Slashdot Mirror

Spotify can have their app in the iOS app store and not use Apple's payment system.

Spotify is claiming that Apple did not allow their update to do just this. The article you referenced about Apple's response (thanks, again) did not state otherwise. In fact, it stated:

“Shortly after Spotify submitted its app on May 26, our team identified a number of issues, including that the In-App Purchase feature had been removed and replaced with an account sign-up feature clearly intended to circumvent Apple’s In-App Purchase rules,” Sewell explains.

So they were rejected for removing the in-app purchases and allowing users to create a free account to browse the content they can pay to stream? Neither of those are violations of Apple's terms and Apple is stretching with their "intent" statement.

Spotify submitted a new version which continued to ask users for an email address in order to invite them to sign up for a subscription via the web interface at $9.99 per month while simultaneously jacking up in-app subscription price to $12.99.

Apple's terms dictate that they can not state this within the app itself but place no such restrictions on external advertising, such as email. Additionally, Spotify did not "jack up" the price from $9.99 to $12.99 in the app, they've always charged that price. They pay out 70% of revenue in royalties based on a $9.99/mo subscription; what's left after Apple takes the other 30%? They charge more through the iOS app so they can have some revenue to pay their employees, pay for servers and bandwidth, and keep the lights on.

For example, every large chain grocery store has it's own "branded" food alongside regular 3rd party products, which significantly disadvantages 3rd party products.

There's so much wrong with that statement and it doesn't apply here for so many reasons. Where to start? ...

First of all, Spotify is paying Apple for inclusion in their store (developer fees), whereas grocery stores pay for the items on their shelves, whether they sell or not. Do I need to go on? Let me know; I can if necessary.

Do you actually believe Spotifiy doesn't make far more than 20% profit on their rates?

Spotify pays out 70% of revenue. Then, they, have to pay their employees, pay for servers and bandwidth, and keep the lights on. Their margins are very, very slim.

Not to mention that you forget higher profits through increased sales.

Increased sales do not affect margins; more sales at a loss is just a bigger loss.

IOW it is possible, others do it, but somehow Spotify fucked up and it's Apple's fault.

Yes, it's possible and others do it; Apple is not allowing Spotify to do it, but that does not necessarily indicate that Spotify fucked up.

You always take a dump onto these pages every time you post here - fine that you finally admit it.

:) I was literally sitting on the toilet taking my morning dump. Funny, though.

So you ignored everything you wrote? Good idea. Bye

Your post, not my quotes therein.

The lack of points against (or even mention of) the legal facts and opinions I presented is very telling, indeed.

Artists get their share from total income and free tier income is much lower (only advertisement). Free tier then push down price per stream, see https://thetrichordist.com/2015/09/03/spotify-per-stream-rates-continue-to-drop-00408-more-free-users-less-money-per-stream/. But in general, if there is free tier, it is sufficient for many users and they have little need for paid tier. It is hard to compete with free, especially when Spotify will get their 30% no matter what. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#how-we-pay-royalties-overview

Spotify explain their revenue-model and payout-model here.

Spotify pays 70% of its revenue to rights holders. They also include a chart on their site which shows royalties paid per million listens when compared to radio and other streaming services.

Spotify pays 70% of its revenue to rights holders. They also include a chart on their site which shows royalties paid per million listens when compared to radio and other streaming services.

If a recording artist is his own label, how would he go about getting his music onto FM or satellite radio or onto the playlists of popular Internet streaming music providers, such as Pandora, Spotify, and foreign counterparts?

Information for artists submitting to Pandora

Information for artists submitting to Spotify

Getting your music on iTunes

In short, that depends on the service they want their music on. Different services have different procedures.

And how should a songwriter make sure that he didn't accidentally copy parts of a popular song when writing his own?

As you so helpfully pointed out, they don't/can't always. The human mind is prone to subconscious influence; there's no way around that.

RIAA-affiliated labels add value through promotion and through their affiliated music publishers.

True, although it's debatable whether the value that they add is greater than the cost that they impose. The artists that they promote are like lottery winners: the lucky few that you can point to as indicators that the system is beneficial to artists and the public as a whole. In a nutshell, they're a great example of a selection bias.