More specifically, Apple started competing in that specific service domain. Apple wasn't into streaming business but, saw Spotify and entered with a 30% price advantage.

I am wondering - how can Apple be non competitive here? I mean if they charge 30% that money will end up back in their own pockets.

By not forcing Spotify to use apple for the payments? By not saying "You aren't allowed to tell people to pay on your site"?

I don"t think Apple is forcing Spotify to use Apple for payments. The "you are not allowed to tell" seems to be a relatively new thing.

You are forced to use Apple for payments. It's entirely stupid to say "well you don't have to let users pay in the app". Every single user expects to be able to pay by credit card on their phone - the phone is a bloody computer. Imagine if your desktop PC only allowed payments via a Microsoft service that charged the application developer 30%. This would NEVER happen, as the very concept is absolutely ridiculous.

There is no technical reason to not allow an app developer to use an alternative like Stripe as their payment processor. Apple tries to sugarcoat it by using phrases like "seamless integration" for end users, never having to enter their credit card number. The reality is, it has nothing to do with user experience. It is 100% about getting that 30%. Nothing else.

I accept a certain level of a walled garden by buying into the Apple ecosystem. I absolutely do not condone charging developers 30% for payment processing. I buy apps from the store, and developers get shafted just for that. I have never, and will never, perform an in-app purchase without first checking whether I can pay the company directly. I don't care if it's $9.99 in-app, and $9.99 on an external web site. I will ensure that I pay outside the app whenever possible. The problem is that the majority of users do not do this. And they shouldn't have to.

It really hurts the user experience sometimes. Kindle books are an example I hit a lot. Amazon can't do purchases in the app without using Apple's in-app purchase system, which would likely cause Amazon to sell at a loss. They also can't even link to their web site, which of course still allows payments even on the phone. So if I want to buy a book, I have to manually go out of the Kindle app, into Safari, go to Amazon, find the book I'm interested in, purchase it, then go back to the Kindle app and hope it synced. If Apple would be less idiotic here, I could be done with one touch.

And of course Apple has iBooks and doesn't have to worry about losing money on each sale because of a 30% transaction fee.

Apple does impose 30% on all services. Just ask Dropbox, or Amazon.

You are arguing that Walmart shouldn't sell their own brand of soda because it charges Pepsi some percentage to sell theirs.

Ridiculous.

Really, where does Amazon use any Apple payment service?

They don't, because of Apple's 30%. That is the point, everybody is getting the same treatment, some accept it, some do not.

Spotify is now doing the same thing Amazon does with their digital services, so why is Spotify running into trouble?

I don't know as I do not have all the facts, or any context other than what Spotify is claiming. I think they should not be in trouble if what they are doing is the same thing Amazon is. I'm also of the opinion that Apple should get rid of the rule that prevents companies from advertising other forms of payment inside the app.

I was just responding to the original comment that made an incredibly childish argument agains the owner of a store not being able to compete with products from other companies.

Really, childish? You don't have to agree, but no way was that "childish."

Ok. I don't agree. The original argument described literally how every other store (specially big chains) in the world works.