Slashdot Mirror
Spotify Files Complaint Against Apple With the European Commission Over 30% Tax and Restrictive Rules (spotify.com)
Spotify today filed a complaint with EU antitrust regulators against Apple, saying the iPhone maker unfairly limits rivals to its own Apple Music streaming service. Spotify CEO Daniel Ek writes in a blog post: In recent years, Apple has introduced rules to the App Store that purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience -- essentially acting as both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers. After trying unsuccessfully to resolve the issues directly with Apple, we're now requesting that the EC take action to ensure fair competition. Apple operates a platform that, for over a billion people around the world, is the gateway to the internet. Apple is both the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store -- and a competitor to services like Spotify. In theory, this is fine. But in Apple's case, they continue to give themselves an unfair advantage at every turn.
To illustrate what I mean, let me share a few examples. Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service. If we pay this tax, it would force us to artificially inflate the price of our Premium membership well above the price of Apple Music. And to keep our price competitive for our customers, that isn't something we can do. As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.
For example, they limit our communication with our customers -- including our outreach beyond the app. In some cases, we aren't even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple. Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch. We aren't seeking special treatment. We simply want the same treatment as numerous other apps on the App Store, like Uber or Deliveroo, who aren't subject to the Apple tax and therefore don't have the same restrictions.
To illustrate what I mean, let me share a few examples. Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service. If we pay this tax, it would force us to artificially inflate the price of our Premium membership well above the price of Apple Music. And to keep our price competitive for our customers, that isn't something we can do. As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.
For example, they limit our communication with our customers -- including our outreach beyond the app. In some cases, we aren't even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple. Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch. We aren't seeking special treatment. We simply want the same treatment as numerous other apps on the App Store, like Uber or Deliveroo, who aren't subject to the Apple tax and therefore don't have the same restrictions.
What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You can't seriously think an app business can survive without having their app on iPhones.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I am unaware of the legal parameters of Apple tax, so this question could already be answered, but what about apps that are free to download in the App Store that require you to login with your credentials? Like pandora or slingTv. If Pandora does their own billing externally, Apple can’t demand a cut of that can they? If they can that would be very disturbing, because what’s to keep Apple from demanding a cut of my pay since I use an app for my banking software and I pay my bank to hold my money. That would be a loophole that would allow Apple to demand a cut of every bill I pay from my phone. I’m sure those greedy bastards are probably dreaming up a way to pull that off
The EU has been pretty broad in the past in terms of how they interpret anti-competitive behaviour.
This certainly seems like the kind of thing they could go with. It's one thing for Apple to demand a cut when they manage the payment; But denying apps from using any other payment method (or even linking to a web page that offers payment functionality) may be a step too far...
And the EU can fine up to 10% of annual turnover, ~$25 Billion
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Laws are meant to protect us all from predatory behavior.
That you feel the need to belittle this to a 'daddy' situation shows that you are firmly aligned with Apple.
Why not log on and make your comment?
I don't think they take an cut of public transport tickets or it's well under 30% as the government has power to set an max fee.
A business from any country will engage in protectionism. I never had worked a software company that said. Here you go, take this code, we will show you how to use it, and give you training classes, all targeted so you can make a competing product with it.
Now the US has a problem as there is a vocal group of people who see any sort of corporate regulation as "OMG COMMUNISM!111!!!!!" which in general has made the amount of regulation in US Based companies low, allowing for a lot of bad behaviors.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not only is it sarcasm, its wrong and stupid. Car manufacturers don't make all the parts for their cars. And aside from the Benz Patentmotorwagen probably never have. Cars have many parts suppliers behind them, Delco, Bosch and Denso to name a few off the top of my head.
Apple has exactly the same terms for everyone. If you sell your product including in-app purchases through Apple, you get 70% of the official price. Apple doesn't keep 30%, they have to pay credit card fees, carry the cost of gift cards that stores pay less than 100% face value for, and so on. They host your app on the store, and they supply all the in app purchases.
And there is a very simple way to get around the payment, which Netflix chose to use and which everyone else is free to use: Don't sell through your app and through the app store. Create a website, and handle the purchases yourself. I worked for a company that did that (same price through in-app purchase and through the website, we kept more money from the website), Netflix does it, everyone can do it.
I have an app on the store that I wrote just for fun, and it makes a little bit of money. If I had to sell it myself I wouldn't get a penny. (I hate advertisements, so I refuse to add advertisements). Nice thing about Apple is that they treat me exactly the same as Spotify. So I'd tell Spotify to p*** right off.
Apple gets no money if a company sells through its website. Apple pays out 70% (and doesn't keep 30% because there is cost involved) of the purchase price of the app, and of _in app purchases made through the app store_.
I don't know how far Netflix has transitioned their sales, but eventually Apple will not get a penny from Netflix. The app costs zero and Apple keeps 30% of zero. Purchases through the Netflix website, Apple gets zero. The only restriction is that you can't advertise your website through the app.
Summary of fees to sell physical goods on Amazon:
- $480 per year for a seller to be on its platform
- 15 percent of each order's total, including shipping but excluding sales tax, or $1.00 per order, whichever is higher
- 3 percent of sales tax
Apple charges each seller only $99 per year, and it has no $1 minimum fee per order. I imagine the $1 minimum fee has something to do with credit card and ACH debit processors taking a 30 cent fee per transaction.
Paid apps and in-app purchases on Amazon Appstore have a similar fee structure to Apple (source), though without the $99 per year fee:
- 20 percent for movie and TV subscription IAPs within Android apps
- 30 percent for paid apps and all other IAPs, including paid Alexa skills
Not really.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.
If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.
Apple requires that Spotify and other digital services pay a 30% tax on purchases made through Apple's payment system, including upgrading from our Free to our Premium service.
I made an account on their webpage, and signed up to pay them via PayPal. I'm sure PayPal is taking a cut. I certainly believe it's nowhere near 30%, but you're not "forced" to use Apple's payment system for the one type of payment transaction you're going to do.
As an alternative, if we choose not to use Apple's payment system, forgoing the charge, Apple then applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions on Spotify.
I have an account setup, I download the Spotify App from the App store -- and this is claiming that because I didn't pay via Apple that I am limited? Bullshit. Any limitation is there either way.
For example, they limit our communication with our customers -- including our outreach beyond the app. In some cases, we aren't even allowed to send emails to our customers who use Apple.
Again, citation needed. If you sign up via the web, you can easily get a user's email.
Apple also routinely blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades. Over time, this has included locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch.
Sure, you don't get the best integration with the ecosystem. I'll totally concede this. But Apple Watch now can control the Spotify app with effectively the same level of control it gives to Apple Music. Siri can control Spotify, but you can't speak out artists and the like. So Apple isn't locking them out, but again I fully concede that they are hindering the experience.
include payments to the people who wrote and played the songs? Spotify, being yet another business that doesn't want to pay for the music, really should shut up about this. At least Apple pays something that isn't so meager as to be an insult.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Actually I am a moderate, with right leaning tenancies. However, there is a difference between excessive regulations, and needed ones. The lesa fair economy creates a high volatility in the market, big highs, and big lows. When we are in a big high, we do not want to find ways to slow down, when we are down, we are trying to rush to bring things back up.
Yes the United States is still an innovation center, with it combination of (dare I say Socialist like protections) laws that promote development, like a rather forgiving Bankruptcy Laws, and Social Safety Net to prevent someone from failing too hard, that they cannot try again. We are also host to some of the worlds top Higher Education Centers, Colleges and Universities.
However After Apple started up the the garage, and now is the worlds largest company. The Lesa Fair method, will cause apple to feed into itself. And give it unfair competition against the other innovation that is going outside of it, and using its size to crush it. And companies like Apple, are so big that they span many types of services, so they are in an odd condition where they need to compete and partner with the same company. Because enough people like Spotify, Apple will need to support it, in order to sell its devices, because they will sell less without it. However Apple also wants to push its streaming music service, and that business unit is the one who also handles the payments. So they will make a platform designed to be great for Spotify to use, however cause it to be non-competive because of business redtape.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why "should" Apple do any of the things you want?
Because otherwise, they stifle competition.
Who determines "should"?
The People, through their elected representatives.
Last I thought about the issue,
Was never.
access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) wasn't a public utility or good with an expectation of fairness of pricing or in modification of terms.
The App Store is a market. Only free markets benefit The People. Apple is a legal fiction which only exists at the pleasure of The People. Ironically, you can't have a free market without government interference.
Under what right does one claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation?
Under the right of self-governance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
More like they require gas purchases to pay 30%. And DRM the gas fill, such that the car computer tracks fillups with a toner cartridge like 'tracker' via NFC in the nozzle that authorized the next tank of miles. No 30% payment, and the activates limp mode until you pay a 'reactivation' fee. Maybe they can pretend safety features require a subscription paid per gallon, and put the car in limp mode as a 'safety precaution' because the safety features are disabled.
Hmm, sounds like cars aren't being 'fully monetized' yet...
Back to the lair for some marketing work!
The lesa fair economy
"Laissez-faire": literally "let do", but idiomatically "hands off".
And, yes, laissez-faire capitalism is silly, and "no regulations at all" is not a principle of capitalism.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.