It's also not just APIs. I would argue more importantly, Apple has cultivated a platform with the most affluent users. Otherwise Spotify wouldn't care if they were on the minority platform in the EU. Apple's argument is the work they have done to get high paying users on the iOS platform is worth something to people who want to sell to that group.

What work have they done differently than Android / Google that brings the higher paying users to the platform ?

I am not sure you could find a clear line between the work they've done and the outcome of having high paying customers

It's a great question. Clear lines are always hard, but something has differentiated the two. And it may be less about what Apple has done, and more that Google is not a very good product company.

IMO, having used both platforms, Apple hardware and ecosystem/platform works better for me. /shrug

Spotify's app is free to download, and iOS users cannot buy a subscription to Spotify on the app. I don't understand your argument.

I find this argument kind of ridiculous - yes, app developers (such as Spotify) bring value proposition to Apple's products by being available on the platform. But, apps (such as Spotify) probably wouldn't exist and wouldn't have access to the immense value of an App Store and its tooling if Apple didn't exist.

Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.

What is the value again? Hosting software that can be downloaded?

Apple could just charge for services rendered, ie downloads, rather than a flat fee.

As Matwood pointed out in a sibling comment, the real value of being on the App Store is the ecosystem of highly affluent consumers that Apple has cultivated.

Which has would be worthless without apps like Spotify. Do you also think that Apple is entitled to 30% of anything bought with their browser? Should Microsoft be entitled to the same on windows and their browser?

If the Appstore is so good Apple should not be worried about competition by allowing side loading or alternative Appstores.

You could flip that argument around and say that Spotify might have been worthless without the App Store to grow their userbase. I don't actually subscribe to that viewpoint myself, but I do think many on HN take the benefits of publishing on the App Store for granted.

> Should Microsoft be entitled to the same on windows and their browser?

I don't know, maybe? I'm sure people would riot if they tried it now, but if Microsoft had set that precedent from the start would we be here discussing this today?

I am just going to flip this argument to put things in perspective and add a bit of contrast.

-----

What is the value again? Playing music?

Spotify could just charge for services rendered, ie number of hours played, rather than a flat fee.

You could, and any other music service could compete with Spotify on pricing. The difference here is that Apple also compete with Spotify with their own music service while they also want a 30% cut on Spotifys income.

And Apple would still demand 30% of it. Not sure how Spotify's fee structure has anything to do with Apple's fans' arguments that they're totally not behaving anticompetitively.

The iPhone also wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the apps on the App Store.

Apps wouldn't exist without the immense value delivered by all the Apple tooling on the iPhone.

The first iPhone had no App Store. All "third party" apps (Google Maps, Youtube) were made by Apple in partnership.

> Luckily, by custom there is another solution - respect each other boundaries and stop acting like whiny little children.

So where does the Apple Music subscription entering the market to compete with Spotify (which came first), without having to pay itself 30%, nor being prevented from advertising how to subscribe in the first place, fit in to that narrative?

For any interesting market that props up on the App Store, Apple is free to: start by extracting 30% from everything in said market; then, develop its own competing product at a technical advantage (with access to private APIs) and a comercial advantage (avoiding said 30% fees); and, finally, bundle and market the shit out of their own thing, all the while restricting other's marketing (with steering and MFN rules).

And according to some people, this is all perfectly fine behaviour, by Apple standards.

> I find this argument kind of ridiculous - yes, access to Apple's APIs does bring value to its app developers, but crucially, the app developers increase the value proposition of Apple's product by being available on the platform.

And yet, in retail, it's common for product brands to pay for shelf space. There's a recognition that the place users are, is worth paying to be in.

Meanwhile, Steam shows what just the storefront part of such a platform should cost a developer, and interestingly, that open market price is higher than Apple's ask.

Which is a fair argument if Apple allows competing app stores.

This is a weird argument. Apple released a functionally comparable product to Spotify with about $2b of investment in Beats. Only one company on the planet has been able to create a functionally comparable product to iPhone, and that’s stretching the definition and required huge expense.

It’s pretty clear that Spotify’s value add to Apple is tiny while the reverse is much larger.

Spotify wouldn’t have a business in the counter-factual world where they were never allowed in App Store, while Apple Music would clearly exist. Their business model innovation was fairly limited; streaming music services began in the late 90s.

It’s a symbiotic relationship but not a symmetrical one. In the beginning Apple needed the devs more than vice versa, but now it’s definitely the other way around.

Note the “more” part, it’s still a symbiotic relationship.

Apple couldn’t have made the iPhone successful without third party devs, but it’s doubtful Spotify could’ve been as successful as they are without access to the iPhone.

As an app developer for iOS myself I can say that Apple’s frameworks have been invaluable to me, especially the improvements and additions in the last few years have significantly made my work easier.

Not only that, because overtime I’ve become friends with some of the engineers that work on them, I also know how much time and money goes into them, at least on an individual engineer level.

So it seems fair to me that Apple gets paid for their IP. But I’m not interested in paying huge fees upfront like what was common when developing for game consoles, nor am I interested in paying potentially huge fees like the CTF.

To me, the best option is a revenue based commission. When I do well, Apple does well, but when I don’t I won’t owe Apple anything. This also motivates them to keep investing in frameworks, because with good frameworks I can make better and more successful apps, which then benefit them.

It also allows me to take risks and try out new things or even give away my work for free.

Personally I was already happy with 30% and that’s what I signed up for at the time. The 15% I pay now is of course even better, but it’s not like I passed on those savings to my customers. If I ever get so successful that I hit $1m in revenue then I’ll be more than happy to pay the 30%, because I will have been successful in part because of the tools provided by them. Or put differently, that success will be in part a consequence of what happened before I hit $1m, when I was still paying the 15%.

I’ve got friends that have launched their apps on Android as well, but those earnings are a rounding error compared to their iOS earnings and their apps are heavily being pirated on Android.

I can’t quantify what it is that Apple does different that it entices customers to spend money on apps (other than the lack of piracy perhaps), but it’d be silly to pretend like it doesn’t benefit developers to a degree that it warrants Apple getting something in return for that, in addition to the tool-based justification.