Well, those ads were honestly better. They were localized both in their scope and what they claimed to do. Nowadays, every tech company is changing the world, and there is much hullabaloo over everything under the sun when it's just shitty software at the end of the day. Take the opening sentence: "We believe that technology achieves its true potential when we infuse it with human creativity and ingenuity". Who gets paid to write this drivel ?
Spin doctors who can turn around faster than you can say "what?!". Probably high earners, too, given that they could cost their companies dearly with a single single wrong word.
To be fair Apple capitulated and reduced it to 15% for after the first year, and leave a lot of money on the table from freemium/ad-supported apps.
I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is. You can subscribe outside of the App store (by not using in-app payments) and not pay that extra $$, and Apple doesn't get that extra $$.
> I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is. You can subscribe outside of the App store (by not using in-app payments) and not pay that extra $$, and Apple doesn't get that extra $$.
It seems that Spotify claims that even making that information known on the app gets their app rejected. They have mentioned that Apple rejected their app because of the word 'Free' being used, as well as 'promotions' being used inside the app, and there is no way to link to external payment options.
Enabling payments via the App Store is helpful, denying other forms of payments seems leaning towards being anti-competitve.
Ok, it's hard to tell because both sides are over-extending and exaggerating the issues.
Asking Apple to change the 30% fee to 0, or some other arbitrary number is untenable.
Blocking Apps from advertising that you can subscribe on their website outside of the Apple platform is weakly tenable. I can see the argument and reasoning that Apps should pay for "advertising" for the service through the Apple platform, but in reality "discovery" through the Apple platform is limited and in Spotify's case most people probably do not discover it through the platform. That being said, I can see the argument that
1) If Spotify users discover them through the App store, they would not know about subscribing directly through Spotify for a lower rate. Therefore Spotify should pay the 30% as user acquisition cost.
2) If Spotify users come to the App store from Spotify, they should already have signed up outside or know about the lower rate outside of the Apple platform.
It seems to me the main reason why Spotify is against the 30% tax (aside from generally wanting to not pay), is that
1) Spotify wants to be able to upgrade free users to paid users in-app with the least amount of friction. They can do this by email, or through the App, but obviously it's much easier to do so through an in-app popup. I've had countless friends that have accidentally subscribed to in-app subscriptions so I know how easy it is to subscribe.
2) Spotify does not want to pay the lifetime 30%/15% tax on customers acquired through the App store.
What you are missing is that Apple is selling their own music streaming subscription for 30% less while making it impossible for Spotify to advertise their subscription in the app.
There are many other ways to compete on rather than just pricing. That 30% less can be recovered by having exclusive artists, a better product, and a stronger presence on other platforms.
I don't see how having exclusive artists (or even content) encourages bad competition. These are artists/content that potentially wouldn't have existed without Spotify's investment.
A stronger presence on other platforms would enable Spotify to make more revenue from those users vs. what Apple could siphon. Apple's main focus is on iOS. Furthermore, Apple Music's association with Apple probably hurts its image on other platforms like Android, giving Spotify an edge.
What I'm inferring is that Spotify can easily make up that 30% loss to Apple with other tactics just by differentiating.
Wow. It is astonishing to read this from a company being widely accused of an unfair 30% tax.
Correction: the revenue share is 15%, it was originally 30%