It’s really a case of buyer beware, like with so many things. We bought a Crit Air sticker for our car, for driving in France. We bought it direct for virtually nothing, but there are other sites where you pay a lot more because they ‘help’ you. Which of course they don’t and it’s just as easy to buy direct.
1 Like
Apologies if this is a stupid question (I don’t use Tidal), but what happens in, say, February? If you are billed on January 31st, is your next bill on March 2nd, assuming it’s not a leap year.
1 Like
The reason tidal use app/play store is it guarantees their customers are using the most up-to-date app. Therefore reducing number of customers contacting them with a problem.
Benefit for the customer is access to a guaranteed genuine bonafide virus free latest version of the app.
Sorry, I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. They’re free to not use the App Store… as in, to not make an iPhone app and to rely on other Market Places or, direct via their own marketing and website.
If a company wishes to create and deliver an iPhone App and reach millions of potential new customers that use iPhones etc, then they are required to submit the app to Apple for delivery via the App Store and they’re obliged to follow the T&Cs that apply including commission rate.
The sticking point for many will be the 30% commission. However, working in the creative / media industry I would love it if the agencies I deal with only took 30%. Companies that build, store and sell media on you behalf often take anything up to 70%. Some take even more.
Most people reading websites, magazines or watching TV etc see images and footage and probably don’t realise how little money the photographers and illustrators receive for each use. But most people rarely care or give it a second thought. In fact, I’d bet there are a large proportion of people who happily take images from the internet and use them without permission or any payment.
So, I can appreciate the concern about the 30% commission but in reality, it ain’t that bad when you consider the amounts other creatives get (visual and musical).
2 Likes
I wasn’t disagreeing with your post.
I was pointing out an additional reason why companies would use the app store. 
1 Like
Another benefit as a developer, as well as the one you mentioned, is that you can focus 100% on your product and not worry about marketing or logistics. Once the app is keyworded and delivered, just like images etc, you can get back to the next update while the agency (App Store) takes care of the rest.
1 Like
Yes, that’s right.
It is indeed a case of buyer beware, as there is no mention on Apple’s App Store of a surcharge, but why would anyone expect there to be? I’m only aware if it because people have occasionally complained about it here over the last few years.
I agree, but there are more important things to worry about. Who would expect their poo to end up in the sea when they flush the loo? Who would expect the water companies to prioritise dividends over fixing leaks?
3 Likes
I thought alternative marketplaces aren’t possible with iOS, unlike Android ? So companies don’t actually have that option, and it’s Apple Store or not at all.
1 Like
You’re correct you can’t and that’s what I’m saying. If a company wants to reach iPhone users then they have to use the App Store which means they have to follow Apple T&Cs and commission etc or don’t and miss out on selling to iPhone users. They can’t have their cake and eat it (so to say). They use the service and pay for it or they don’t.
Some companies only supply one or the other (Android / Apple) and some use neither and just focus on their own app (Mac/PC) distributed by their own website or use Webpage / IP address solutions. It’ll come down to features and how many customers you want to reach
You don’t need an iOS or Android device to sign up for, or use Tidal. How can either of them have a monopoly on anything other than the iOS or Android apps themselves?
1 Like
Same is true for consumers. I really struggle to understand why so many (1/5th of all smartphone users) are happy to give up all freedom and allow themselves to be locked in.
I guess it depends on individual needs. I’ve used and enjoyed both systems but use apple now for the integration between work computers, iPhone and watch for fitness and control of the smart home gear.
If, like @Aoxomoxoa, they were to cross a line in terms of cost and usability then I’d look for alternatives. I’ve done it before with software suppliers and would do it again. People can only be pushed so far before they take a stand.
2 Likes
That’s true. To download the app from the Apple App Store is free to the user. If you subscribe through the app it’s £13.99 per “month”; if you instead subscribe through the Tidal web site (i.e not via Apple) it’s £10.99 for the same service, which you can use with the app too. There must be some reason why Tidal don’t make you aware of the cheaper alternative when you go to sign up via the app. Maybe there’s an Apple regulation that prevents it.
I believe that until recently Apple sought to prevent any subscription to content delivered via an app from the App Store, except via them. But this was basically monopolistic behaviour and I think they had to adapt their policies to avoid a competition authorities investigation.
1 Like
Apple cannot realistically have a monopoly on payment processing charges (which are the only possible explanation for their higher pricing other than pure opportunism) because a Tidal subscription is not specific to iOS or OSX. Imagine Linux or Windows computer users being told they had to pay Apple £2 a month for the privilege of using Tidal on their devices!
If Apple wanted to charge users to download apps from their App Store, and/or use them on their hardware, of course they would be entitled to do so, but they don’t. If they tried, people could just use web players instead, and surely nobody thinks that even Apple would try to charge users to access websites on Safari, let alone Firefox or Chrome.
Apple simply charge for subscriptions and purchases made via your Apple ID and their App Store. The subscription is then managed through your Apple ID. Apple take the payment and pass it on to the service provider/publisher. It’s very efficient and user friendly but does come at a cost. It’s up to the publisher whether they pass that cost on to their customers. Tidal choose to do so.
As there is often the possibility of purchasing software and subscribing direct from the publisher’s web site, not involving Apple and not incurring these fees, I don’t mind this as it’s my choice.
Conversely, I have a newspaper subscription through the app store, which is cheaper than subscribing direct from the publishers web site. I don’t understand this.
2 Likes
You seem to have some issue with Apple but I really don’t see the problem here.
Setup subscription via Tidal website, download the IOS app (free). You’re not charged to download the app from the App Store… you download it for free and you’re presented with the option to login or sign up. Sign in with the credentials from the Tidal website and you’re done… you don’t need to pay Apple anything to use the app.
If the user decides to signup in app “In App Purchase”, then the payment goes to Apple before going to Tidal. Apple manage the payment from the customer, through their client accounts, which most likely will require a currency conversion to $ beforehand, and is then sent to Tidal. At that point Apple can charge what they like because you’re using their service. Don’t like it, sign up directly… Job done.
3 Likes
For balance, probably worth mentioning that the Apple App scheme can work very well for some Apps, as you pay once, but can then run it on all your devices. Swings and roundabouts.