Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the you-don't-mess-with-big-guys dept.

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.

5 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It has always been that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  2. Deeper explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Deeper explanation by swimboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
  3. Re:Only Republican Monopolies are Bad. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:We screw everyone. by saloomy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.