sustainable method of music delivery, provided one has enough userbase to make royalty payments satisfactory. Being free is already enough of an incentive. The music labels are just trying to prioritize short-term profit by their actions, IMO.

I think Spotify would disagree with you there. If I'm not mistaken, they've never been profitable, right? I know it's not unusual for large companies to take many years to reach profitability, but if the free tier was really enough to sustain the service then they wouldn't have offered the paid tier to begin with, nor would they have invested so much into marketing it. Everyone likes free music but I really don't believe that ad revenue is enough to support a service like this.

 

[TomShoe]

Can you give examples of how they're doing that, or trying to do that? Not trying to be argumentative, I don't really follow this stuff so I'm genuinely not aware of how they're doing that.

I think Spotify would disagree with you there. If I'm not mistaken, they've never been profitable, right? I know it's not unusual for large companies to take many years to reach profitability, but if the free tier was really enough to sustain the service then they wouldn't have offered the paid tier to begin with, nor would they have invested so much into marketing it. Everyone likes free music but I really don't believe that ad revenue is enough to support a service like this.

Sure. Have a link, or Google "Apple Spotify Free Tier."

As far as being 'sustainable' goes, I probably minced my words a bit there. By 'sustainable' I meant that the free tier is a strong incentive to get people into music streaming, and then attempt to convert them into paying customers. Ad revenue from free users isn't enough, the money made from paid customers is a lot higher. The free tier's main purpose is to get free users hooked enough to becoming paying users, and I'm OK with that. I just think the option of the free tier should remain open to those who want to use it, and the money made off of free users moving to premium is greater than the amount lost by free users never moving past the free service.

EDIT: Spotify's free tier is more like terrestrial radio than anything, it's not like one gets to pick the exact song they want on-demand. Why they're not going after radio for this same stuff is beyond me, probably because radio offers up enough royalty payments since radio's been ubiquitous for a long time...

 

[Qassim]

Ok, so you're against Steam Boxes then?

Steam boxes are like Android devices in the sense that yeah, they're aimed at Google's services - but they're not your only choice. You can install absolutely whatever you want on a Steam box, on SteamOS or on Windows if you choose to install it on it.

A Steam box is just a PC preloaded with SteamOS (A PC operating system).

 

[DECK'ARD]

I think Spotify would disagree with you there. If I'm not mistaken, they've never been profitable, right? I know it's not unusual for large companies to take many years to reach profitability, but if the free tier was really enough to sustain the service then they wouldn't have offered the paid tier to begin with, nor would they have invested so much into marketing it. Everyone likes free music but I really don't believe that ad revenue is enough to support a service like this.

Spotify is profitable in Sweden, France, UK. Before they expanded they were Sweden's most profitable music company.

The model works, it just requires each market to mature to where there's enough subscribers to make up enough of each base.

It was a model approved by the record industry to move people away from piracy, get them into a environment where they can then pay for music, and get those who are paying for it to pay more than they were previously. It worked on all counts, subscribers are paying double what the average person did on music at the industry's peak.

Now streaming is established the industry wants to kill the freemium model because it's an anchor to prices going forwards.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

Spotify is profitable in Sweden, France, UK. Before they expanded they were Sweden's most profitable music company.

Spotify was also a pay-only service during most of 2011 and 2012 in these markets. Wouldn't be surprised if the majority of premium subs came during those times when it was the only choice. The free tier came back in 2013 though.

 

[Red]

It's not all or nothing. Yes, in some ways Google is consumer friendly and in others not. Just like Apple and every other business.

Isn't that the point of all this, in the end? No company works solely for the consumer. They've got to turn a profit. If you don't like Apple getting a cut of App Store purchases, get a Nexus. If you don't like Google tracking and sharing your personal data for advertising purposes, get an iPhone. Pick your poison.

 

[snap0212]

They could just disable IAP, couldn't they? I cannot purchase any audiobooks on Audible via the app, but I can when I open up the browser and go through their offerings that way. Spotify could simply do the same, but they know that less convenience means less sales.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Isn't that the point of all this, in the end? No company works solely for the consumer. They've got to turn a profit. If you don't like Apple getting a cut of App Store purchases, get a Nexus. If you don't like Google tracking and sharing your personal data for advertising purposes, get an iPhone. Pick your poison.

Yep. I'm an Apple customer ultimately because I like the benefits of the tight OS integration across phones, tablets, and Macs, and appreciate that their motives are more transparent—they want to sell me hardware, whereas Google wants to know everything about me to sell ads. But I don't really begrudge people who make a different calculus, and ultimately both companies are about making money so they ultimately care about the customer only so much.

The amount of cheerleading people do for corporations is pretty stupid.

 

[Gattsu25]

Ok, so you're against Steam Boxes then?

There's nothing stopping you from installing a non-steam application on a steam machine. Hell, there's nothing stopping you from wiping out the OS as a whole.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Spotify was also a pay-only service during most of 2011 and 2012 in these markets. Wouldn't be surprised if the majority of premium subs came during those times when it was the only choice. The free tier came back in 2013 though.

Spotify has always had a free tier, 2013 was the launch of it on mobile as well as desktop. The following year saw France and UK turn a profit:

http://billboard.com/articles/business/6320047/spotify-france-profit-2013

France had a 76% jump in premium subscribers.

 

[gundalf]

Don't subscriptions services like Hulu force you to do it through the Internet and not the app? Why does spotify even allow that option if they don't want it to happen?

Probably because their target audience still uses itunes gift cards.

 

[MercuryLS]

Apple should lower their fee for stuff like this and ebooks like for the kindle app. It is anti competitive when there's a 30% fee on competing services, it gives Apple an unfair advantage.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Isn't that the point of all this, in the end? No company works solely for the consumer. They've got to turn a profit. If you don't like Apple getting a cut of App Store purchases, get a Nexus. If you don't like Google tracking and sharing your personal data for advertising purposes, get an iPhone. Pick your poison.

That doesn't some how make a company immune to criticism if they have a shitty anti-consumer policy which Apple does here.

 

[Red]

That doesn't some how make a company immune to criticism if they have a shitty anti-consumer policy which Apple does here.

No one said it did? Where are you getting that from?

 

[unpopularblargh]

No one said it did? Where are you getting that from?

This whole thread?

One side saying this sucks and is anti-consumer. The other side saying everyone does it and people are only complaining because it's Apple.

 

[Red]

This whole thread?

One side saying this sucks and is anti-consumer. The other side saying everyone does it and people are only complaining because it's Apple.

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't suck. It's bad form. But it doesn't prevent iOS users from signing up for the $9.99 price from a web browser. It sucks for people who don't know better, and who subscribe not knowing they can get the service for $3 less without going through Apple. But that's why Spotify sent the email this thread was about in the first place.

No one is saying, stop complaining. As far as I can see, it's been a few people against Apple's pricing strategy that have been especially vocal. The rest of us have discussed this with level heads. It's a power move by Apple to keep their IAP policies in place, but they don't outright prevent you from signing up a different way.

No one is for paying more just to fill the pockets of a corporation, regardless of their loyalties. No one is saying Apple's IAP policy should be the standard. It's great to have alternatives. Even on their own platform there are other options.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

This whole thread?

One side saying this sucks and is anti-consumer. The other side saying everyone does it and people are only complaining because it's Apple.

I'm not seeing much conversation in here about or acknowledgement of the flipside of the coin and any anti-consumer practices by Google. Just a lot of dog-piling on and vilifying of Apple.

 

[Red]

I'm not seeing much conversation in here about or acknowledgement of the flipside of the coin and any anti-consumer practices by Google. Just a lot of dog-piling on and vilifying of Apple.

The thread is not about Google. Man it's frustrating going into these threads in an attempt to discuss one thing and being stuck in the middle of a shit-slinging competition from opposing corporate advocates.

 

[unpopularblargh]

I'm not seeing much conversation in here about or acknowledgement of the flipside of the coin and any anti-consumer practices by Google. Just a lot of dog-piling on and vilifying of Apple.

Spotify, iPhone and Apple Appstore. It's in the thread title. If you want to start a thread about Google doing something shady I don't think anyone would stop you.

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't suck. It's bad form. But it doesn't prevent iOS users from signing up for the $9.99 price from a web browser. It sucks for people who don't know better, and who subscribe not knowing they can get the service for $3 less without going through Apple. But that's why Spotify sent the email this thread was about in the first place.

No one is saying, stop complaining. As far as I can see, it's been a few people against Apple's pricing strategy that have been especially vocal. The rest of us have discussed this with level heads. It's a power move by Apple to keep their IAP policies in place, but they don't outright prevent you from signing up a different way.

No one is for paying more just to fill the pockets of a corporation, regardless of their loyalties. No one is saying Apple's IAP policy should be the standard. It's great that it's not. Even on their own platform there are other options.

Spotify had to resort to the emails because Apple doesn't let them use their app to state the same thing. They can't even leave a link on their app page due to Apple's policy. Which yes totally sucks. We agree on that.

A lot of the posts in this thread is about people deflecting and saying the complaints are only because it's Apple. It only takes a quick glance at the preious pages of this thread to notice that.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=171365708&postcount=154
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=171361288&postcount=140
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=171370900&postcount=199

There are no alternative IAP options on iOS except Apple's. Unless you mean the user should know beforehand to go to Spotify's homepage and subscribe from there which is counter-intuitive and pretty much a band-aid

Sorry if I'm coming off as stern or angry. I'm really not. Though my avatar might look otherwise.

 

[Netherscourge]

This is why I don't like subscription services.

I buy what I want, in physical form, rip it myself and listen to it locally on my devices.

I do upload my stuff to Google play Music too, but it's my stuff I own physically and I don't NEED Google to listen to it. It's just convenient to have my music stored on the cloud. And I don't pay anything for it. 100% free.

I hate almost all subscription services and prefer owning the physical version of whatever I buy. CDs, Blu-Rays, etc...

I wish I could just directly pay the artists/developers themselves for their products, but everyone wants a slice these days.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

The thread is not about Google. Man it's frustrating going into these threads in an attempt to discuss one thing and being stuck in the middle of a shit-slinging competition from opposing corporate advocates.

Spotify, iPhone and Apple Appstore. It's in the thread title. If you want to start a thread about Google doing something shady I don't think anyone would stop you.

To have a reasonable discussion, you have to examine both sides of the issue. If people are bashing Apple and bringing up Google as a contrast, you can't just ignore the "whys" and "hows" and any negative aspects of Google's approach because "the topic is about Apple".

I own and use both Apple and Google products heavily. This isn't about being a "corporate advocate". That's a nice way to brush away someone's opinion, though.

 

[Red]

This is why I don't like subscription services.

I buy what I want, in physical form, rip it myself and listen to it locally on my devices.

I do upload my stuff to Google play Music too, but it's my stuff I own physically and I don't NEED Google to listen to it. It's just convenient to have my music stored on the cloud. And I don't pay anything for it. 100% free.

I hate almost all subscription services and prefer owning the physical version of whatever I buy. CDs, Blu-Rays, etc...

I wish I could just directly pay the artists/developers themselves for their products, but everyone wants a slice these days.

You'd be paying literally millions to have access to the amount of content streaming music services provide.

 

[acevans2]

Does Apple take the price of Spotify and add 30% themselves to display on iTunes? I'm pretty sure this is Spotify's decision to maintain the same margin by adding to the total cost to accommodate for the IAP fee from Apple. It's not Apple's problem.

If Spotify wants to sell into the huge ecosystem Apple built and maintains, they should expect to pay for it. Passing the cost on to the customers and blaming it on Apple is shitty.

 

[Marty Chinn]

To have a reasonable discussion, you have to examine both sides of the issue. If people are bashing Apple and bringing up Google as a contrast, you can't just ignore the "whys" and "hows" and any negative aspects of Google's approach because "the topic is about Apple".

I own and use both Apple and Google products heavily. This isn't about being a "corporate advocate". That's a nice way to brush away someone's opinion, though.

Okay, let's discuss how Google's implementation is bad and anti consumer. That's fair. I don't think they are.

 

[Netherscourge]

You'd be paying literally millions to have access to the amount of content streaming music services provide.

You're assuming I would actually buy all the streamed music.

I only buy the stuff I like. I don't branch out much. I tend to only buy CDs/Movies/Games from the same artists and developers.

I don't care about the "If you listen to this, you might like this..." stuff. I've been sticking to the same cluster of artists pretty much since high school with very very few new additions to my library.

I think the streaming/digital access is more trendy than divergent.

 

[ChrisD]

I would have given anyone who switches over to the web version a special priced month of $7. Seems like that would garner some actual good will.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Does Apple take the price of Spotify and add 30% themselves to display on iTunes? I'm pretty sure this is Spotify's decision to maintain the same margin by adding to the total cost to accommodate for the IAP fee from Apple. It's not Apple's problem.

If Spotify wants to sell into the huge ecosystem Apple built and maintains, they should expect to pay for it. Passing the cost on to the customers and blaming it on Apple is shitty.

Apple banned alternative IAP systems to target services like Amazon and Spotify. Amazon doesn't sell ebooks through IAP anymore because the 30% would cut too much in to their already thin margins. It's the same reason Spotify charges more. It's anti-consumer and competition.

I would have given anyone who switches over to the web version a special priced month of $7. Seems like that would garner some actual good will.

I think they do have a promo for 3 months of permium for .99 cents right now on their site.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Okay, let's discuss how Google's implementation is bad and anti consumer. That's fair. I don't think they are.

First of all, I don't think either implementation is bad or anti-consumer, so let's squash that false dilemma right now. They've made different choices based on company priorities and monetization strategies. Why does it have to be pitched as "Company A == Good and Company B == Evil"?

So here's a list of things that some would argue are "downsides" of Google's approach vs Apple's:

- Increased UI/UX complexity (paradox of choice, etc)
- Inconsistency and lack of a cohesive payment system across apps (why can I use Google's payment processing in App A but am forced to enter my CC details into App B?)
- Opens up risk of fraud, sketchy handling of payment information, issues receiving refunds, etc when dealing with payments through another merchant
- Heavy tracking and sharing of personal data for advertising purposes (just one way that Google offsets their revenue loss on IAPs and is OK with their approach)

#1-3 aren't really issues for me personally (or for most tech-savvy people I'd guess), but for many of the "uninformed consumers" you mentioned earlier, I bet they are. I know my parents and other older family members I help with tech issues regularly wouldn't deal with it very well, anyway. These are the types of things they bring up as concerns and annoyances.

Apple banned alternative IAP systems to target services like Amazon and Spotify. Amazon doesn't sell ebooks through IAP anymore because the 30% would cut too much in to their already thin margins. It's the same reason Spotify charges more. It's anti-consumer and competition.

Do you have any data showing lost revenue due to not being able to use IAPs, or even just data on how many people choose to not purchase a book at all and use a competing service because they can't use an IAP and don't want to use any other entrypoint to Amazon's massive ecosystem? Genuine question.

 

[Red]

You're assuming I would actually buy all the streamed music.

I only buy the stuff I like. I don't branch out much. I tend to only buy CDs/Movies/Games from the same artists and developers.

I don't care about the "If you listen to this, you might like this..." stuff. I've been sticking to the same cluster of artists pretty much since high school with very very few new additions to my library.

I think the streaming/digital access is more trendy than divergent.

It's not about just you. Surely you recognize that many people want access to more than just the music they can buy as CDs? How is streaming not the superior option for being able to access a broader catalogue of music, in an easier way?

If you're spending any more on music yearly than the cost of a subscription to a streaming service, you aren't behaving sensibly. You might not buy very much music, in which case physical purchases would make sense for you. But to say it's not divergent is the weirdest shit.

If you're paying for the thing itself, to have the physical object as a collector's item or something, that has value to you a streaming service would never be able to provide. But for constant access to music, streaming can't be beat.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

If you're spending any more on music yearly than the cost of a subscription to a streaming service, you aren't behaving sensibly. You might not buy very much music, in which case physical purchases would make sense for you. But to say it's not divergent is the weirdest shit.

There's absolutely value in owning your own personal copy of a song that never expires or goes away if the service dies or changes policies, works on a much wider variety of platforms, etc.

It's interesting that you're arguing so strongly for openness with payment options, yet are downplaying the advantages and benefits of music ownership vs streaming.

 

[unpopularblargh]

First of all, I don't think either implementation is bad or anti-consumer, so let's squash that false dilemma right now. They've made different choices based on company priorities and monetization strategies. Why does it have to be pitched as "Company A == Good and Company B == Evil"?

So here's a list of things that some would argue are "downsides" of Google's approach vs Apple's:

- Increased UI/UX complexity (paradox of choice, etc)
- Inconsistency and lack of a cohesive payment system across apps (why can I use Google's payment processing in App A but am forced to enter my CC details into App B?)
- Opens up risk of fraud, sketchy handling of payment information, issues receiving refunds, etc when dealing with payments through another merchant
- Heavy tracking and sharing of personal data for advertising purposes (just one way that Google offsets their revenue loss on IAPs and is OK with their approach)

#1-3 aren't really issues for me personally (or for most tech-savvy people I'd guess), but for many of the "uninformed consumers" you mentioned earlier, I bet they are. I know my parents and other older family members I help with tech issues regularly wouldn't deal with it very well, anyway. These are the types of things they bring up as concerns and annoyances.



Do you have any data showing lost revenue due to not being able to use IAPs, or even just data on how many people choose to not purchase a book at all and use a competing service because they can't use an IAP and don't want to use any other entrypoint to Amazon's massive ecosystem? Genuine question.

Spotify has to give the music labels and Apple a cut on iOS.
Apple only has to give music labels a cut.
On Android (and Windows/Mac) Spotify only has to give music labels a cut.

Also as Werks already posted two pages ago:

https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-eb...e-is-lying-about-how-in-app-purchasing-works/

It argued that Apple changed its in-app purchase rules to retaliate against Amazon. And it wants to make big changes in the way Apple does business in the iTunes Store...

In its revised remedy, the DOJ delves deeply into its criticism of Apple’s in-app purchasing policy, which it now claims Apple changed in 2011 “to retaliate against Amazon for competitive conduct that Apple disapproved of.” As background, in 2011, Apple changed in-app purchase rules to require that any content sold through apps must also be sold through the iTunes Store, and forbid publishers and retailers from sending users to websites outside their apps to make purchases. As a result, Amazon removed the Kindle Store from its app and retailers like Barnes & Noble and Kobo followed suit.

These rules applied to all types of digital content — including magazines and newspapers — not just ebooks. But, the DOJ argues, they were primarily put into place “to make it more difficult for consumers using Apple devices to compare ebook prices among different retailers, and for consumers to purchase ebooks from other retailers on Apple’s devices.”

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Spotify has to give the music labels and Apple a cut on iOS.
Apple only has to give music labels a cut.
On Android (and Windows/Mac) Spotify only has to give music labels a cut.

Also as Werks already posted two pages ago:

https://gigaom.com/2013/08/23/in-eb...e-is-lying-about-how-in-app-purchasing-works/

Err...that doesn't answer my question. I see that the DOJ is making the argument about Apple's intentions. I'm looking for data that demonstrates Amazon is losing a meaningful amount of revenue between Scenario A and Scenario B:

A: Amazon can have IAP in the iOS Kindle App without paying Apple a 30% cut
B: Amazon doesn't have IAP at all in their iOS Kindle App and people have to purchase books via Amazon.com, a non-iOS device's Kindle App, etc.

My belief is that when you're using an ecosystem, it's really not much of a "barrier" to just use Amazon.com or a non-iOS Kindle App to purchase books instead of in the app. I don't believe people are flocking to the Apple Store for their books instead, due to the fact that they don't have an IAP option in their iOS Kindle App.

If there's data that conclusively proves this is false, it would be beneficial for me to see/know that.

 

[Red]

There's absolutely value in owning your own personal copy of a song that never expires or goes away if the service dies or changes policies, works on a much wider variety of platforms, etc.

It's interesting that you're arguing so strongly for openness with payment options, yet are downplaying the advantages and benefits of music ownership vs streaming.

This is a lot like the old Steam vs. physical debate. I remember getting into it with water_wendi a few times, years ago. The "personal copy" argument would have a lot more weight if access ever actually were restricted, or free tiers were not available. Otherwise it's a bit like doomsday prepping.

I still buy CDs, too. And for someone who doesn't listen to much music, or who listens to the same stuff over and over again, going physical might be the best option. I listen to a lot of different music, and I don't like having it all take up space on my digital devices. Streaming is the best option for me. It might not be for someone else.

I would argue "works on a wider variety of platforms" is streaming's claim to fame. If you buy an album on vinyl or CD you are absolutely limited by what can play it. With streaming you have access on your portable devices, PCs, game consoles, TVs, and so on. It's ubiquitous.

 

[Maninthemirror]

they follow the TOS and it's hypocrisy? they are simply doing what Apple allows. if people choose to give Apple a $3 convenience fee, that's on them.




their cut is the same as Google, yet Spotify is $3 less on Android... hrmmm...

I don't think you got the fact that like Netflix, like Amazon Instant video they can NOT have a subcription in the app and encourage users to sign up outside the app itself. Spotify is being hypocritical if at one hand they say please use our website not the app while STILL having iAP purchase option, why even have that option if you are so adament against people using it?

Should we argue against Sony Microsoft and Nintendo who get their share for each game that is sold and not all is sent to the developer and publisher?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

This is a lot like the old Steam vs. physical debate. I remember getting into it with water_wendi a few times, years ago. The "personal copy" argument would have a lot more weight if access ever actually were restricted, or free tiers were not available. Otherwise it's a bit like doomsday prepping.

I'm not trying to argue against the streaming model. Just countering your suggestion that the non-streaming model isn't "sensible". It's a perfectly valid preference.

edit: Also, haven't artists pulled their music from various streaming services over the past several years? Isn't that a very real and simple example of what you're saying is "doomsday prepping"? One day I'm streaming Taylor Swift, the next it gets pulled from my device. I believe Amazon has remotely wiped people's Kindles and their Amazon libraries too for claimed ToS infractions or similar situations.

I would argue "works on a wider variety of platforms" is streaming's claim to fame. If you buy an album on vinyl or CD you are absolutely limited by what can play it. With streaming you have access on your portable devices, PCs, game consoles, TVs, and so on. It's ubiquitous.

More devices exist that can play mp3s (which you can legally retrieve from a physical format without much difficulty) than those that can run Spotify/Rdio/Apple Music/Youtube/etc.

I guess vinyl might be a little tricky, but that's really steering away from my main point (and I think most people mean mp3s and occasionally CDs when framing the non-streaming side of the argument).

 

[borghe]

Spotify has to give the music labels and Apple a cut on iOS.
Apple only has to give music labels a cut.
On Android (and Windows/Mac) Spotify only has to give music labels a cut.

So here's the problem with what you and werks are saying, and ultimately where the DOJ argument falls flat.

The DOJ is arguing about behavior after the fact with Amazon. Fine, it looks shady, or does it?

So now let's look at 2011-2013. Spotify comes. Offers a service, you can sign up through the App Store. Oh look, you can also sign up for Google Music, Pandora, etc and pay through the App Store. You can also get a subscription to Entertainment Weekly, You can also buy coins for Candy Crush, etc... companies offer IAP, apple sees a cut.

But Apple releases it's own Music service, and now "well they have to pay apple for their competing service (which they had to do BEFORE it was a competing service), so that's not fair!!!"

So the problem eventually becomes, Apple is disallowed from creating ANY app or service that already exists on the App Store, or they are guilty of unfair competitive advantage. Or worse, another company can simply release a similar or identical service to apple on the app store, and then can complain about unfair competitive advantage.

It's a truly slippery slope.

Should we argue against Sony Microsoft and Nintendo who get their share for each game that is sold and not all is sent to the developer and publisher?

This is kind of my point. No one argues that they have a "competitive advantage" because they see additional revenue from sales off of PSN/XBLA/etc. They (along with App Store, along with Google Play, etc) are merely purchase facilitators.

Beyond that, the Amazon argument seems to be completely different than the Spotify argument. In the case of Spotify, Spotify is merely offering a subscription that apple gets a chunk of.

In the case of Amazon... arguably, apple did make it horrible for them, as they couldn't sell their 500K books in the app, unless they also listed all 500K books as IAP in the App Store. Beyond the 30% cut, the thought of managing that kind of data on the app store is simply a nightmare. I don't think Apple ever intended to make money off of Kindle books. I think they flat out were looking to make it unreasonable for Amazon to even SELL Kindle books on the app store.

This is not the same as Spotify at all. Spotify doesn't come down to "competitive disadvantage" at all. Even if Spotify just charge $9.99 on App Store (which they fucking should be doing), that 30% comes down to Apple facilitating the sale. If Spotify chooses, they can choose to not have Apple facilitate sales (like Netflix, etc). Does THAT potentially put them at a competitive disadvantage? Yes, but then it's there choice. Simply making less money than Apple per subscription ($7 vs $10) really has nothing at all to do with competition.

 

[sometimes i game]

I'm not trying to argue against the streaming model. Just countering your suggestion that the non-streaming model isn't "sensible". It's a perfectly valid preference.

For me, music apps are less expensive and easier to use. Think of a song, play it. Download whatever. Flat fee.

However yesterday alone one song was deleted from Spotify so it disappeared in my playlist, and another had a version swapped so the second verse is different than it was. Tad annoying, but then again, comes with the territory.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Err...that doesn't answer my question. I see that the DOJ is making the argument about Apple's intentions. I'm looking for data that demonstrates Amazon is losing a meaningful amount of revenue between Scenario A and Scenario B:

A: Amazon can have IAP in the iOS Kindle App without paying Apple a 30% cut
B: Amazon doesn't have IAP at all in their iOS Kindle App and people have to purchase books via Amazon.com, a non-iOS device's Kindle App, etc.

My belief is that when you're using an ecosystem, it's really not much of a "barrier" to just use Amazon.com or a non-iOS Kindle App to purchase books instead of in the app. I don't believe people are flocking to the Apple Store for their books instead, due to the fact that they don't have an IAP option in their iOS Kindle App.

If there's data that conclusively proves this is false, it would be beneficial for me to see/know that.

How would Amazon not make more money through option A than B? A is both easier for the end-user and on Amazon's earnings because they don't have to give Apple a cut.

But Apple wont let them have A.

So they felt they had no choice but to go with B. Amazon wasn't the only one btw.

https://gigaom.com/2011/07/25/419-apple-forces-kindle-nook-kids-kobo-to-yank-in-app-bookstores/

Also the fact that the DOJ took Apple to court over this proves that it was a detriment to competition in Apple's favour.

So here's the problem with what you and werks are saying, and ultimately where the DOJ argument falls flat.

The DOJ is arguing about behavior after the fact with Amazon. Fine, it looks shady, or does it?

So now let's look at 2011-2013. Spotify comes. Offers a service, you can sign up through the App Store. Oh look, you can also sign up for Google Music, Pandora, etc and pay through the App Store. You can also get a subscription to Entertainment Weekly, You can also buy coins for Candy Crush, etc... companies offer IAP, apple sees a cut.

But Apple releases it's own Music service, and now "well they have to pay apple for their competing service (which they had to do BEFORE it was a competing service), so that's not fair!!!"

So the problem eventually becomes, Apple is disallowed from creating ANY app or service that already exists on the App Store, or they are guilty of unfair competitive advantage. Or worse, another company can simply release a similar or identical service to apple on the app store, and then can complain about unfair competitive advantage.

It's a truly slippery slope.

It's not a slippery slope. Google doesn't charge 30% for IAP if the app isn't using Google's own system (Wallet in this case). Amazon doesn't pay Google a cut because they use their own checkout system. Amazon on Android offers IAP in the app itself unlike on iOS becasue of this. Google also sells books on Android. Just like both Google and Spotify offer streaming music services at the same price without Google charging Spotify an extra 30%.

No one is saying that Apple can't offer their own services but they shouldn't intentionally hinder competing services with BS business practices.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

How would Amazon not make more money through option A than B? A is both easier for the end-user and on Amazon's earnings because they don't have to give Apple a cut.

But Apple wont let them have A.

So they felt they had no choice but to go with B. Amazon wasn't the only one btw.

https://gigaom.com/2011/07/25/419-apple-forces-kindle-nook-kids-kobo-to-yank-in-app-bookstores/

Also the fact that the DOJ took Apple to court over this proves that it was a detriment to competition in Apple's favour.

Amazon doesn't give Apple a cut with Option B either.

So it comes down to, do customers really bail on a purchase because they have to buy their content on a different Amazon app/website instead of the iOS app? I believe the answer to that is "no". Not in a meaningful amount, anyway. If someone decides to buy something, they're going to buy it.

 

[borghe]

yeah, I am a huge Apple fan... and hold pretty strong annoyance/disfavor for Amazon.. and honestly, they were out to screw over Amazon. I DON'T agree that's anywhere near what people are crying about with Spotify (or just sales/subs as IAP and Apple's cut in general)

The whole Amazon thing went well beyond IAP and 30%, and I do believe Apple knew that when going about it. It came down to flat out being unrealistic to expect Amazon to be able to comply with it.

Amazon doesn't give Apple a cut with Option B either.

So it comes down to, do customers really bail on a purchase because they have to buy their content on a different Amazon app/website instead of the iOS app? I believe the answer to that is "no". Not in a meaningful amount, anyway. If someone decides to buy something, they're going to buy it.

here is where it comes down to the difference between Kindle books and say Spotify/Netflix/Hulu/etc. In the case of a subscription service, I actually agree with you. No, they probably WON'T lose meaningful sales by removing the sub from IAP. Consumers are comfortable enough (maybe a little too comfortable) with providing their credit card over a web form, and it only has to be done once and their done.

In the case of Kindle, it's leaving the app every single time mostly. Even if you have a workflow for buying a Kindle book, it IS added work, and there will certainly be times where someone would say "meh... I'll do it later" which then turns into never.

Now I don't feel sorry for Amazon. FUCK KNOWS they are responsible for AS MANY shady practices as anyone else out there. And unlike Apple and others, their completely let off the fucking hook on ALL of it because "well they give us low prices, so it's fine". But objectively speaking... yeah, apple had it in for amazon.

the ironic part is that the DOJ (rightfully) looks into Apple trying to beat up Amazon, but because Amazon gives us great deals, the DOJ ignores Amazon decimating the publishing industry.....

 

[Red]

I'm not trying to argue against the streaming model. Just countering your suggestion that the non-streaming model isn't "sensible". It's a perfectly valid preference.

edit: Also, haven't artists pulled their music from various streaming services over the past several years? Isn't that a very real and simple example of what you're saying is "doomsday prepping"? One day I'm streaming Taylor Swift, the next it gets pulled from my device. I believe Amazon has remotely wiped people's Kindles and their Amazon libraries too for claimed ToS infractions or similar situations.




More devices exist that can play mp3s (which you can legally retrieve from a physical format without much difficulty) than those that can run Spotify/Rdio/Apple Music/Youtube/etc.

I guess vinyl might be a little tricky, but that's really steering away from my main point (and I think most people mean mp3s and occasionally CDs when framing the non-streaming side of the argument).

I haven't heard of Amazon remotely wiping anyone's devices. What ToS were broken?

Buying physical is a valid preference, you're right. I was talking more about people who would otherwise be spending huge amounts of money buying physical releases to have the type of music library streaming makes affordable. I'd be spending hundreds of dollars a month for access to the music I stream, which isn't sensible.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

I haven't heard of Amazon remotely wiping anyone's devices. What ToS were broken?

Buying physical is a valid preference, you're right. I was talking more about people who would otherwise be spending huge amounts of money buying physical releases to have the type of music library streaming makes affordable. I'd be spending hundreds of dollars a month for access to the music I stream, which isn't sensible.

The ToS violation was never revealed, making the whole thing even sketchier.

http://www.wired.com/2012/10/amazons-remote-wipe-of-customers-kindle-highlights-perils-of-drm/

I think if I were to start from scratch, I'd go streaming. I don't listen to a huge amount, but it's enough that I wouldn't want to pay to rebuild. So I completely understand the allure of streaming. Heck, stuff like shared and collaborative playlists from friends is enticing enough to me that I'll probably end up signing up for a free account on some service anyway!

However, I've been collecting mp3s for years and years so I'm really only paying for new music occasionally. I don't think I find 10 new songs a month, so it's not only preferable, but also cheaper, for me to buy my music at this point.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Amazon doesn't give Apple a cut with Option B either.

So it comes down to, do customers really bail on a purchase because they have to buy their content on a different Amazon app/website instead of the iOS app? I believe the answer to that is "no". Not in a meaningful amount, anyway. If someone decides to buy something, they're going to buy it.

You have nothing to back up your point though and as I posted earlier the DOJ clearly disagrees with you. Also Beats own former CEO Ian Rogers says "the decision to sell within the Apple app was fairly straightforward: More than half of Beats users use iPhones, and it’s very hard to get an iOS user to subscribe if you don’t sell in-app". So yes I think it does have a meaningful impact.

http://recode.net/2014/04/18/beats-...starts-selling-subscriptions-from-apples-app/