Spotify Stops Accepting Payments Set Up Via Apple's App Store (engadget.com) 42
Spotify is no longer supporting Apple's in-app purchase system. In an email to affected subscribers, Spotify says: "We're contacting you because when you joined Spotify Premium you used Apple's billing service to subscribe. Unfortunately, we no longer accept that billing method as a form of payment." Engadget reports: Spotify continues to say that those users will automatically be switched to the company's Free, ad-supported tier at the end of the current billing cycle. "If you wish to keep your Premium subscription, you will need to re-subscribe after your last billing period has ended and your account has been moved on to the Free account."
But that's probably for the best. Due to Apple taking 30 percent of in-app purchases, Spotify users who were subscribed through in-app purchases were being charged an extra $3 per month compared to subscribing through Spotify directly. That's despite the fact that Apple now reduces its commission rate to 15 percent on subscriptions after the first year. Apple said in a regulatory filing from 2019 that it collected that 15 percent fee on roughly 680,000 Spotify customers. Users transitioning from Apple's payments can subscribe to Premium via a credit card or PayPal.
But that's probably for the best. Due to Apple taking 30 percent of in-app purchases, Spotify users who were subscribed through in-app purchases were being charged an extra $3 per month compared to subscribing through Spotify directly. That's despite the fact that Apple now reduces its commission rate to 15 percent on subscriptions after the first year. Apple said in a regulatory filing from 2019 that it collected that 15 percent fee on roughly 680,000 Spotify customers. Users transitioning from Apple's payments can subscribe to Premium via a credit card or PayPal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but... Steve Jobs was... Umm... smart and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect? Not genetically, on account of the cancer that killed him.
Re:I want Apple to fail so badly (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't like Apple because of how they treat the Chinese as slave labor, yet at the same time you want the Chinese economy to collapse and war to break out?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like a common sentiment - hoping that Apple will die because their stranglehold on payment terms for iOS devices is to be broken. I think we can all agree that breaking the monopoly is a "good" thing, but we ought to be careful not to just assume that the opposite is necessarily an automatic good. On the pro side you'll find folks like Cory Doctorow describing today's market it like this:
Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
I think he's dancing on the grave a bit too early, death is by no means either assured, nor "good" without a little
Re:I want Apple to fail so badly (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, Spotify hates Apple payments. It means if you want to cancel your subscription, you just tap the screen and it's cancelled. There is zero chance for the company to beg you to stay. The cancel link is also just there - there's no chance the company can hide it or make you call or write in to cancel.
And since Apple handles the payment, once cancelled, the company can't continue to charge you months afterwards. Once you cancel the payments stop. Can't "accidentally" charge you for an extra month for a few months making you call to get a refund that will never appear.
Spotify was getting more money via Apple payments. They want to stop because they're losing out on getting your payment information and it's a bit too easy to cancel service.
I mean, why else would people willingly pay $3 more for Spotify?
Re: I want Apple to fail so badly (Score:2)
Re: I want Apple to fail so badly (Score:2)
As an Apple device user, I appreciate that all of my subscriptions are listed and managed in one place in the system preferences. It makes it simpler and easier for me to review and manage subscriptions. Whatâ(TM)s not to like, unless youâ(TM)re business, for whom itâ(TM)s more profitable to make this harder or even more friction and contact points.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Spotify hates Apple payments. It means if you want to cancel your subscription, you just tap the screen and it's cancelled. There is zero chance for the company to beg you to stay. The cancel link is also just there - there's no chance the company can hide it or make you call or write in to cancel.
It is literally this easy on Spotify's own website. You click cancel, and it directs you to a confirmation page that lists exactly when your premium subscription expires. Apple does not make this process any easier than it already is.
Spotify hates Apple because Apple takes a cut. That's really all there is to it. No need for some "too easy to cancel" conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I want Apple to fail so badly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Now now, Mommy and Daddy still love you, but we're going to have to empty your piggy bank, sweetie. Don't worry, you won't need it later.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine Apple failed as a business (Score:2)
For instance: They are the only major vendor encouraging native software development where your computer does all the processing on-device, which is essential to you as a user having control over your data. They are also the only vendor to h
Re: (Score:1)
Gets it right? You're kidding, right?
Some years ago, maybe around 2010, I was traveling with a colleague who needed to send a spreadsheet immediately. It couldn't wait, so our only option was to copy the file from his laptop to his phone so that it could be sent. That's when he discovered one of the many reasons iPhone's are worthless for business users. I copied the file to my Blackberry over USB and sent it for him.
This is still a problem, by the way. I can't just copy any file I want to an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
If Spotify is not happy with Apple’s fees, they are free to leave the platform any time.
If users don’t like Apple’s App Store, they are free to switch to Android at any time.
Everyone has a choice, to act like they don’t is disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has a choice, to act like they don’t is disingenuous.
Antitrust law exists because that outcomes of those choices are forced on you by someone more powerful than yourself. The only reason they have been using Apple's payment system this long is because they were forced to if they wanted to be listed.
To consider all choices being equal and free of influence is truly asinine.
Beginning of the end for high app store commission (Score:2)
They all do it, Google, Apple, Amazon--they all charge ridiculous app store commissions. But with the EU starting to clamp down, and the Epic Games lawsuit, and now Spotify, it feels like momentum is building.
I personally would like to see a flat fee, like say $100, for publishing an app on app stores, whether your app is free or not. Such a fee would do two things: It would eliminate this gouging, and also keep out a lot of zero-value apps that should never have been published in the first place. As it is,
Re: Beginning of the end for high app store commis (Score:2)
Apple publishers already pay this because they have to have a paid developer account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Charging per download would be like web sites charging per page view, or GitHub charging per software installation package download. No, I don't think so, they would not need to charge per download.
Most free apps can die a slow death, they are worth exactly what you pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Most free apps can die a slow death, they are worth exactly what you pay for them.
You're out of touch. Ask someone under 30 what they consider essential apps and look at the mode cost.
Re: (Score:2)
And are these "essential" apps ones that would not have been submitted to their respective app stores, if there were a $100 fee to do so? I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
are these "essential" apps ones that would not have been submitted to their respective app stores, if there were a $100 fee to do so?
I can guarantee it. $100 is nothing compared to the millions already spent in development.
I doubt it.
That's because you're out-of-touch. Ask someone under 30, as I suggested. Things have changed more than you realize.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no basis to know whether I'm out of touch or not.
Your logic makes no sense. You say that companies spend millions developing software, but they can't afford a $100 fee to submit their software to an app store. Trust me, if they can spend millions on their software, they can spend $100 on an app store submission.
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic makes no sense.
You're deeply confused.
You say that companies spend millions developing software
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
but they can't afford a $100 fee to submit their software to an app store
That is what you were claiming. Not me. I wrote: "$100 is nothing compared to the millions already spent in development." From your earlier posts:
I personally would like to see a flat fee, like say $100, for publishing an app on app stores, whether your app is free or not. Such a fee would do two things: It would eliminate this gouging, and also keep out a lot of zero-value apps that should never have been published in the first place.
[...]
Most free apps can die a slow death, they are worth exactly what you pay for them.
Which is obviously nonsense, as I've tried to explain.
Trust me, if they can spend millions on their software, they can spend $100 on an app store submission.
That's my point. Again, I wrote: "$100 is nothing compared to the millions already spent in development."
I'll take it a step further and say that $100 is nothing even when your development costs are measured in the thousands of dollars, as is the case for a
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. You thought you knew what I was saying, but you missed the entire point. A $100 fee wouldn't keep out companies who have millions to spend. But it might keep out the guy living in his parent's basement, thinking that if he just makes an app with ads, he'll get rich, or maybe become an influencer. That threshold alone would keep a lot of trash off the play stores.
Re: (Score:2)
You're ridiculous. It's not a "guy living in his parent's basement" that is flooding the app store with crap. Individuals aren't the problem, it's dedicated crapware organizations that are responsible for flooding app stores with trash. $100/app isn't going to stop them.
As for the guy in the basement, he can also afford the $100. To him, it's like buying a lottery ticket. It's not like he's producing apps so quickly that he can't cover the cost. It's a minor annoyance that isn't going to stop someone
Re: (Score:2)
People who have logical arguments, use logic when they have disagreements with others. People who don't have logical arguments, resort to insults.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not the kind of person who responds to reason. You can stop wasting my time now.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually kind of having fun wasting your time, or more precisely, enticing you to waste your own time. It's kind of like harassing telemarketers. No real benefit in doing so, but still kind of fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we know. You're a known troll. Why you're proud of that, I'll never know. Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when somebody starts spewing insults rather than engaging in debate.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally would like to see a flat fee, like say $100, for publishing an app on app stores,[...] keep out a lot of zero-value apps that should never have been published in the first place.
The solution isn't to make app stores worse! Instead of rewarding the folks who caused the problem in the first place, why not move to competing curated app stores? That neatly solves the problems, without punishing developers, and fosters healthy competition.
We could also try more traditional forms of digital distribution, like selling your app on your website. You can actually do this on non-Apple platforms, though it's (intentionally) harder than it needs to be. FirefoxOS did this right. They had a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I do agree we should have alternative, competing app stores. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
W/O App Store devs wouldn't have made millions (Score:2)