Question for everyone who thinks Spotify owes Apple: is your argument then that Apple should get rid of the ‘reader’ app category and kick any app off the store that doesn’t include IAP (with a cut of that IAP going to Apple)? Should Netflix, Spotify, Kindle etc. be thrown out of the App Store because they don’t offer IAP and aren’t paying Apple anything (outside of the developer fee)?
For the record, I don't think Spotify owes Apple. So my next point is - do you want an answer that is right, or do you want an answer that's rooted in ideology?
US anti-trust law is very clear. Businesses have no duty to deal with third parties, even if they are monopolies (as such, I am not going to bother discussing whether Apple is a monopoly or not. I maintain that it isn't, many people are convinced that Apple demonstrated monopolistic tendencies, it's irrelevant to my point). Furthermore, if these businesses choose to deal with third parties, they can choose the terms on which to do so (like charging developers 50%, or even 70%). The key exception is if the monopoly changes the rules in an unprofitable way to drive out competitors, or changes access to after-market parts and services.
Apple has done neither. That's why they priced Apple Music at the same amount as Spotify, when they could easily have undercut Spotify and driven them out of business. Is it unfair that Apple Music is preinstalled on every Apple device and Apple doesn't have to pay 30%? Maybe, but again, nothing has changed. Likewise, Apple has never made their repair parts available to third parties, so they can't exactly be sued in this manner either.
This means that yes, Apple is well within their rights to tell Spotify that they are free to remove their app from the App Store if they are not happy with Apple's pricing policies. Policies which have been in place since the inception of the App Store, and which have only gotten more lenient with time, not worse. Apps like Netflix, Spotify and Kindle are not obligated to be in the App Store, so in this regard, I will argue that they need Apple more than Apple needs them. In the absence of Spotify, chances are that another music streaming service would have been launched to take its place, or Apple could have launch their own (and they did).
This is also why Apple was always destined to win their lawsuit against Epic, because it was Epic who violated the terms of their agreement first, not Apple.
So yes, by a strict reading of Apple's App Store policies, these companies are supposed to allow users to sign up within the app. That's what led to the whole drama with the Hey and Wordpress apps a few years back. That's why the "reader" app exception exists. Because these companies didn't want to be paying Apple 30% of subscription revenue, but at the same time, Apple wasn't prepared to go all the way of kicking them off the App Store, because it would just be a worse experiences for users.
Let’s say I buy a carbonated drink maker appliance at Target. Let’s say Target gets a percentage of the sale (or the appliance maker pays Target for the shelf space). But let’s say this drink maker offers a subscription service for drink flavorings or Co2 cartridges. Should you only be allowed to sign up for that subscription service inside Target so Target can get a cut? Or once you take the appliance home is Target out of the picture?
It really depends on how the manufacturer argues his case.
The way IAPs are structured on iOS appears to draw a distinction between digital and physical goods. That's why a subscription to Fantastical would incur a 30% cut to Apple (15% from the 2nd year onwards), while groceries purchased via the amazon app don't.
I understand why Apple did it (ease of collecting payment), I don't quite agree, but my proposed solution (to charge based on the marginal cost of the product, which was in turn suggested by Ben Thomson, author of Stratechery, is also demonstrably much more complex to apply). Another possible alternative (suggested by John Gruber) is to only charge games 30% (since those make up the bulk of App Store revenue collected anyways) and leave every other app alone. This would do away with the need for reader app exceptions, and allow companies like Amazon to let users purchase ebooks within the kindle app while still keep 100% of revenue. A win for everyone.
So in your scenario, a case can be made that the user could be allowed to subscribe to a recurring subscription for say, coffee pods to be delivered to one's house from within the app linked to the appliance, and the manufacturer shouldn't need to pay Apple a cent, because it involves the delivery of physical goods (which also incurs a fairly high marginal cost of production) not consumed on one's mobile device.
Are you aware of any such precedences? Genuinely curious.
