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.
How does this affect anyone? I don't know anyone who uses Spotify. There are far better streaming services. Why would anyone care about Spotify? I'm sure I'll get modded down for asking this, but it deserves an answer! Don't censor my post to -1 because you don't like it! But can someone explain why this matters to anyone? I seriously doubt it.
Apple is evil! Spotify is a whiner! Blah blah blah blah blah! I can't wait.
Our screwy guidelines apply equally to all app developers. . .
Emphasis added.
But hey, "equally", so its all good.
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.
Another Apple story. Where's all the fanboi niggers?
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.
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.
If they "did not alter [their] behavior or [their] rules when [they] introduced [their] own music streaming service" that's one thing, but if "Apple's platform generated 'hundreds of millions of dollars in incremental revenue' to Spotify" then it did so "in violation of Apple's guidelines". They changed their behavior just the other day, because the Spotify app just up and stopped working.
One is left to wonder what the reason IS that they decided to alter their behavior and stop letting Spotify users have the experience they signed up for and reasonably expected to continue.
I'm guessing they altered their behavior a few months AFTER they introduced their own music streaming service, so their legal team could get away with saying stupid things like "We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor" without being total bald-faced liars.
Fuck Spotify
Is that code for shill?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
"Apple fanboi John Gruber"
There, FTFY.
You know, where Apple wouldn't approve the app, and never tell them why.
"Go Apple"? Am I supposed to be happy or sad? It's hard to tell these days.
"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!"
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)?
That it's Apple being a dick here.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Tim Cook gets slammed in his ass and mouth on the daily.
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.