Apple Slams Spotify For Asking For 'Preferential Treatment' (buzzfeed.com)

On Thursday, Spotify made major accusations against Apple of playing unfair to its music service. The Swedish-based music company said that Apple didn't approve a new version of Spotify's iOS app because "it didn't want competition for Apple Music." The Cupertino-based company has responded to the accusations. In a letter sent to Spotify general counsel Horacio Gutierrez on Friday, Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell rebutted the streaming music service's allegations, adding "we find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service," Sewell wrote. BuzzFeed News reports:"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor," Sewell explains. "Ironically, it is now Spotify that wants things to be different by asking for preferential treatment from Apple." And as for Spotify's suggestion that Apple is treading on dangerous, anticompetitive ground, well, Sewell doesn't seem too concerned. "There is nothing in Apple's conduct that 'amounts to a violation of applicable antitrust laws.' Far from it," Sewell, writes after wryly observing that not only has Apple's platform generated "hundreds of millions of dollars in incremental revenue to Spotify"; but that the Spotify App currently in the App Store is still in violation of Apple's guidelines. "I would be happy to facilitate an expeditious review and approval of your app as soon as you provide us with something that is compliant with the App Store's rules," he quips.Apple commentator John Gruber, writing for DaringFireball:Cry me a river. Spotify has long charged $12.99 via in-app subscriptions to get around the 30 percent "App Store tax". And Apple has now cut the long-term subscription split from 70-30 to 85-15. And Spotify is the streaming service most at war with artists over their abysmal royalty rates. Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass.

Comments

Comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is evil! Spotify is a whiner! Blah blah blah blah blah! I can't wait.

We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our screwy guidelines apply equally to all app developers. . .

Emphasis added.

But hey, "equally", so its all good.

Re:We screw everyone.

[__aaclcg7560]

As the hangman told the black guy on the gallows in Blazing Saddles, "Everyone is equal in my eyes."

Re:We screw everyone.

[dgatwood]

Our screwy guidelines apply equally to all app developers except us. . .

Emphasis added.

Statement autocompleted.

Apple doesn't have to pay their exorbitant percentage to somebody else. Therefore, even though their app is pedantically following the same rules, they're paying money to themselves, which means they are not, in any meaningful way, in the same position as third-party vendors. This is open-and-shut anticompetitive behavior by Apple. They're competing directly against other App Store vendors, and have given themselves preferential treatment. So those vendors should get special treatment to alleviate this serious antitrust violation. Anything short of that is quite likely to be per se illegal.

And Apple's General Counsel should know this, which means he is deliberately distorting reality with his letter. I can only assume that this means Apple is not just violating the law, but willfully violating the law, which means treble damages. Enjoy your lawsuit, Cupertino.

Re:We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.. That percentage is there to pay apple for the development and operation of the app store ecosystem. Apple is paying for that ecosystem every day in the form of developer salaries and massive infrastructure costs. To suggest that Apple gets to use the app store for free is one of the silliest things I have ever seen. It is like complaining about Microsoft not paying for Windows licenses. The only rational response to your argument is the equally silly comment of "Well why doesn't spotify just go make their own fucking massively popular smart phone and app store ecosystem?"

Re:We screw everyone.

[angel'o'sphere]

Erm, from what planet are you that you think you know so much about law on earth?

The main problem with streaming is: having the rights to stream the music.

And why the funk should Spottify not pay the 15% cut everyone pays for subscriptions sold via the App?

I'm pretty sure Apples App Store, pun intended, is run by a different company than Apple Inc. aka AAPL so good luck in court with your idiotic standpoint.

Re:We screw everyone.

[danaris]

I'm pretty sure Apples App Store, pun intended, is run by a different company than Apple Inc. aka AAPL so good luck in court with your idiotic standpoint.

I'm pretty sure you're woefully uninformed on this.

To the best of my knowledge, Apple doesn't muck about with subsidiaries for all the different stuff they do. Selling computers, making operating systems, selling music downloads, selling apps, and selling music streaming subscriptions all fall within Apple Inc., whose stock ticker symbol is indeed AAPL.

Dan Aris

Re:We screw everyone.

[saloomy]

Horse shit. You clearly need a refresher-course in Anti-Competitive behavior. See here.

Or for those of you are lazy:
Section 1: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"

That is the original text of the Sherman Act. The law that basically makes it illegal to monopolize a market by position. Apple do not have this position. Android is a larger OS by market share, which Apple can not influence. If Apple and Google decided to divvy up the music streaming business that would be a violation and an effective duopoly, but that is not the case here.

Apple does have costs associated with running the App store, and they have disproportionally levied fees on payments in order to subsidize their costs to provide the App Store services to free apps. Thank goodness they have, since most small developers can not afford:

1. A real quality control department. The review process keeps many bugs out of the App Store. Not all, but most.

2. Shady, shitty, data steeling apps.

3. Apps infested with spyware, malware, etc... etc...

4. The infrastructure to support updates, discovery, sales channels, a user-review solution...
the list goes on....

If the benefits of the App Store didn't make it worth-while for app developers, the App Store would be pretty barren of apps. Its not. Apple do not have a monopoly on phones, phone OS's, and therefore can not have a monopoly on anything contained therein.

Mr. Sewell is right.

Re:We screw everyone.

[dgatwood]

That percentage is there to pay apple for the development and operation of the app store ecosystem. Apple is paying for that ecosystem every day in the form of developer salaries and massive infrastructure costs.

Uh, no. Apple distributes free apps for free whether they offer in-app purchases or not. Apple gets rewarded for that by people buying hardware for which there are lots of apps available. Therefore, it is entirely nonsensical to suggest that because an app is tied to a subscription service, that Apple somehow deserves a cut of those services solely because they provided the ability to download an app that consumes those services.

And that argument fundamentally falls apart for another reason: The only reason Spotify is distributed by Apple is because Apple will not allow companies to distribute their own apps. Therefore those costs of distributing the app via the App Store are entirely Apple's decision, forced upon Spotify by Apple, not the other way around. Apple doesn't get to dictate that everyone must use their distribution mechanism, and then turn around and claim that because other folks used their distribution mechanism, suddenly they owe Apple a percentage of their income in perpetuity. I understand that Apple wants that, but it certainly isn't owed to them.

Frankly, this is a bit like Ford changing the gasoline filler connector and requiring every gas station to use their special filler, then demanding a percentage of the cost of every gallon of gas pumped through that nozzle. The fact that anybody puts up with it from Apple is, frankly, amazing, and there's a reason most of the major players have chosen to present an unfriendly login screen with no hints of how to get an account, rather than giving up a huge chunk of their revenue to a company that has done basically nothing to earn a huge chunk of their monthly revenue.

And most of the big companies that haven't been non-user-friendly about it (e.g. Facebook) have gotten permission from Apple to ignore that part of the App Store rules. Yeah, Facebook takes credit cards for Ad purchasing right in the app. No in-app purchases. This makes Apple's position even more legally tenuous, IMO, because they'll make exceptions for Facebook, but won't make exceptions for a company whose services are in direct competition with an Apple-branded service. Danger, Will Robinson!

To suggest that Apple gets to use the app store for free is one of the silliest things I have ever seen.

It is not free, but it is nearly free. The proportional costs for Apple Music's use of the store (payment system) are negligible. Realistically, because Apple aggregates billing for multiple services and gets preferential treatment for being such a huge vendor with such a low charge reversal rate, I'd imagine their cost for operating the billing system is less than 2% of the cost of the subscription. The difference between that number and 30% (or even 15%) represents a major competitive advantage.

Re:We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even RTFA? Spotify is attempting to remove the ability to subscribe to their service from the app altogether and Apple is bitching about not being able to get a cut. Never mind that Facebook, Amazon and Netflix, to name a few, don't have to abide by this non-existent rule that if you offer subscriptions you must offer the ability to subscribe in the app.

Re: We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so wrong on this one

Re: We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

15% is on 1year renewals, and also Apple implemented after they first had a tiff over pricing.

More fair would be 30% on first month/payment, 15% thereafter.

Re:We screw everyone.

[garote]

Another day, another distorted car analogy.
No, this is not like a car manufacturer charging for gas "passed through their nozzle".
Apple's app store has become a victim of its own success, in a way, because it has made the process of app distribution on their hardware so effortless for the end user that it is now widely assumed to be trivial.

It has also vastly simplified the process for the developer as well. I know I'm going to get flak for saying this from developers with short memories, but it is true. In the worst (hardest) case you were distributing boxes on store shelves containing stamped CDs - which you then had to support through other means. In the best (easiest) case you were distributing a shareware download on a website, and begging your users for purchases like a street performer with a hat on the sidewalk. Either way your profits were undercut by rampant software piracy. Let me emphasize that - _RAMPANT_ software piracy.

The benefits to Apple's app distribution channel - as well as in the way they control that channel - are not to be dismissed as a mere "nozzle".

Instead of a car analogy, I prefer to use one of a movie theater: The iPhone is a theatre, and your app is a movie that the user wants to see. Apple's app store is the doorway, the cash register, the security guard, and ticket taker at the head of the line. You - the developer - bring them your 'movie', and they hand you back a cut of the ticket sales. There are other movie theaters - like the Android one down the road - but when you bring them your 'movie', they give you back less money than you expected, because in addition to the front doors and the cash register, they also have a number of back doors, as well as a few tunnels under the property, and their security guard doesn't pay much - or any - attention to these.

I find this a much better analogy to understand some of the requirements of running a good app store. It also provides a different context for interpreting the case made in TFA, which in terms of the analogy is something like this:

Let's say the movie theater chain is also in the business of making movies. They put their own stuff up on the marquee next to yours, and since they are a big business with good revenue, they can spend a lot of money on these movies, and even sell tickets to see them for less than the cost of a regular ticket, because they are able to balance the books by counting profit from the concession stand, and their cut of the ticket sold for your movie, as well as their own movies. You couldn't call it abuse of a monopoly, because there is clearly no monopoly in movie theaters. In fact, the competing Android chain is massive compared to the Apple one, since they operate through franchise agreements. But in spite of this size difference, and the competition with Apple's own movies, you consistently get more revenue back from distributing your movie in the Apple theater. People don't mind going through the front door - because they're a different clientele, attracted by the cleanliness of the auditoriums, the unobtrusive security, the efficiency of the cash registers, and the consistently better quality of the movies they see, thanks in no small part to Apple's own self-financed movies that are ostensibly competing directly with yours.

So here's the interesting question: Are those movies competing directly with yours? Hard to say. If you believe that a community has a fixed amount of money they will spend on movies, and the competition is only over who claims the larger slice of that pie, then yes. If you believe that a community's spending on movies is influenced in large part by the quality of their previous movie-going experiences, then - not exactly. There are interesting issues of supply versus demand going on here. The worst outcome would be if Apple financed really crappy movies, and then drove away their patrons (and yours) by overselling them, decreasing the size of the movie-going audience.

An interesting situation? Yes. Stiff c

Re: We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Streaming music apps in an app store are nothing like movies in a theater. The amount of money I'll spend on streaming music *is* fixed because I'm not going to subscribe to two services concurrently.

Re:We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy fails too. Your analogy assumes that everyone can just pick and choose which theatre they want to goto when a better analogy would be that the consumers have already bought seats that cost hundreds of times more then the cost of viewing a movie and it is very impractical for consumers to purchase multiple seats to enjoy multiple theatres. These consumers are therefore locked into visiting one particular theatre so if you want to have your movie available to those locked-in consumers, you are at the mercy of the whims of the theatre owner.

Your Safeway analogy fails as well. Pasta sauce manufacturers use ingredients that are pretty much generic (a tomato from Bob's farm is pretty much the same as a tomato from Jill's farm). Music streaming services on the other hand are pulling from a limited source of "ingredients" (a song from Bob's band is not the same as a song from Jill's band) and are often fighting for exclusivity for each source. Let us say that 1c per subscription pays for one artist's music. An extra 300c is enough for 300 more artists which maybe the difference between having consumers want your service over another who has to pay you another 300c per subscriber to enter the market (on top of their own artist costs). The more subscribers you pull from your competition, the more money you have to sign exclusive deals with artists (you could even start offering double the money to steal artists away from competing services). Before you know it, you have signed all the artists that the competing services had and have stolen all their subscribers, all because you had the ability to add an extra 30% of their operating costs...

My question is, with Spotify, it appears that you pay for a subscription to listen to ad-free music on multiple devices (but only one device at a time). Why is Spotify not just pointing users to their website to pay for their subscription and just distributing the app as end point software and having the user login with their username and password. If the users are not paying through the app then Apple has no right at all to demand Spotify to use their payment services.

Re:We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has a monopoly on the iDevice software market. It is their market position that is allowing them to add these constraints to the iDevice software market. Adding a 30% fee to subscriptions is constraining trade within this market, having their own competing service which is included by default on all Apple devices makes this even shadier.
If Apple did not have their own competing service then this would be just another "oh well, thats what you get for dealing with a walled garden" but Apple Music adds a (unfair) competition element to this whole situation.
Why is Apple just not satisfied with taking a x% cut of the "purchase price" of the apps? Why do they need a 30% cut of the subscriptions? It doesn't cost Apple anything to maintain another company's subscription database. Heck, even just a requirement to use the Apple payment system with a simple 5-10% cut for subscriptions would have made this a lot easier to swallow for most...

Re:We screw everyone.

[dgatwood]

Apple's app store has become a victim of its own success, in a way, because it has made the process of app distribution on their hardware so effortless for the end user that it is now widely assumed to be trivial.

I assume nothing. I've done it on many occasions through many different mechanisms. Distributing applications is trivial. A mere web server can provide the same functionality that the App Store does. In fact, the App Store app basically just downloads the application package from a web server.... The iOS App Store, mind you, is insanely complicated, largely because WebObjects is, at this point, a steaming pile of legacy code with horrible limitations that they have to constantly hack around. IMO, it basically needs to be gutted and rewritten, but that's another rant for another day.

But the complexity of the store itself is almost entirely irrelevant to the question of whether distributing apps is complex in much the same way that saying that Amazon's website is complex is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether distributing books through bookstores is complex. Those are orthogonal. If you were distributing an app outside of the iOS App Store, you'd be using an ordinary web server, and discovery would be through Google. The only infrastructure from Apple that you'd be using would be the certificate signing machinery, where Apple signs your deployment cert (similar to the way Developer ID works on OS X). And everything would "just work", because under the hood is just basically an OS X Installer package (give or take).

It has also vastly simplified the process for the developer as well. I know I'm going to get flak for saying this from developers with short memories, but it is true. In the worst (hardest) case you were distributing boxes on store shelves containing stamped CDs - which you then had to support through other means. In the best (easiest) case you were distributing a shareware download on a website, and begging your users for purchases like a street performer with a hat on the sidewalk. Either way your profits were undercut by rampant software piracy. Let me emphasize that - _RAMPANT_ software piracy.

Um... no, for many reasons:

• We're talking about free apps here where you pay for a subscription to a data feed. People can pirate the app all they want to. It's free anyway.
• The App Store does nothing to prevent pirating access to the server. If anything, speaking as someone who has dealt with this indirectly, the App Store is much harder to support than a standard, web-based payment system, for a number of reasons that I'd be happy to go into if anyone cares, often resulting in angry customers who you have to mollify with free service.
• Rampant piracy does not actually decrease sales. It increases it. This has been shown in study after study. The more completely an app developer controls piracy, the more poorly the app does in the market. The reason is that software sales are driven heavily by network effects. Without piracy, sales actually suffer. That's one reason why everybody on iOS has moved to the freemium model. It turns out that without piracy, it's hard to get good word-of-mouth advertising for games and stuff on iOS.
• Even if I did accept that piracy is a net negative, there would still be dozens of companies that do a much better job of preventing piracy than Apple does. Apple's code signing scheme actually actively prevents most of the techniques that would make their platform more robust against piracy, such as encrypting parts of the program and tying it to a hardware dongle, requiring constant-on access to a server, hiding files in various weird places in the filesystem, doing magic with those files' inode numbers server-side and storing the resulting token so that copying the key files won't work, tying the product to a specific hardware ID, etc. All of these things fail for various reasons in Apple's ecosy

Re: We screw everyone.

[garote]

Your personal preference does not define the operation of the market. There have been many reasons for people to get "the same" content through different paid streaming services ever since the invention of the printing press.

Re:We screw everyone.

[garote]

"Sticking your software on a webserver" is equivalent to Apple's app store, for a developer? Sure...

And for a farmer, dumping your produce in a heap in the middle of a public park is the same as getting it onto supermarket shelves, and getting a check at the end of the month.

Your claim of equivalency just doesn't fly; and since the rest of your argument is built on it, that doesn't either.

Except for the part where you turn your own argument on its head by stating, "there are tens of thousands of different grocery stores, from large chains down to one-store shops. By contrast, there are basically only two viable mobile operating system platforms." I'm sorry; weren't you just saying an app store is the same as dumping your software on a website? By that score, there are an infinite number of them. But that's neither here nor there: If you want to make the (oft repeated) claim that "Apple has a monopoly on the Apple platform", as if that means something in ethical or legal terms, do please continue. :)

Re:We screw everyone.

[dgatwood]

That is the original text of the Sherman Act. The law that basically makes it illegal to monopolize a market by position. Apple do not have this position. Android is a larger OS by market share, which Apple can not influence.

You're wrong on several counts, as I pointed out elsewhere. First, Apple has already been busted for antitrust violations, which means that yes, they do have a large enough position to be subject to antitrust limitations.

Second, you're assuming a fungibility of goods across ecosystems that does not exist. As an iOS user, I cannot simply download the Android version of the app and run it on my phone. Instead, I have to spend several hundred dollars on new hardware, and replace all of my existing software, which could potentially cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars more.

Third, the Sherman Antitrust Act is the foundation for a complex system of antitrust laws. It is not the only law. It is not even a tiny fraction of the statutory law and relevant case law involved in a situation like this.

Apple does have costs associated with running the App store, and they have disproportionally levied fees on payments in order to subsidize their costs to provide the App Store services to free apps.

And they can do that. That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that their own app doesn't pay those disproportionate fees in any meaningful way. In fact, Apple pays even less for distributing their own app, because it is bundled into OS updates instead of being a standalone download.

That also doesn't change the fact that the only reason for most of those operating costs for the store is that Apple chose to require distribution through only their store. They could have let developers distribute their apps on their own websites using the same signing scheme. And the notion that small developers can't afford a web server is laughable. Almost 100% of them already have a web server to advertise their apps anyway. Without that, nobody would ever find their app in the giant black hole that is Apple's iOS App Store. The App Store absolutely does not make apps discoverable. If anything, it hinders discoverability very badly, from what I've seen.

And the only reason updates are hard is because Apple has chosen to make it hard. Their software update mechanism talks only to their servers. It would take almost no additional effort to allow developers to put an extra URL in their Info.plist file where Apple's autoupdater could fetch the current version info, etc. for that app. Apple chose to use their store infrastructure for handling that metadata, but that was Apple's choice. They don't get extra brownie points for their store having to handle that extra download traffic unless they give app developers another option. Sorry, but no.

Similarly, Apple wasn't by any means the first to have a means for reviewing apps. Cnet and others have had similar services for arbitrary downloads since just about the dawn of time. Now to be fair, I'm not saying that I don't appreciate having a source where I can trust that all the apps are likely vetted. What I am saying is that having such a source does not require banning obtaining apps through any other sources as Apple has done. There's no benefit to that from my perspective as a user. For that matter, there's very little benefit to Apple doing the actual distribution of the apps at all, other than perhaps download speed. Again, Apple's choice, so they don't get brownie points for doing what they forced themselves to do through something that was entirely their own decision.

If the benefits of the App Store didn't make it worth-while for app developers, the App Store would be pretty barren of apps. Its not. Apple do not have a monopoly on phones, phone OS's, and therefore can not have a monopoly on anything contained therein.

You're bordering on begging the question here.

Re:We screw everyone.

[garote]

To answer your question: The argument is over whether Spotify is allowed to inform users of the app that they can get a paid subscription by going to a website. This is against Apple's rules because it circumvents their automated systems for getting a cut of subscription fees.

Spotify can easily go the route that a number of other subscription-based developers have: They can make the app _require_ a login as a subscribed user, before it provides any functionality - including even informing the user where to go to get the subscription. There is no "redirect" happening, since there is no sale being made in the context of the app (they must have a subscription beforehand). It's a technicality; it's Apple's attempt to split the difference because if they didn't draw an arbitrary line somewhere, all apps in the app store could just claim to be "subscription based" and redirect their users to some non-Apple payment service. Apple's store infrastructure would go from "paying for itself" to "huge financial drain" and the process of paying for things would become fragmented and less secure, and arguably more hazardous and complicated for iPhone owners.

I'm not sure what you have against pasta sauce makers... A tomato from "Bob's farm" can be markedly different from a tomato from "Jill's farm". Just because you think they're all the same, doesn't mean others do! And on the other side, have you listened to most of the new music of the last 20 years? No; no one has, because the market is freaking oversaturated with sound-alike indie bands making a race to the bottom in music fees so they can try and scrape up a living putting on shows. One streaming service is a heck of a lot more like any other streaming service, than one jar of pasta sauce is like the rest. :)

Re:We screw everyone.

[angel'o'sphere]

all fall within Apple Inc
No it does not, as e.g. many Laptops are crafted e.g. in Ireland by "Apple Ireland" etc. they are a sub company of Apple Inc. Same for plenty of other stuff. Otherwise the "tax avoidance schemes" we hear so often about would not be possible.

Re:We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

>You're wrong on several counts, as I pointed out elsewhere. First, Apple has already been busted for antitrust violations, which means that yes, they do have a large enough position to be subject to antitrust limitations.

HURR DURR. Having a market position needed to trigger anti trust laws on one thing (eBook delivery, where they had to conspire with 5 other companies, you dumb fuck) totally means you have market positions needed to trigger anti trust laws on all things.

>Second, you're assuming a fungibility of goods across ecosystems that does not exist. As an iOS user, I cannot simply download the Android version of the app and run it on my phone. Instead, I have to spend several hundred dollars on new hardware, and replace all of my existing software, which could potentially cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars more.

Nothing to do with anti trust at all. Your choice to buy an iPhone doesn't factor into anything.

>That also doesn't change the fact that the only reason for most of those operating costs for the store is that Apple chose to require distribution through only their store. They could have let developers distribute their apps on their own websites using the same signing scheme.

Malware city. Yeah, that's what everyone wants. You're not too bright are you? The app store gives Apple a central way to remove and ban bad actors, and to do minimal QC on apps.

>Cnet and others have had similar services for arbitrary downloads since just about the dawn of time.

Now I know you're an idiot or a poe's law troll. CNet had to start adding malware to its downloads in order to make money.

>Your claim that the iOS App Store is worthwhile, then, is highly suspect....

Your implicit claim to having an IQ above room temperature is highly suspect. And learn how to use a fucking ellipse, you god damned fucking moron.

Re: We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to your cubicle, Apple Marketing fuck.

Re: We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is illegal or at least anticompetative.

Using your own analogy, movie theaters and production companies use to be one company until the US government forced them to split up. The reasoning is that each theater would only play their own content and leave the 3rd party small company with no other options than accepting draconian terms (sort of like how a lot of publishing companies are - you no longer own content you make - if they take your music and say nope;, you have no other recourse but to starve).

Re: We screw everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup and fuck Apple shove it in their anti-innovative asses. Spotify should just move exclusivly to Android. Nothing shows the value of your convictions like slaming the door and walking away.

Re: We screw everyone.

[garote]

Aaaaah, Slashdot. :D

Re:We screw everyone.

[dgatwood]

"Sticking your software on a webserver" is equivalent to Apple's app store, for a developer? Sure...

The answer is "it depends". For some random developer that nobody has ever heard, of, no it isn't. For somebody whose service is as well-known as Spotify, with an advertising budget as big as Spotify, etc., yes, it is. For the most part, people don't discover Spotify on the iOS App Store. They go explicitly to the iOS App Store to download Spotify because somebody told them about it.

If the iOS App Store did not exist, assuming the same code signing functionality did exist, and assuming Apple provided some mechanism whereby clicking on an app installer package in Mobile Safari would download it and install it, then the iOS App Store would provide no additional benefit to companies like Spotify beyond what a Google search would provide. It is just another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy between the developer and the customer.

You'll notice that Adobe provides almost all of their OS X software directly, rather than using the Mac App Store. You'll notice that BBEdit tried the Mac App Store and then left. So clearly, for many companies, sticking your software on a webserver is actually preferable to Apple's Mac App Store because there are fewer restrictions, you have more flexibility, and your customers can still get your content just as easily (at least on open platforms like OS X). You've offered me no reason to believe that the story would be different on mobile if Apple changed their policy to allow distribution of apps outside the iOS App Store.

And for a farmer, dumping your produce in a heap in the middle of a public park is the same as getting it onto supermarket shelves, and getting a check at the end of the month.

Huh? Spotify et al are highly advertised businesses with well-known websites. They're the Internet equivalent of companies with their own storefronts. And yes, having your own storefront is the same as getting it onto supermarket shelves, assuming your customers know where to find you, and assuming that traveling to your own storefront isn't too burdensome. In fact, many people avoid the middlemen at farmers' markets every day, because they get better quality produce without the extra expense.

And obviously, the Internet is not equivalent to a physical presence, because I don't have to spend hours driving somewhere to get to your website. It is the great leveler, making it irrelevant whether a particular company's page is in Kansas or Uzbekistan. The entire notion of a centralized store as the sole means of getting apps onto a platform is completely and fundamentally antithetical to the decades of technological progress on which the Internet was built.

Except for the part where you turn your own argument on its head by stating, "there are tens of thousands of different grocery stores, from large chains down to one-store shops. By contrast, there are basically only two viable mobile operating system platforms." I'm sorry; weren't you just saying an app store is the same as dumping your software on a website? By that score, there are an infinite number of them.

You're confusing two different stores on two different devices with two different content origin policies here. I was saying that on OS X, the app store provides no benefits over putting the app up on a website, and that on iOS, it would provide no benefit if it were possible to install iOS apps from websites.

The critical fact that you're apparently failing to grasp is that Apple actively prevents installing applications on iOS devices except through its own app store and has threatened legal action against anyone who has tried to circumvent that restriction. So no, those websites are clearly not competitors to the iOS App Store, because Apple has deliberately made it impossible for the device to obtain apps f

Re:We screw everyone.

[dgatwood]

... eBook delivery, where they had to conspire with 5 other companies ...

Yes, Apple conspired with five companies. However, those companies were their suppliers, not their competitors. It was not the size of those five companies that made it an antitrust violation, but rather the fact that Apple caused an illegal horizontal price fixing to occur. Notice that this was found to be illegal without any consideration of whether Apple is or is not a monopoly. In fact, you will notice that the word "monopoly" doesn't even appear in the court decision except for a passing mention of the word in the context of copyright providing publishers with an inherent monopoly on their own content (which goes without saying).

So as I said, Apple is large enough to have an effect on the market sufficient for antitrust laws to kick in, because as I said before, antitrust law violations do not require a monopoly or even a near-monopoly.

Second, you're assuming a fungibility of goods across ecosystems that does not exist. As an iOS user, I cannot simply download the Android version of the app and run it on my phone. Instead, I have to spend several hundred dollars on new hardware, and replace all of my existing software, which could potentially cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars more.

Nothing to do with anti trust at all. Your choice to buy an iPhone doesn't factor into anything.

Actually, yes it does. You see, the iOS App Store is what is known in antitrust law as "tying". Apple explicitly prevents you from being able to buy apps for their devices except through them. This could be held to be per se illegal, as the purchase of an iPhone is essentially conditional on purchasing apps for it exclusively through Apple, but that's a somewhat challenging legal argument to make, as it would only be illegal if Apple had either a monopoly or a substantial amount of control over the app market as a whole. However, the cost of switching from one operating system to another does impact their control over the app market, so in that context, customers' choice to buy an iPhone could, in fact, factor into any decision about whether Apple has sufficient control over the market.

Secondarily, if Apple can exert sufficient influence on, for example, the market for streaming audio subscriptions, it can potentially be held unlawful under the rule of reason. That also does not require a monopoly. It merely requires the contract (in this case, the development agreement) to be a restraint of trade (and requiring the use of their payment service instead of a competitor most certainly is) that significantly impacts the viability of a market. And again, in that context, the cost of changing operating systems does factor in to how likely customers are to switch to Android to gain access to services like Spotify if Apple makes it impractical for them to continue doing business on iOS. So again, it could factor in.

Now I know you're an idiot or a poe's law troll. CNet had to start adding malware to its downloads in order to make money.

Dude. I never said that CNet's site was the epitome of quality. I just said that other review sites do exist, and that there's nothing magical about Apple's ability to provide that service. If Apple hadn't done it for their mobile devices, somebody else inevitably would have, because inherent to the nature of the Internet is a rule that if there's a need, someone will eventually fill it.

Re: We screw everyone.

[dgatwood]

Spotify should just move exclusivly to Android. Nothing shows the value of your convictions like slaming the door and walking away.

That would pretty much be suicide for Spotify. I'd imagine that most of their paid subscribers come from iOS. After all, iOS users tend to have more disposable income than Android users, and tend to spend considerably more on electronic goods and services.

Like it or not, Spotify has no choice but to have an iOS app available. They can choose to stop allowing in-app purchases, forcing users to figure out on their own how to buy subscriptions, but leaving the platform entirely would be a company-ending move.

Re:We screw everyone.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Did you even RTFA? Spotify is attempting to remove the ability to subscribe to their service from the app altogether and Apple is bitching about not being able to get a cut. Never mind that Facebook, Amazon and Netflix, to name a few, don't have to abide by this non-existent rule that if you offer subscriptions you must offer the ability to subscribe in the app.

If the rule were non-existing, nobody would have to abide by it. Since it does exist, they do, including Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. And despite what Spotyfly thinks, so do they. The fact that the app currently on the app store violates the rule isn't a reason they should be allowed to break it in the future, it should be a reason to have it removed. Period.

Re: We screw everyone.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Spotify should just move exclusivly to Android. Nothing shows the value of your convictions like slaming the door and walking away.

That would pretty much be suicide for Spotify. I'd imagine that most of their paid subscribers come from iOS. After all, iOS users tend to have more disposable income than Android users, and tend to spend considerably more on electronic goods and services.

Like it or not, Spotify has no choice but to have an iOS app available. They can choose to stop allowing in-app purchases, forcing users to figure out on their own how to buy subscriptions, but leaving the platform entirely would be a company-ending move.

If Spottyfly actually thought their users are too stupid to subscribe to their service, they probably would have a point. But what Spottyfly really is scared about is that using Apple's subscription service, it's far too easy to end an subscription you no longer want.

Re:We screw everyone.

[allo]

Why is this modded down? Mod up for truth.

Re:We screw everyone.

[allo]

Strange calculation. You're implying, that apple pays the tech guys of spotify then.

Re:We screw everyone.

[allo]

If this was too short:

You tell me, apple uses the saved 30% to pay its tech guys, but they need to get 30% from spotify. This calculation is missing, that apple doesn't do the tech for spotify and the spotify programmers want to be payed as well (i.e. from the 30%).

Nothing to see... move along....

[__aaclcg7560]

If you want to play in the Apple walled garden, you have to play according to the rules. Pissing and moaning outside the walled garden doesn't get you preferential treatment.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Nabeel_co]

Facebook gets preferential treatment. Why shouldn't Spotify?

I think Spotify should sue. I'm sure they will find enough in discovery that would let them win.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I found this whole thing hilarious. Spotify, if you wanted to compete with Apple Music on a truly fair basis, you'd have to be in the same position as Apple. You're not; deal with it. Apple need you a lot less than you need them.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify is trying to remove the ability to subscribe using the App Store billing process altogether. For that Apple is threatening to remove Spotify, which is unlike other apps that have subscription services that Apple does not compete with. How is asking for the same treatment as Netflix asking for preferential treatment?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[__aaclcg7560]

Facebook gets preferential treatment. Why shouldn't Spotify?

Citation please?

If Facebook does get preferential treatment from Apple, let's look at the numbers: Facebook (1600M+ users) vs. Spotify (75M+ users).

Which company would Apple benefit the most from — the whale or the minnow?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[thoromyr]

Since you brought it up, what is this preferential treatment that Facebook is getting from Apple? Are they selling subscriptions via in-app purchases?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask for a citation, yet post numbers out of your ass. Every dead, dupe, marketing agency and throwaway account aren't actual users.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[myowntrueself]

If you want to play in the Apple walled garden, you have to play according to the rules. Pissing and moaning outside the walled garden doesn't get you preferential treatment.

Netflix doesn't get preferential treatment? Wait, does the Netflix app in the Apple store give Apple a cut of the subscription?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[myowntrueself]

Facebook gets preferential treatment. Why shouldn't Spotify?

Citation please?

If Facebook does get preferential treatment from Apple, let's look at the numbers: Facebook (1600M+ users) vs. Spotify (75M+ users).

Which company would Apple benefit the most from — the whale or the minnow?

Netflix?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[angel'o'sphere]

Explain what is so special about Netflix.

I doubt they sell services via their App bypassing the AppStore.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[__aaclcg7560]

Ask for a citation, yet post numbers out of your ass.

Do a quick Google search if you doubt the accuracy of my ass pulling. Oh, wait. That's real work. Never mind. Go back to bitching.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[__aaclcg7560]

Netflix doesn't get preferential treatment? Wait, does the Netflix app in the Apple store give Apple a cut of the subscription?

A quick Google search didn't turn up anything that Netflix got preferential treatment from Apple.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Tharkkun]

Facebook gets preferential treatment. Why shouldn't Spotify?

Citation please?

If Facebook does get preferential treatment from Apple, let's look at the numbers: Facebook (1600M+ users) vs. Spotify (75M+ users).

Which company would Apple benefit the most from — the whale or the minnow?

Apple benefits 0 from Spotify which is the entire point of this article. They are blocking Spotify now that they launched their own service. If Apple were to launch a service similar to Facebook you can be certain they would cripple the Facebook app.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[friedmud]

Netflix does not get preferential treatment.

If you sign up for Netflix on an iOS device it uses your iTunes account... and they pay the 30% to Apple.

Why do you think it would be different for them?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[__aaclcg7560]

If Apple were to launch a service similar to Facebook you can be certain they would cripple the Facebook app.

Correct. Because Apple states in the rules for their walled garden that no apps can compete with their offerings. That shouldn't be a surprise to any app developer who read the rules.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[evilRhino]

Netflix doesn't offer sales within their iOS apps. You have to purchase your subscription on the website.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[__aaclcg7560]

Netflix doesn't offer sales within their iOS apps. You have to purchase your subscription on the website.

I just downloaded Netflix for iPhone, created a new account and subscribed via iTunes. I didn't have to go to an external website to signup or pay for my subscription. Your information is out of date.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[dgatwood]

Facebook gets preferential treatment. Why shouldn't Spotify?

Citation please?

Launch Facebook on iOS. Tap "More". Tap "More" in the resulting list. Tap "Ads Manager". Tap "Get Started". Tap "Billing". Tap "Add Card".

Re: Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Kindle & B&N seems to do ok.

Netflix , Hulu etc seems to do ok.

Pandora seems to do ok.

Apple has a one size fits all set of rules, that's been pretty much the same for 9 years, well before they got into streaming. They made a change recently on subscriptions , to drop to 85/15 rather than 70/30, for subscription renewals. Even 15 % might be too high for some business models .

The rules are basically :

- you can charge whatever you like
- if you do an in-App payment transaction, you have to use Apple's mechanism
- you can provide an out of band payment mechanism, eg web site, but you can't directly link to it from inside the App.

Apple's in-app purchase & subscription UI is very slick, and does make it easy and fast for people , so it probably does have a higher success rate than jumping off to Safari manually.

It's fair to say that those rules aren't favourable to low margin businesses subscription like streaming music, particularly when Apple decided to compete in the same service category with a bundled That has to be really fraught, and lands square into anti-trust territory (comparisons with bundled browsers come to mind)

However, Spotify has a pretty shit iOS App, and Apple Music is a bastion of stability in comparison. They seem to have a low conversion rate from their free streaming tier to paid.

They've decided to blame Apple's store policies for this.

Google Play rules are almost identical, except they allow you to link to your own payment system from inside the App, if you aren't using Google Play. This probably contributes to Googles much lower average store revenue per device compared to iOS. This is clearly more fair, and Google still gets to run analytics over everything and derive revenue from that.x

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify is trying to remove the ability to subscribe using the App Store billing process altogether. For that Apple is threatening to remove Spotify, which is unlike other apps that have subscription services that Apple does not compete with. How is asking for the same treatment as Netflix asking for preferential treatment?

No, Spotify wants to allow people to sign up FROM THE APP without using the App Store billing process. From the App Store guidelines:

Apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than IAP.

If you want to let people sign up outside the app, that's fine; But you cannot provide a link or other mechanism for signing up inside the app distributed on iOS. You can run the biggest marketing campaign the world has ever seen to direct people to go to "spotify.com" to sign up for service, which can then be used to log in and use the service on iOS. But you CANNOT put a screen in the App on iOS that says "Go to spotify.com to sign up!" or put a button that connects users to the signup process outside the app.

That is all. And really, it's a pretty low bar.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon does the same thing. You can't buy anything from the apps themselves, you have to go to their site and buy it. The apps are just readers/viewers.

This complies with the AppStore requirements and has been a valid workaround ever since those guidelines went into effect.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[rahvin112]

Which is what is anti-competitive. That might be OK in the US because the anti-trust law is weak, but in Europe you don't need a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behavior and get fined. The EU also has a tendency to view it from the point of view that the fine should hurt, and you can't hurt a multi-billion company with a million dollar fine so you should expect the fine to be in the billions. One of these days the EU is going to take apple to task for those store terms that don't allow competition against apple and they are going to get their ass handed to them by the EU and following previous precedent Apple will promptly cave.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[__aaclcg7560]

Apple will promptly cave.

Or Apple stops doing business in the EU.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[david_thornley]

Except that Apple's perfectly OK with a Spotify app as long as it conforms to the same App Store rules that every other app developer complies with.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[david_thornley]

Exactly what preferential treatment does Facebook get? AFAICT, the Facebook app conforms to Apple's rules. Where is the deviation?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[david_thornley]

The EU has taken action against Apple in the past. Have they shown any sign of taking any action against Apple over this?

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that include closing the Ireland office down?

You know the one which holds all of apple's "IP Rights" and receives a large "payment" for every device sold in the US.
Since US corps pay taxes on profits not revenue (unlike its citizens who pay tax on revenue) these transfer payments lead to a large tax transfer out of the US.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[SvnLyrBrto]

I have about half a dozen Google apps on my iPhone that compete with one or another of Apple's own offerings. In the streaming realm; on the audio side Pandora, SoundCloud, and Amazon Music are unmolested by Apple. And Netflix and Amazon Video do seem to be operational as well. Presumably, if Spotify's complaint is in any way at all valid, Apple will correct this oversight and pull these from the app store as well. Yes?

Re: Nothing to see... move along....

[Karlt1]

So if no app can compete with their garden, how do you explain the existence of third party apps that compete with iBooks, iTunes (movies, music, tv shows), and Apple Music?

Re: Nothing to see... move along....

[Karlt1]

If you subscribe to a service outside of the App Store, Apple doesn't get a cut.

Re: Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine FB pulling out?

This app is on an entire religion's worth of phones (Muslim or Christianity has about the same numbers).

Forcing Facebook to bow down is like Ahab and Moby Dick. There's a chance that a large chunk of people would start wonderibg why and asking around...

Only to discover that they have a forced 30% fee, vendor lock in, etc. The person might be disgusted and inconvenienced enough (no notifications) to move platforms.

A particular move by FB would have them put their iBinary on their website with an "I'm sorry, there's no way to install this and it's not our fault".

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[dgatwood]

And to put that in perspective, as of a year ago, there were only 2 million active Facebook advertisers. I doubt more than one percent of those use iOS to create or buy ads, but even if 100% of them did, Apple still created an exception for Facebook's 2 million advertisers and refused to create one for Spotify's 20 million paying users.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Re: Nothing to see... move along....

[Anonymous Coward]

Aparently there is a subscription option for facebook to be add free and it is linked to in the app but not done with an in app purchase. So facebook is doing exactly what spotify wants to do.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Plumpaquatsch]

If you want to play in the Apple walled garden, you have to play according to the rules. Pissing and moaning outside the walled garden doesn't get you preferential treatment.

Ahh, but Spottyfly actually managed to piss into the walled garden. Their app currently violates the rule not to have a link to "external in-app purchases". As does the new version that gets refused because of it.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple benefits 0 from Spotify which is the entire point of this article. They are blocking Spotify now that they launched their own service. If Apple were to launch a service similar to Facebook you can be certain they would cripple the Facebook app.

Bullshit, Apple changed nothing, neither their behaviour, nor their rules. Now Spotify have changed their behaviour, they suddenly decided to violated the long standing rules on Apple's App Store. And not after Apple Music started, but after Apple Music came to Android. IOW they are scared as fuck.

Re:Nothing to see... move along....

[Plumpaquatsch]

Facebook gets preferential treatment. Why shouldn't Spotify?

Citation please?

Launch Facebook on iOS. Tap "More". Tap "More" in the resulting list. Tap "Ads Manager". Tap "Get Started". Tap "Billing". Tap "Add Card".

So you have proven that Facebook doesn't get preferential treatment, and instead does what everybody could do from the start without violating the rules,a dn many have done, including Spotify.

It has always been that way

[hsmith]

If you want to sell SUBSCRIPTIONS via your App on Apple, you have to give them a cut. There are means to circumvent (having people go to your website to signup and pay) but taking payment and not giving apple their pound of flesh has always been operating procedure. I am unsure the problem here? I mean, you might not like the terms (30% is a lot) but it hasn't changed in years.

Re:It has always been that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh but it has not. From the original article:

"Spotify stopped advertising the promotion. But it also turned off its App Store billing option, which has led to the current dispute."

Compare to Amazon Video. You can't buy videos or subscribe to Prime from the app, and yet it hasn't been kicked out of the store. So why is Apple threatening to do this to Spotify? I can't *possibly* be because of Apple Music, is it?

This smells very much like an anti-trust issue.

Re:It has always been that way

[thoromyr]

anonymous trolls...

So, Apple's claim is that Spotify wants preferential treatment as compared to the rules Apple applies to *all* developers and your "rebuttal" is that Amazon Video has different rules?

Not exactly a non sequitur, but your assertion in no way invalidates Apple's claim that they are applying the same rules to all developers.

Re:It has always been that way

[angel'o'sphere]

Subscriptions have changed to 15% Apple Cut months ago.

Re: It has always been that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon video is an app in the app store that is not held to the same standard apple is applying to Spotify.

Re:It has always been that way

[RingDev]

Only that even if Apple applies the same rule (15-20% cut of subscription fees) to Apple developers, it means that Apple is still keeping 100% of the subscription fee.

They are directly competing, they have a monopoly over the eco system, and they are placing a burden on other players in the eco system that does not harm them.

It would sure appear as though they are on shaky ground here.

Re: It has always been that way

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how Amazon video isn't held to the same standard. They don't advertise or sell subscriptions in their app at all. Spotify is welcome to do the same thing.

Re:It has always been that way

[friedmud]

If you read other articles on it you will find that Spotify tried to put a link in their app that would take you to Spotify's website to sign up for a subscription.

That is against the App store rules.

They are free to NOT use Apple to start subscriptions... but they cannot link to another mechanism to do so. The best they are allowed to do is say "You must sign up for a Spotify account before using this application".

That's what Kindle, etc. do.

Re:It has always been that way

[Anonymous Coward]

No they are not free to not use Apple to start subscriptions. If you read the article, you'll find that Spotify's update removes that and Apple has rejected the update. Despite the fact that Netflix, Amazon Video and countless other subscription services do not offer subscriptions via Apple in their apps.

Re:It has always been that way

[R3d M3rcury]

...after the first year.

Re:It has always been that way

[farble1670]

they have a monopoly over the eco system

and in other news, Kentucky Fried Chicken has a monopoly on the Kentucky Fried Chicked ecosystem. BMW has a monopoly of the BMW ecosystem as well. You see the point? The monopoly has to apply to the industry, and they don't have a monopoly in the industry. They aren't even a majority.

That's the danger of tying your business closely to someone else's business. They can pull the rug out from underneath you. It's really a case of nothing gained, nothing lost however. If Apple hadn't built their business, at Apple's expense and risk, Spotify wouldn't have a market there anyway.

Re: It has always been that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Subscription != renewal

Re:It has always been that way

[teg]

If you want to sell SUBSCRIPTIONS via your App on Apple, you have to give them a cut. There are means to circumvent (having people go to your website to signup and pay) but taking payment and not giving apple their pound of flesh has always been operating procedure. I am unsure the problem here? I mean, you might not like the terms (30% is a lot) but it hasn't changed in years.

30% was pretty low for applications at the time the app store - if you sold it any other way (physical stores, carrier app stores etc) and you'd get far less. Subscriptions for magazines were also a bargain for the publishers - it's not like you'd get 70% from retail stores. The only problem there was Apple's privacy guidelines, meaning they didn't get the valuable subscriber information.

For outlets like spotify, this is a much bigger problem. When you pay 70% of your renenue in licensing costs, you can't pay 30% to Apple as well.

Re:It has always been that way

[teg]

Oh but it has not. From the original article:

"Spotify stopped advertising the promotion. But it also turned off its App Store billing option, which has led to the current dispute."

Compare to Amazon Video. You can't buy videos or subscribe to Prime from the app, and yet it hasn't been kicked out of the store. So why is Apple threatening to do this to Spotify? I can't *possibly* be because of Apple Music, is it?

This smells very much like an anti-trust issue.

The problem with the Spotify app, is that they want to do it easy to sign up from the web site from within the app. If they just dropped that, and just allowed you to log in if you had an existing account - or sign up via the app store if you don't have one - everything would be as it used to be, and the app would be accepted.

What Apple does not like, is that if you don't have an account you're referred to Spotify's web page to sign up and pay there.

Re:It has always been that way

[teg]

No they are not free to not use Apple to start subscriptions. If you read the article, you'll find that Spotify's update removes that and Apple has rejected the update. Despite the fact that Netflix, Amazon Video and countless other subscription services do not offer subscriptions via Apple in their apps.

It's not that they removed it, it's that they replaced it - with a mechanism that sends you an email to sign up via the web site. Drop that, and the problem is solved.

Re: It has always been that way

[Anonymous Coward]

BMW doesn't have the power to force you to replace the tires with BMW branded tires exclusively.

Re: It has always been that way

[farble1670]

Also, theres no such thing as BMW branded tires. Great analogy though it really hit home.

BMW can do anything they want. They can force you to use proprietary tires and wheels on their cars. Theres no law that would prevent that. You would buy another car though right? Anyone getting and ideas on how to handle the Apl!e {} Spotify issue? Hint: its not keep buying more App!e shit.

Re:It has always been that way

[friedmud]

BTW: Netflix DOES allow you to subscribe in app... using iTunes and giving Apple 30% and everything. You don't see them complaining...

Re: It has always been that way

[RingDev]

This is where anti-trust laws kick in. The specific term in this case (BMW tires) would be Tying Products. Where the function of a product is tied to another product for which the manufacturer is the sole source provider. In the example given, if BMW were to put an artificial limitation on the tires (say an embedded RFID chip) that was required for the vehicle to function, and that no other tire manufacture were able to reproduce the RFID chip, then they would most assuredly wind up in court and likely losing or settling.

-Rick

Re: It has always been that way

[farble1670]

then they would most assuredly wind up in court and likely losing or settling

Sort of like how Nintendo put a special chip in their SNES cartridges making it impossible for software devs to purchase the blank carts from any other source? Oh wait. They did do that and it was perfectly legal.

What you are talking about is only an issue if a company uses it's monopoly in one industry to quell competition in another industry. If BMW was the only maker of cars, then they decided to also make tires and require all of their cars to use their BMW branded tires, yes, that'd be an issue.

But that's not what is going on here. Apple isn't a monopoly, or even a majority player in the device space OR the app space. If you don't like their practices, go pick up an Android device. The laws prefer to let the market it work it out, if it's possible. If you choose to keep buying Apple considering this, then please, quietly go away and lie down in the bed you've made for yourself.

Across the board

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, Apple didn't change the rules for streaming, because they already wrote the rules to be slanted in their favor years ago. And sure, Spotify made money playing under the existing rules without complaining, but there's a real danger to biting the hand that feeds you, even if the hand has been feeding you dead squirrels for years.

My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Spotify

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems your thoughts, as usual, came from exactly 0 seconds of thinking. Read up on the context and previous developments, and it will be clear that Apple are playing unfair to make sure their own music service prevails.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you are of course the dictator of who cares about anything or anyone ? If you don't like it ignore it, if you really did not care you'd not waste the time to post Just because you don't know anyone who uses Spotify that of course means that no one does...
You sir are a self involved douche bag...

"Apple Commentator"

[eddy]

Is that code for shill?

Re:"Apple Commentator"

[geek]

Is that code for shill?

The Kim Kardashian of Apple Commentators

Re:"Apple Commentator"

[SvnLyrBrto]

I know it must be hard to believe for people like you, but there are others out there who actually use and genuinely like Apple's products, and use and like Uber's, Lyft's, and Airbnb's services, and think that the shuttle busses are a fine way to get cars off our streets during commute hours, and think that Google glass was a really cool idea that should have been taken farther (A lot farther. I wanted my goddamned Predator, or at least Terminator, vision.). That doesn't make us "shills", or even "fanbois". We're just normal people who like different products and services than you, and don't believe that articles of incorporation instantly and irrevocably turn everyone associated with them into the hellspawn of satan.

Re:"Apple Commentator"

[Anonymous Coward]

useful idiots it is then

"Apple commentator John Gruber"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple fanboi John Gruber"

There, FTFY.

Re:"Apple commentator John Gruber"

[msmash]

Will be forever in your debt. Thanks.

Re:"Apple commentator John Gruber"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple shareholder John Gruber"

FTFY some more.

Re:"Apple commentator John Gruber"

[tw2k]

This is an old comment but it suggests you are wrong: "a few readers have asked whether I personally own Apple stock. Good question. I do not." http://daringfireball.net/link...

Reminds me of the Newber app

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, where Apple wouldn't approve the app, and never tell them why.

Beyond Good and Evil

[Isendur]

"Go Apple"? Am I supposed to be happy or sad? It's hard to tell these days.

Re:Beyond Good and Evil

[deesine]

The Common Man Corollary says be sad, because Spotify is just trying to make a buck, and the Man (Apple) is keeping them down.

Does not Compete? Or Dose not Compute?

[Anonymous Coward]

"regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple..."

And these days, who doesn't compete with Apple? Hell, even when Apple was smacked by Apple Music (the label) there defense was "no market confusion, because we don't sell music."

I know their general counsel was trying to make another point, but he just basically said "our walled garden encompasses all!"

Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[justcauseisjustthat]

It really sounds like Spotify is feeling financial pressure so they are trying to negotiate better terms by claiming Apples behavior is all about pushing Spotify out of business, when the truth is Apple benefits from Spotify being successful (the more they sell the more Apple makes). The only question in my mind is, does Apple make more net profit from that 30% of Spotify revenue (for just hosting) or does it make more with Apple Music (where it has to code, test, support, advertise, host and pay labels/artists)?

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

The 30% is pure profit, because they have to host the app anyway, whether or not Spotify allows subscriptions from within the app. I never subscribed in the app, so Apple doesn't make a dime off of my Spotify subscription. It's ludicrous that Apple wants $3 a month for doing basically nothing.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

I do use Spotify on my desktop and iPhone. Its not clear to me what Apple does for me or Spotify that justifies a cut of my ongoing Spotify subscription. Their involvement should end with the initial purchase of the App, IMO.

Apple has a clear incentive to damage Spotify's ability to compete with Apple Music. I won't use Apple Music -- after years of discovering that iTunes can indeed continue to get worse, I have no interest in including Apple in my music listening experience. Apple had its chance to own mobile music and blew it. And that was back when they actually had successful new ideas on a regular basis.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Apple want $3 a month for handling the payments, since the subscription would be going through the App Store's payment mechanisms.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify made the phone, the OS, and the store?

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

The 30% is pure profit, because they have to host the app anyway, whether or not Spotify allows subscriptions from within the app. I never subscribed in the app, so Apple doesn't make a dime off of my Spotify subscription. It's ludicrous that Apple wants $3 a month for doing basically nothing.

What ludicrous is that you continue to use Apple products.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Tharkkun]

Actually, Apple want $3 a month for handling the payments, since the subscription would be going through the App Store's payment mechanisms.

You can subscribe right through their website. There's no need to do it through a store. Then you download the App and login.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[butchersong]

Yes but the fact that spotify isn't even allowed to tell users that when they download or run the app isn't reasonable.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but the fact that spotify isn't even allowed to tell users that when they download or run the app isn't reasonable.

Yes it is... does Walmart let Target advertise inside their stores?

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Walmart have Target stores inside their stores?

Re: Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

In your scenario, there's no issue.

You can subscribe to Spotify outside the App Store, and Apple does not see any revenue.

Apple's rules are one size fits all, and they don't fit a low margin subscription business model like Spotify's well.

It's a long bow to draw that Apple put the rules in place 8 years before it bought Beats (and turned it into Appme Music) , in order to screw over Spotify down the track.

Are they at a disadvantage ? Yes - the iTunes billing infrastructure is pretty slick & using Apple's payment tools gets more people to pay up.

Beats probably needs to be run as awhile owned subsidiary like FileMaker , and have Apple Music be subject to the same rules

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[david_thornley]

The other question is what business it is of yours? You might be curious, and that's fine, but Apple is free to run its business as it wants, within limits that I don't see have been violated. Apple is under no obligation to give special rates to anyone, and the 30% cut has been there since day one.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[Anonymous Coward]

Walmart offers name brand products right next to their store brand products.

Re:Not a fan of Spotify or Apple Music

[R3d M3rcury]

No, they don't. But that's not really the same.

The better analogy is that I own a mall. You rent space from me in the mall and you start, say, a music store. You sell music. You make good money selling music. I notice this and I decide that, hey, maybe I'll do that, too! So I take an empty store in my mall and start my own music store. My prices are cheaper than yours because I don't pay rent. I also might inadvertently turn up the air-conditioning in your store to make it less pleasurable to be in. And it might take awhile for me to fix the problem.

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

*bold faced liar

You can guarentee

[JohnStock]

That it's Apple being a dick here.

Re:You can guarentee

[Anonymous Coward]

Look here, a used car salesman....

Bizarre Conclusion

[Luthair]

And Spotify is the streaming service most at war with artists over their abysmal royalty rates. Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass.

I read it as Apple being entirely irrelevant in the streaming market.

Re: Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read you would have your answers. Apple stated why they weren't allowed to continue operating. Basically Spotify was trying to circumvent the App Store.

Only Republican Monopolies are Bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that if it were Walmart doing this you'd be throwing a shitfit. However, because it's a "good" oppresive monopoly, that's okay that they're abusing their monopoly position.

Re:Only Republican Monopolies are Bad.

[thoromyr]

So you know that GP would be "throwing a shitfit[sic]" if Walmart were requiring manufacturers to abide by Walmart's rules? You are aware then that Walmart has dedicated staff to assisting manufacturers in cutting costs (quality) in order to meet Walmart's purchase requirements? Does Apple dedicate resources to lowering quality standards? In what way is what Apple does even remotely like Walmart? It isn't a matter of preferring one to the other (they could both be shit or both be angels), they operate entirely differently and in different markets.

If you don't like Apple's "walled garden" then use Android. Heck, if Spotify doesn't like it then they should focus on the Android market. I hear that it is much larger than Apple's and so would be more profitable, right?

Which takes us back to the silly assertion that Apple has a monopoly position. No, Google has the dominant position in the mobile market. Apple is in distant second place (albeit far ahead of Microsoft).

Re:Only Republican Monopolies are Bad.

[__aaclcg7560]

You realize that if it were Walmart doing this you'd be throwing a shitfit.

Probably not. Every walled garden has rules. If you don't like the rules, go someplace else.

However, because it's a "good" oppresive monopoly, that's okay that they're abusing their monopoly position.

How is this a monopoly? Spotify wants to stay on iDevices, they need to follow the rules. Apple isn't preventing Spotify from competing on Android — or Walmart.

Re:Only Republican Monopolies are Bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Walmart were saying "you need to make sure that we get a profit margin if you want to sell things in our shop", and subsequently saying "if you advertise Safeway in your products we're going to not sell your things in our shop", I would think "yeh... that's exactly how I'd expect any business to run."

Re:Only Republican Monopolies are Bad.

[__aaclcg7560]

You are aware then that Walmart has dedicated staff to assisting manufacturers in cutting costs (quality) in order to meet Walmart's purchase requirements?

I was working in the video game industry (probably 1998) when Walmart decreed that it will only stock video games that came in an uniformed box size. At that time, most video games came in large boxes to stand out from the competition even though it may contain only a CD and a thin manual. Those large boxes soon disappeared as Walmart was too big of a market to ignore.

Re:Only Republican Monopolies are Bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a shame though. I loved reading thick game manuals for many games, usually to learn about game mechanics and strategy.

When the game's 150-page manual is only available as a PDF on the CD, it is no longer fun to read.

Re: Only Republican Monopolies are Bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are following the rules. They are no longer offering subscription capabilities in-app at all. This is valid in the developer guidelines and as I recall, Amazon's music buying app does this as well.

There's no mention of subscription fees anywhere and no way to sign up in app. Not against the TOS

Amazon.com App

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I buy a product in the Amazon.com app Apple isn't getting a cut of the profits (I even have a subscription through Amazon Prime), but Spotify has to have their fee go thru Apple? What's the line in the sand on this?

Re:Amazon.com App

[david_thornley]

The line in the sand is apparently over your head.

If you buy a product in the Amazon.com app, Apple has nothing to do with it, and doesn't get a cut. If you buy it in the iOS app, Apple is handling it and does get a cut. If the product is a subscription or license or something, once you bought it somewhere you can use it with the iOS app, and Apple's fine with it.

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify updated their app. Do you not read because you hate apple?

Troubling Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

we find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers

And I find it troubling that Apple did not mention the rules that Spotify is asking to be exempt from. Though I will admit, I only give TFA a cursory glance (with javascript disabled), so maybe I missed it.

Re:Troubling Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

From the sound of it, Spotify lets you sign up for a subscription (or buy songs) by following a link in their app rather than using the in-app purchases architecture.

That's against the rules as all non-physical goods purchases made within an app must use the in-app purchases system which includes Apple taking a 30% cut. And a link that opens the web browser counts as "in the app".

My company flirted with breaking that rule for a while and eventually ended up packaging the subscription "free" with purchase of a premium physical item and not offering it separately go "game" the system.

Re:Troubling Indeed

[jonwil]

My understanding is this:
1.Spotify currently offers subscriptions to their service via in-app purchase (where Apple gets a cut)
2.Spotify tried to push an update that dropped the in-app purchase and added a "go here to buy a Spotify subscription" link (which violates the rules put in place by Apple)
3.Spotify now wants to push an update that drops the in-app purchase but doesn't include the "go here to subscribe" link at all and Apple refuses to allow that new update.

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are.

"Most sources agree that the original expression, coined in the late 1600s, was actually barefaced lie. At that time, bare meant brazen or bold. At that time in history, almost all men sported a full set of whiskers, and it was considered quite daring or even audacious for a male to be clean-shaven, or barefaced. Eventually, the word for “hairless” went from bare to bald, and so did the description of a blatant fib.

Bold-faced is now considered acceptable as well, since bold has the same meaning as bare originally did. Also, it can technically refer to a falsehood that appears in print in a bold typeface. The easiest way out of this maze of idioms, obviously, is to simply tell the truth at all times."

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57985/it-bald-faced-or-bold-faced-lie

Re: Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even bother to look at what they mean by that? Basically, that Spotify wants people to be able to subscribe to their service without going through Apple and paying a 25% extra monthly premium for the privilege of using it on an iPhone. Which AFAIK they've always been able to do before.

Buzzfeed "news"

[aicrules]

I am going to have to make it a point to downvote stories sourced from Buzzfeed News. I do not recognize this as a valid news source.

Re:Buzzfeed "news"

[Anonymous Coward]

I know BuzzFeed is shit. But their news side, which has "actual" journalists does some commendable work. Credit where it's due.

Re:Buzzfeed "news"

[aicrules]

Citations needed...

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm flattered that one of Apple's paid shills took such an interest in my comment to spam me with three replies in the span of 3 minutes.

And, no, actually I can't read because I'm a Mac user.

Re:Who cares?

[macs4all]

and you are of course the dictator of who cares about anything or anyone ? If you don't like it ignore it, if you really did not care you'd not waste the time to post Just because you don't know anyone who uses Spotify that of course means that no one does... You sir are a self involved douche bag...

Oooh, an AC fight!

All the idiocy and none of the Karmic Justice.

Appleville

[PopeRatzo]

The two people whose comments were sought for this article are:

1) Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell

2) Apple commentator John Gruber, who said,

"Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass."

Note: Apple Music has 13 million subscribers. Spotify has 30 million subscribers.

Re:Appleville

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify has been around since 2011, Apple Music was launched last year. Good logic.

Re:Appleville

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify is nearly 8 years old. "In June 2016, Apple Music exceeded 15 million subscribers.", so in less than a year....

Re:Appleville

[PopeRatzo]

Spotify is nearly 8 years old. "In June 2016, Apple Music exceeded 15 million subscribers.", so in less than a year....

Spotify added 20 million users in the past 18 months, so nah, bro.

Also, remember that Apple already had all the login info and credit card numbers of all the iTunes users, and Apple Radio users. And, the largest base of handheld devices. Spotify did 20 million new users without that structural advantage.

Re:Appleville

[PopeRatzo]

Spotify has been around since 2011, Apple Music was launched last year. Good logic.

Except, Spotify's biggest period of grown in number of new users has come since Apple music was launched.

http://www.fool.com/investing/...

Re:Appleville

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Apple still has a major competitive advantage there. It auto-activates on your phone just as well as a Windows 10 upgrade does. Then there's the iCloud music storage feature that can leaves holes in your music library of music you either imported from CD or bought from iTunes. Until someone realizes that they're actually subscribed to Apple Music and (trial period over) paying cash money for it, they don't think twice about deactivating it. If many others have had my personal experience with Apple Music, I'm quite certain that membership count is being over-exaggerated by multiples.

Re:Appleville

[konohitowa]

I've never had Apple Music, neither trial nor paid. How can this be when it supposedly "auto-activates"? And yes, I have an iPhone.

Re:Appleville

[garote]

Kinda kills Spotify's arguments that Apple Music is bad for their business, doesn't it? :D

Re:Appleville

[PopeRatzo]

Kinda kills Spotify's arguments that Apple Music is bad for their business, doesn't it? :D

Did Spotify say such a thing? I've only seen the opposite.

https://www.fastcompany.com/30...

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I just really get annoyed when companies feel it's an acceptable business strategy to mislead the public as a matter of policy.

Spotify updated their app, but they did not update the subscription model or the subscription process.

Apple simply used the routine update as an opportunity to reevaluate Spotify's adherence to these supposed "guidelines", and decide they weren't gonna accept the app any longer.

Re: Nonsensical on its face

[myowntrueself]

If you actually read you would have your answers. Apple stated why they weren't allowed to continue operating. Basically Spotify was trying to circumvent the App Store.

Netflix doesn't?

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify's just like you, oppressed by Apple. The world is so unfair!

Re:Oh Goodie!

[Anonymous Coward]

In your big ol fagboi ass

Deeper explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the articles on this dispute aren't getting too deep into what's going on, but here's some more information...

1. Spotify's current app allows users to subscribe through the app, using Apple's billing system, which gives Apple of cut. User's can also subscribe on the Spotify website, which bypasses Apple's cut.

2. Spotify is not allowed to advertise through the app that users can subscribe on a website outside the app. Spotify and Apple have had a dispute over this in the past, but Spotify chose to do as Apple asked, and removed all in-app subscription advertising targeted at iPhone users.

3. Spotify is now trying to submit a new version of their app that offers no in-app subscription method, period, and also has no advertising or instructions on how a user can get a subscription. Spotify is assuming that even with no in-app advertising or instructions, users will figure out that they can subscribe on the website.

4. Apple is claiming that this is still breaking the rules, and thus is rejecting the new version of the app. Spotify is claiming that this doesn't break the rules, and that Apple is just going to keep rejecting the new version of the app as long as they can so that users are stuck using the older version of the app that still has in-app purchases, from which Apple gets a cut.

Re:Deeper explanation

[swimboy]

That about sums up the information that I've gathered as well, but it doesn't make sense. Apple counsel was very clear that Spotify was breaking Apple's developer guidelines with their latest app. None of the actions you listed are breaking the guidelines. So, one of two things must be occurring:

1) Apple's lawyer is lying about the app breaking the rules.

2) There's something else in the app that hasn't been made public that is violating the rules.

I don't know about you, but I just can't fathom Apple's lawyers flat out lying about the app. Apple relies too much on developer goodwill to completely screw over a big developer so capriciously. I think there's more to this story than either side is willing to discuss, and it's my opinion that Spotify put one toe over the line in the sand that Apple has drawn, and Apple is threatening to cut it off.

Re:Deeper explanation

[teg]

Most of the articles on this dispute aren't getting too deep into what's going on, but here's some more information...

1. Spotify's current app allows users to subscribe through the app, using Apple's billing system, which gives Apple of cut. User's can also subscribe on the Spotify website, which bypasses Apple's cut.

2. Spotify is not allowed to advertise through the app that users can subscribe on a website outside the app. Spotify and Apple have had a dispute over this in the past, but Spotify chose to do as Apple asked, and removed all in-app subscription advertising targeted at iPhone users.

3. Spotify is now trying to submit a new version of their app that offers no in-app subscription method, period, and also has no advertising or instructions on how a user can get a subscription. Spotify is assuming that even with no in-app advertising or instructions, users will figure out that they can subscribe on the website.

4. Apple is claiming that this is still breaking the rules, and thus is rejecting the new version of the app. Spotify is claiming that this doesn't break the rules, and that Apple is just going to keep rejecting the new version of the app as long as they can so that users are stuck using the older version of the app that still has in-app purchases, from which Apple gets a cut.

It looks as though the "offers no in-app subscription method, period" is a bit misleading - according to Ars Technica, Spotify replaced the link with automatically sending you an email that you could use to sign up.

Re:Who cares?

[Austerity Empowers]

How does this affect anyone?

Presumably we, and various anti-trust lawyers are glued to this spat and munching popcorn. I'm certainly going to purchase my next phone based on music streaming services. /sarcasm

Or, you know, we don't care. It's a little weird for Apple to be playing in this space (as a HW company), it's a little weird the way Spotify is framing their argument...to the point that I question if their service has any actual value (it certainly has no profits). I question if such services can turn a profit given the almighty power of copyright. It feels like there's a struggle for a few strips of bacon, and two lions are going to dual to the death for those two strips of bacon. And the winner will bleed to death with bacon breath.

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[friedmud]

This is wrong.

Spotify tried to submit an update that linked a potential subscriber outside to their website to subscribe. That's against the rules.

BTW: The current Spotify app continues to work just fine (been using it all day).

Re:Who cares?

[farble1670]

It feels like there's a struggle for a few strips of bacon, and two lions are going to dual to the death for those two strips of bacon.

The difference is for Apple, a music service can be a loss leader that fulfills the goal of building out the Apple "ecosystem". They don't have to make money from it for it to be a winner. That's why they will win in the end. They'll strike disadvantageous copyright deals just to drive the little guys out of town.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

various anti-trust lawyers are glued to this spat and munching popcorn

Highly unlikely. There is no anti-trust element to this case. Period. Anti-trust lawyers know this, and so are perfectly content to ignore the political posturing of two highly paid lawyers.

The real losers...

[matbury]

Of course Apple Inc. and Spotify's little legal spat doesn't make much of a difference to the real losers in this, i.e. the people who actually create the content that we want to listen to. The artists get screwed either way.

Except it's anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Does everyone just ignore that Apple is able to charge $9.99 for their service under this model? Forcing all other subscription based services to be more expensive to do the same thing?

Apparently the tech world drinks way too much Apple kool-aid...

Are there anyone that doesn't understand? Really??

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets take a random industry, lets take the automobile industry.

A mature business has perhaps (inflation)*1.5% profitmargin. Lets say they have 3% profitmargin to make the number easy.

Lets say you need to get cars approved to be able to sell them. lets say one (or two) automaker owns the approval process and there are no practical way to setup more of them. Lets say Toyota impose a 30% "fee" on the entire industry. Who would be able to compete with toyota?

Are there anyone that really don't understand that it's absolutely impossible for an industry to pay 30% of their entire revenue (not just on profit) to a competitor? Really?

Anyone not understanding that every software company can't make their own phone with their own store and get everyone to port their apps to yet another store with another language/frameworks etc?

Sometimes I just question peoples intelligence, I really do.

Re: Nonsensical on its face

[david_thornley]

Apple has absolutely no problem with people getting Spotify subscriptions from anywhere and using them with the Spotify app. Apple has a problem with a link or similar in the App Store app that sends people to the web site or somewhere. If Spotify is going to sell subscriptions from the app, Apple wants its cut.

In other words, Apple is applying its rules to subscriptions sold from the Spotify app. Spotify users were always free to subscribe on the website or pay the extra for the convenience of an Apple in-app purchase. Spotify itself was always free to leave the App Store price the same as the web page price or raise it on the App Store to compensate for Apple's cut.

Re:Nonsensical on its face

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it say they tried to submit that?

All I've seen from the original article was that they "turned off" the ability to subscribe in app. I haven't seen anything on what exactly the submission is doing that Apple considers to be against the rules.

Re: Oh Goodie!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played

Those are some blurred lines...

[BronsCon]

Read between the lines and the real message here is that Apple Music is kicking Spotify's ass.

At last count, Spotify has 30 million subscribers to Apple Music's 15 million; and that's despite Apple Music recently being made available on Android. The lines pretty clearly indicate that Spotify is beating the shit out of Apple Music, whether you read on, over, under, or between them.

Re: Who cares?

[Bing Tsher E]

Still, almost nobody cares.

Re: Who cares?

[Bing Tsher E]

Apple always has been about driving out the little guy. In the GUI for example, they drove out all the smaller competitors, i.e. the GEM Desktop, in effect handing control to Microsoft. They don't mind being the minority in a market so long as they can charge their cult a significant premium.

In this music spat, Apple wants to make sure they get to charge a tax anytime anybody hears some music.

Oh my God Karen you can't just say that

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Cook gets slammed in his ass and mouth on the daily.

So please change it for everyone

[allo]

Not the in-app fee. No sane person would use in-app purchases anyone. But change the clause, that the possiblity to pay outside the app may not be advertised. For ALL apps.

And the paragraph about the artists is quite ironic, because spotify can pay the artists less, if apple wants its slice of the cake. Hey, there would be like 3 USD more (33%) for the artists, if it wasn't for apple.