Apple would probably argue they are hosting the Tidal app for iOS/iPad OS on their store/servers and handle the subscription payments for the developer (Tidal) through your AppleID including any CC charges, but the 30% has always seemed far too much. They also have to produce a development environment for the store apps to be created I suppose, but I’d assume the same goes for Android.
While Apple’s services might be worth a charge of a few % for developers, 30% is awful. I think it’s now less if a developer earns less than a million via the store, but still.
I signed up for Tidal on their website with a 3 month trial for a few quid a few years ago, then as you know you just sign in to the iOS app with the Tidal credentials.
Of several subscriptions I have via the Apple App Store I think most are the same as signing up on the relevant website separately, so those companies are getting far less themselves due to Apple’s cut. That puts prices up for everyone I suspect.
Tidal’s approach may actually be better as if all companies just hiked the prices vs their website sign ups people would quickly desert the convenience of in-app purchases to save money which might make Apple re-consider their cut of the sale.
The biggest issue I suspect is that few people are aware that Apple takes their cut of the in-app purchase. In my case I know, perhaps should move away from such purchases but as a customer a single ID and payment system for multiple services is convenient and seems more secure/private.
Yes, I have a few legacy Audirvana versions, tried the subscription offering to support a small developer but ultimately found it far from reliable. I’m tempted to revisit at some stage.
I’d still maintain there are some differences/costs for the businesses but it’s really tinkering around the edges for the parties involved business wise.
Apple charges adding almost a 1/3 on top is as you say just profiteering, if it was 2-3% that’s something for Apple and the product providers to agree to compromise on and not pass on extra to the consumer depending on how you sign up for the service.
I don’t use Android devices, are there similar examples there?
I understand that both the Apple Store and Google Play Store take 30% from the sticker download and subscription. Both however have a reduced margin after 12 months.
Whether that’s profiteering or not would depend on the investment, which I imagine wouldn’t be inconsiderable for either business.
There is no investment, they are just processing a payment at negligible cost on behalf of Tidal and charging unsuspecting customers a massively premium for no reason.
Since we’re complaining about Tidal and their billing, I’ll share my current irritation with them.
When Tidal started offering subscriptions through Best Buy for $5 less than direct, I started a new account and migrated my music and playlists from the old account to the new one, and upgraded to their family plan.
Everything was great, for years, until Tidal decided to kill the Best Buy subscription scheme. To compensate for having to pay an extra $5 per month, they offered a month of free service, but I was forced to send new invitations to family plan members. That’s when things fell down and went boom. Anyone I sent an invitation to rejoin the family plan who had previously used a free trial with Tidal was told they couldn’t join my plan because they’d already used a free trial. These folks will need to wait until my compensatory trial is over.
Despite pointing out to Tidal that my current 30 day trial is compensation for the inconvenience and expense they were putting me to, they have proven totally unwilling to take any action to help me restore family members to the plan. To say I’m pissed is an understatement and I no longer want to pay their super high premium for a family account.
The jury is still out as to whether I’ll drop Tidal or just switch to an individual plan. Soundiiz was unable to map a number of recordings to Quobuz, but some of them I’ve found by searching slightly broader titles. The smaller the list gets, the less likely I am to keep Tidal.
Apple, the landlord, charge rental to use their shops via % commission. They pay for the design, upkeep and development of the store and without that store (software) and the actual hardware, there would be no place to make money from. Do they charge too much? that maybe open to debate but the fact that there is a charge shouldn’t be.
A retailer faces the same thing when they rent a shop from a landlord, who’ll quite happily charge the earth for rental in slightly busier locations compared to quieter ones even if the cost to them is no different. Supply, demand & free economy at work. It’s just the way it works.
We are free to withdraw our use of any service at any point in time (including Apple) and I’m with @Aoxomoxoa with his decision on Tidal. To not cancel would be to endorse Tidals decision to do what they’re doing.
If software developers are unhappy they can also pull out of the App Store but ultimately, they’d lose a lot of money that they make only because of what Apple themselves have built.
The service provided by Apple in making the Tidal app available through their app store is no different to the service it provides to countless free apps, which users can download without charge. The Tidal app can also be downloaded without charge. It’s only if you then use Apple to sign up for a Tidal sub instead of going to Tidal’s own website that you are charged extra, and what you get for that extra payment is precisely nothing. The arrangement lacks transparency, and is only used by people who are unaware that they are paying a higher rate by using this route.
If you seriously believe that there are some costs incurred by Apple that make this additional charge justified you are welcome to use it if you wish to swell their already vast coffers even more. It seems a bit far fetched, though, to suggest that it costs Apple £2 more than it costs Tidal just to process each regular monthly payment, because to the user that is the only difference between the two signup methods.
The additional costs are the R&D costs and years of development that would have cost millions of dollars plus server costs for storing and delivering many thousands of apps. The platform doesn’t just happen.
They’ll happily allow people to give something away for free where they don’t make any money but if they are selling software on the back of Apples development over the years then I think it is reasonable to expect to be charged for that. How much should they charge is the question and that the user should be made aware of the options available, i.e. going direct to Tidal.
I thought it was reasonably clear that I was suggesting that the Apple Store and Google Play stores and related infrastructure is a considable investment, but apparently not.
You’re not paying for any service provided by Apple here, the Tidal app can be downloaded for free just like any other app. The only difference is that you sign up for the sevice via Apple. You can’t seriously expect Tidal users to pay a premium in order to subsidise wider use of the App Store by free apps, and even if you could you would expect transparency about the fact that there is an additional charge and the reason behind it.
I’m surprised you don’t understand why Apple charge commission. Mind, when you say, “You’re not paying for any service provided by Apple here” explains a lot.
What do you think the App Store is if it’s not a service? It show cases apps to billions of people across the world without any outlay from the developer. It costs millions of pounds a year to maintain and expand. The storage, electricity to power the server farms, bandwidth for the traffic and then all the staff to maintain the hardware, check and approve the apps before they go up for sale all needs to be paid for. It sounds very much like a service to me.
If you charge an up front fee for free apps, you’d drastically reduce the number of apps available which of course impacts on the content available to users.
Of course, if Tidal don’t like it they don’t have to submit the app to the App Store but, they know the power and reach of that service and they’d be crazy not too!
It’s an interesting discussion as when it comes to subscription services the parties are effective symbiotes.
Without a software platform and hardware to sell subscription services to the masses the subscription services would be unlikely to have much traction, and without the services provided on these platforms they would be considerably less useful and probably less successful/profitable.
I assume this is partly why so many TVs are now Smart TVs - on the face of it nice for the consumer not to have to buy various STBs, but for the hardware manufacturer be it Samsung, LG, Sony etc providing access to services must make them some money if you sign-up via the TV.
A-Fin and I are recognising the investment in the eco-system Apple have made and you are specifically looking at the incremental cost of proving an additional service (like Tidal for eg but you could use the arguments for any other service).
Regardless, Tidal on an Apple device (and the recurring subs as a result) would not exist without Apples in investment in their devices, operating system, maintenance, etc, etc.
Sure, that may not justify a 30% premium, but that’s not what either A-Fin or I were trying to do.
Sure, but my point is that if you pay your Tidal sub on Tidal’s website you still make just as much use of Apple’s services as you would if you paid via Apple. So the only service Apple have provided is to process a payment. That is a one-off process and the cost of such a payment these days is very low. It clearly doesn’t cost £2 a month more for Apple to process this payment that it does Tidal. I would guess that the cost is the same, give or take a fraction of a penny.