Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Is that code for shill?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
"Apple fanboi John Gruber"
There, FTFY.
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.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The two people whose comments were sought for this article are:
1) Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell
2) Apple commentator John Gruber, who said,
Note: Apple Music has 13 million subscribers. Spotify has 30 million subscribers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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?"
Yes but the fact that spotify isn't even allowed to tell users that when they download or run the app isn't reasonable.
Does Walmart have Target stores inside their stores?
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.