“U.S. government antitrust regulators are looking into claims about whether Apple’s treatment of rival streaming music apps is illegal under antitrust law, according to three industry sources,” Diane Bartz and Julia Love report for Reuters.
“Apple recently launched a new music streaming service, Apple Music. It also provides the App Store platform for competing streaming services including Jango, Spotify, Rhapsody and others,” Bartz and Love report. “Apple takes a 30 percent cut of all in-app purchases for digital goods, such as music streaming subscriptions and games, sold on its platform.”
Bartz and Love report, “While $9.99 has emerged as the going monthly rate for music subscriptions, including Apple’s, some streaming companies complain that Apple’s cut forces them to either charge more in the App Store than they do on other platforms or erode their profit margins.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Tough.
We’ve already been through this ad nauseam with magazine and newspaper publishers years ago: If you don’t like Apple’s App Store policies, don’t offer your apps through it.
Apple doesn’t have monopoly on smartphones or tablets – only on quality, paying smartphone and tablet users – and there’s nothing illegal about that whatsoever.
Sleep tight, Apple Music also-rans.
MDN, how in the world can they not offer their Apps through it, when it’s the ONLY sanctioned way to offer their apps? Worse, how can the OWNER of the device get Apps from elsewhere?
I think the chanting exercises are a little too effective today.
The OWNER purchases the device knowing this is the only way to get Apps on the device apart from Web Apps.
The App store has always been the only (legitimate) way to get curated content on the device and the 30% rule has been accepted by everyone, copied by all the other rivals (if you want to call them that).
As MDN said, if you don’t like it Spotify or others, then develop your own device, platform, ecosystem, make it appealing to an eager-to-spend demographic and you’ll be all set.
It’s been tried, nobody has been able to replicate it. Not Apple’s fault.
Agreed. The key fact in my opinion is that Apple charges every vendor the same flat fee for App Store purchases. That fee covers the complete App Store service including service development and evolution, app development tools and APIs, review of submitted apps, app hosting, system maintenance and security, transaction costs, and Apple’s profit. That profit is justified by the fact that Apple developed the entire ecosystem and bore the full cost and risk of doing so.
The developers, collectively, bore a risk that dwarfs Apple’s. The could be disallowed out of existence. Keep coding bitches.
God awful attempt at trolling.
It’s called a different point of view. It’s call discourse. You do seem to take issue with those that “Think Different!”.
I don’t think “thank different” means what you think it means.
By definition it seems to be the exact opposite of what you think it means…
And, because of that the developers (or those doing in app purchases whether they are developers or just pass throughs like the other music sites) get 70%.
The Apple’s App Store is not a big money maker for Apple. Never has been. May never be. You *might* have a point if Apple were making a lot of money off the App Store and the developers (and others) were not. Apple is not gouging anyone.
The App Store is the best way (bar none) for any new developer to get exposure and possibly have a breakout app. Yes, they take a risk in putting forth the effort to make an app. But, they’d be taking an even greater risk if they did not put their product in the App Store. Sure, they could forego Apple’s store and just code for Android or some other online store — or they could put together a web store of their own and sell their app that way, but then their risk of making any money for their efforts would be immensely greater. It’s a simple choice with the possibility of great rewards.
Besides, how can Spotify (or any other major player) justify getting a bigger cut (more than 70%) than the very small (1-10 person) shops? What makes them so special as to legally claim they must get better treatment than anyone else?
The anti trust claim is 100% bogus. Apple is offering a new product (Apple Music) and is NOT forcing anyone to use it.
This is the exact opposite of what Microsoft did in the late 90s. Microsoft integrated their losing browser into their OS and told everyone (even under oath at trial) that removing it would break Windows. Microsoft used a monopoly (Windows OS) to force adoption of one of its losing products to force increased market share for that product. That’s clearly in violation of anti trust laws. (And by the way, Microsoft’s penalty for being convicted was far, far less than Apple’s is for its conviction in the iBooks case.)
Apple is NOT forcing anyone to sign up to Apple Music. Apple is NOT even *changing* the terms and conditions of its App Store to be beneficial to Apple Music or detrimental to the streaming music vendors. The terms and conditions for all have not materially changed in several years.
Finally, Apple is NOT telling the other music vendors what they can or cannot charge through the App store. They can charge whatever they want. Apple gets 30% for what goes through the store. And, there is nothing from keeping companies from doing what Spotify has done in the last few days: notify subscribers to go directly to them. Then they get to keep 100% and not pay Apple the 30%. That simple capability makes this whole anti trust thing completely asinine.
What kind of logic is that, applecynic? Apple developed the iOS ecosystem, Apple developed the hardware. Apple developed the programming environment and APIs. Apple developed the App Store and advertised it. Apple established common App Store rules for all. Apple even foots the bill for the distribution of free material.
Developers chose to make applications for iOS. Yes, there is some risk in doing so, but Apple created the opportunity for developers and handles all of the hosting and transaction activities. Apple is the one that has made the major investments and taken on the big risks.
MS built the OS, MS built the APIs, MS created the opportunity for people to code on Windows, and MS didn’t impose who they had to spend their retail expenses on. They could choose to offer it on their own website. See where I’m going with this? As bad as MS was, and they were, this is worse.
The developers have a choice. Amazon is a clear example. The Kindle app is on the app store for free, to add books you are directed to the Amazon website. (Comixology – owned by Amazon works exactly the same). After paying the artists and footing the server and software costs Apple is in the same boat as Spotify or Pandora. You just don’t see those costs as explicitly as the 30% cut. Expecting Apple to foot the bill or make exceptions for anyone else because you like their service better is a ridiculous argument. You and they have a choice of where to go and what to buy for your music.
It is not I that said “don’t offer your apps through it”, MDN did. So I repeat, where would they sell their apps?
To your point, I believe Apple’s policy to be wrong, so I chose NOT to be an owner of iOS devices any further. The choice I have is whether to own an iOS device, not to have choice to shop at will if I do.
I am an AAPL shareholder and I am glad that you decided not to own iOS devices anymore. Some people should not own Apple devices. Please feel free to exercise your freedom of choice and buy Android or some other mobile device.
You should check out web sites that deal with your preferred mobile platform, applecynic. MDN is not for you.
I am an Apple shareholder. Ditto.
I do visit other websites too. Unlike some, I’m not afraid of listening, and rebutting, on the opposing point of view.
Kind of like why I also listen to right wing radio, I want to know what’s running through their heads…
When I go to the grocery store to buy a can of beans there are several brands to choose from, including different “store brands”, all with their competing selling points. How much control does the FTC exert over the store regarding what “Brands” they offer for sale at what price and what profit margin? If you don’t like the way one store operates you are free to go to another. And that goes for either customers or “Brands”.
If you own an iOS device, there IS no other store. Otherwise you are correct.
It would be awesome if you lived in the Android world.
I live in the real world, but I buy Android. Oh, and I root for no one. Android gives me more choices.
Get over it troll.
I have nothing to get over. You might. Why so defensive of something that is not you?
You are the one doing the defending.
Who exactly am I defending? I’m defending post iOS purchase choice, I’m not telling you where you have the right to shop, why do you care where I may want to?
You only come here to jack people off, ya sick fnck. Go over to Cult of Android and try to be productive and quit farting in our elevator.
“You only come here to jack people off”
So that’s why you’re called baldheadedjohn…
Actually, you’re wrong on that point. Completely wrong.
There are a myriad number of ways to get apps onto an “iDevice” without using Apple’s App Store.
What you DON’T get with any of the non Apple App Store methodologies is the curation that Apple does for apps distributed through Apple’s App Store.
Compare the number of apps that have had malicious code in them through the Apple App Store with the number of apps that have had such code in them through *ANY* other method/store — this includes Google’s own app store. The numbers in that comparison speak more loudly than any statement you’ve made so far.
I said “sanctioned”, not jailbroken. And by apps I mean native, not web apps. So, I think I’m right.
WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT! I bought a part for my motorcycle yesterday with no advice/assistance/controls/restrictions/limits/hindrances whatsoever . . . and I feel so stupid, alone, and terrible!
Yes, it is up to Apple to provide an extremely viable platform for its weaker competitors to try to steal their business. The government will ensure that any company that is successful must help the weaker less capable companies.
Would you have said the same in defense of MS in the late ’90s? I favored busting them up.
I guess that many people need the sarcasm tag to recognize it when they read it hence all the down votes.
Hey, this is MDN. For some of us, sometimes, down is up, east is west, etc… /s
News Flash:
U.S. government antitrust regulators are looking into claims that Apple has engaged in a long-term, systematic pattern of totally unfair competition designed to undermine the free market …since their stuff is just so good that no one can compete.
Federal District Court judges Lucy Koh & Denise Cote shall henceforth require Apple to produce inferior quality products so that (so-called!) competitors, like Samsung & Amazon, do not lose their shirts and the appearance of competition can be maintained. To this end, Judges Koh and Cote shall require a staff of court-appointed monitors at all Apple design and manufacturing sites, overseen by Michael Bromwich, to ensure Apple products are not so good in the future. All this in the name of truth, justice, and The American Way!
Ha!
Diana Moon Glampers is not amused by Apple.
At the highest levels i.e DOJ, FTC, SEC etc law is influenced by political clout. This is can be seen most clearly in the endless discussion of ‘conservative/liberal/pro or anti business’ among the Supreme court judges for example. At the highest level ‘law’ is not fixed (concepts like ‘anti competitive’ are vague) but dependent on interpretation, that’s why during Apple’s DOJ appeal for the ebook case there was a split decision.
Years ago Walmart used to get into trouble with the government all the time. It seemed like there were quarterly court cases, senate, congressional hearings about Walmart’s uncompetitive business practices, underpaying labour, outsourcing manufacturing to Asia etc. Tearful mom and Dad business owners (put out of business by Walmart) came out to testify etc. Today MIRACULOUSLY it’s mostly all passed. Why? Walmart is still Walmart with basically the same business practices ….
The Change came about when a consultant advised Walmart to up it’s lobbying arm substantially by tens of millions of dollars and also start hiring ex-politicians, and ex government judges, lawyers (i.e a retiring plan for the guys who used to attack them) into it’s special lobbying arm (Walmart now has several lobbying entities). With that voila attacks on Walmart diminished to near nothing…
Apple use to spend very little on political lobbying. Google (a smaller company) outspent Apple 10 bucks to one !!. Apple has recently increased it’s lobbying but is it enough? It still spends nothing on direct political contribution. (NO, I am not saying it should start direct political contributions but I wonder whether it’s adversely affecting it. Imagine if Apple said it would fund the rivals of any politician who was indirectly pressuring the DOJ. Many other companies play this way. Google contribute so much to the government , Schmidt was offered a government directorship which he turned down )
I’m talking B.S?
Think about this:
The UK Judge Sir Robin Jacob who gave the Apple vs Samsung to Samsung, said Apple ‘lacked integrity’ and ordered Apple to publicly apologize to Samsung TWICE (in print in a typeface size specified by him!) was LATER HIRED BY SAMSUNG.
You got it in one! The most egregious abuses are ex-military and DoD officials going to work for defense contractors, and govt officials doing financial oversight leaving to work for giant Wall Street firms, etc. Its incredibly incestuous, and all about big big big $$$$$
MDN’s take is accurate factually, Apple is following guidelines it created and others agreed to but no longer want to follow; however, Apple will still lose in court. As has been said, our justice system is bought and paid for in addition to ALWAYS awarding the “little guy suing the big, nasty corporation”. When the defendant is the #1 company worldwide, everyone is the “little guy”.
Walmart does this all the time. They allow a seller in their store say Kellogg’s cereal. Walmart then makes a copy of the cereal under their store brand name which is called (Great Value). They then sell it cheaper than the name brand.
Walmart and other grocery stores have been doing this for years.
Now Best Buy would not allow Dell to advertise in their store that the same computer is cheaper or the same price somewhere else.
So how is Apple different and why haven’t the Feds gone after Walmart for competing with the other brands in their store. Or gone after Best Buy for not allowing Dell, Samsung or Toshib to advertise that you can buy their computers from another store?