Slashdot Mirror
Apple Says Spotify Wants 'the Benefits of a Free App Without Being Free' (engadget.com)
Apple has responded to Spotify's European Commission (EC) complaint. In a press release, the company said that Spotify "seeks to keep all the benefits of the App Store ecosystem ... without making any contributions to that marketplace." It added that the App Store has generated $120 billion for developers while offering users a secure platform, and that Spotify is seeking to side to sidestep the rules that every other app follows. From a report: "Spotify has every right to determine their own business model, but we feel an obligation to respond when Spotify wraps its financial motivations in misleading rhetoric about who we are," the company wrote. Spotify's main argument was that Apple's own music service, Apple Music, isn't subject to the same restrictions of its own app. "[A]pps should be able to compete fairly on the merits, and not based on who owns the App Store," wrote CEO Daniel Ek. "We should all be subject to the same fair set of rules and restrictions -- including Apple Music." It added that Apple had often stymied it on app updates and locked it out of Apple services, "such as Siri, HomePod and Apple Watch." Finally, it noted that Apple had blocked communication with its own customers on things like special offers. In response, Apple addressed each complaint point by point, while criticizing Spotify's treatment of musicians and artists. It said that it has approved nearly 200 app updates, and "the only time we have requested adjustments is when Spotify has tried to sidestep the same rules that every app follows."
Spotify, why Apple would want to make things easier for you?
I suspect Netflix is next, since Apple is set to launch its competing streaming app.
first
to Apple. Problem solved.
The TRUTH is, Apple is a dick when it comes to the handling of the app store and its walled garden iron fist controls. They could be better and should be.
The TRUTH is, Spotify is ruining music in many ways by paying fractions of pennies in royalties. Some artists with millions of song plays have received on $80 for a year of royalties. Fix that, then stop trying to side step app store rules. They could be better and should be.
Two companies who are both pulling bullshit are mad at the other for pulling bullshit. That's the Truth.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Apple has a monopoly on app stores on the iPhone. The existence of Android doesn't matter (DOJ said as much in 1999 when it claimed existence of Apple didn't matter when determining that Microsoft had a monopoly because Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows).
If you follow the same logic, Apple should be required to allow other app stores to be installed on iPhone. Apple shouldn't be able to set their own app store as the default either. They must have an app store selection screen (like Microsoft's browser selection screen, where Microsoft was required to advertise other browsers).
I haven't had an iPhone since the 3gs but back then you couldn't get apps that would stream music over the cell data network. The Palm Treo I had previously did it just fine, but the Iphone locked it to Itunes only. I couldn't stream music off my server unless on my local wireless network.
12:50 - press return.
30% tax is .... at the very least immoral
hopefully illegal too
And I'd say it's typical of most valley companies of the last decade - they are thieves. Artists deserve to be paid for their work, just like Spotify and Facebook seem to think they deserve to be paid, and users are not a commodity. These companies sound like three-year old children, and they are impossible to take seriously. Boo fucking hoo. I hope that Apple sticks to it's guns and people pull their songs from Spotify etc. in droves.
For a start if it something is free on the store then they are still taxing it at 30%. Just 30% of nothing. But Spotify isn't being done like that, they're being held up behind obfuscation and obstruction in contacting their users. Which is kind of what you DON'T pay money to a thirdparty warehouse salesfront to do.
IF the choices were taxed 30% and that paid for the storage, arranging payments and user access for the purchaser of the product through their store charging them that 30%, OR 0% tax (well LESS than 30% at least, even if not 0%) but either you asked Apple to ask your users so that you were basically paying by offering up your customers to Apple to turn into revenue, THEN spotify would be wanting their cake and the eating of it too.
As it is, what the fuck are they paying Apple to get in the way of their customers for? Purely because Apple have a monopoly on access and are ABUSING IT.
If Apple gets out of the way and lets "Spotify paid-for" access their customers who HAPPENED to buy via the Apple Store like any other storefront would do, but Spotify were still upset, THEN I'd say Spotify is in the wrong, or at the very least looking to get a better deal on that 30% cut Apple take, which is free market fundamentals and selfish (since the free market bases itself on a driving force of selfishness).
As it is, Apple are wrong here and are making shit up to suit their purposes and, since the monopoly is a government granted right (copyright), the government should be called in to police abuses of that monopoly.
google play store wants you to think your getting a android app but instead are paying for it by letting them turn YOUR phone in to a platform for advertising
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
HOWGTH :D
What Apple doesn't want to admit - won't admit - is that their crappy Apple Music service could never compete with Spotify in a free and open market. That's why they do their best to try and prevent Spotify from working on iOS devices. They lock it out of Siri and they lock it out of integration with other devices.
Apple Music is a terrible, buggy service. On desktops, the only way to use it is iTunes, so enough said on that front. On iOS, the experience isn't much better. The Apple Music UI is notoriously terrible, to the point where Apple added a popup to explain how to turn shuffle on and off because just about no one could find it otherwise. (It involves scrolling up on a UI element that doesn't appear to be scrollable, and it's unclear why the controls are hidden anyway because they're already in a UI element you have to explicitly "pop up" to interact with anyway.) It's also buggy - streams frequently randomly stop, and the app will frequently randomly forget what you were doing and restart at the beginning of the "library" meaning that you'll be hearing a lot of whatever the first song in database order is.
Then there's the lack of discovery options. You're basically limited to Apple curated playlists on Apple Music. There's basically no option to just browse. If you don't know exactly what you're looking for, search will never find it. There's an option to stream music that's "similar" to other music but this frequently glitches out and crashes, and the songs it picks are incredibly random and unrelated to boot. It's just bad.
Spotify, on the other hand, presents a clean, usable interface and actually works. It remembers what you were doing. It provides a whole lot of discovery options, and you can follow curated playlists from people all over the world. In a truly free market, there's no way Apple Music in its current form could compete with Spotify.
So Apple doesn't bother competing. (This is why Apple Music might as well not exist on Android: there are too many other, better choices.) Instead they tightly integrate Apple Music and hope that by making using Spotify annoying enough, Apple users will use their service instead. And apparently it works, to some degree.
"the only time we have requested adjustments is when Spotify has tried to sidestep the same rules that every app other than an Apple app follows."
That extra, bolded part, is what Spotify is complaining about, Apple. You have terms you are hell-bent on forcing on others, but you don't have to play by those rules yourself, do you...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
As with so many matters that involve money, arguments fly around left and right that claim to be on principle, but really aren't.
When you see ESPN and Comcast argue over showing the World Series, don't buy the argument that one of them is "trying to prevent loyal customers from being able to see their favorite game", or when your local hospital group withdraws from your employer health plan that "the other side is trying to deprive you of consumer choice".
Each side is wanting to make a share of the money, and they're disagreeing over the price (or often the royalties share). No one is entitled to any particular provision of service in *any* of these cases. Except in regulated industries there's no law governing the "fair" share that someone has to offer, or someone has to accept. And in most cases, each side could choose to compromise what it's asking for with no damage to its model of business (not talking about $, just the principles they claim).
Spotify wants a lower $ charge. Apple owns the platform and controls that access and $ charge. That's it.
This is a private contract dispute and only of interest because you care about listening to music. There's no public right to have a music app be charged a certain amount that's called "fair". Spotify could charge nothing to consumers, and be charged nothing by Apple. It's their choice. It's Apple's choice.
Don't be fooled into "principles" when there's money involved.
I think Apple has simply made a lame argument defending its 30% fee. I accept that Apple deserves a fee to distribute a app through its store. But Spotify clearly makes a valid argument that the fee is far too high and Apple is trying to benefit from this arrangement. I understand now why Netflix found a way to get around it.
Any other payment service charge will be around 2% but they try to justify 30% (but hey you get to 15% eventually right?). Apple also acts like they are the ones causing the downloads... no dude you are just a large market share of phones. Not every app gets 300 million downloads, it is the quality of the app that causes that. Stop trying to take credit for other people's work.
If Apple isn't going to allow any other apps or apps stores to be loaded except through their app store, then they shouldn't be allowed to charge any percent. If they allowed other stores and side loading, then it would be fair to charge whatever they wanted. This is basically like saying you can only buy parts and accessories for your car through the dealership.
For Apple, services is the future, so the more locked in, the better monopoly they have on services, the better they will do. While Spotify is an APP, it is also a competing service to Apple Music. This is sort of like the anti-trust cases against Microsoft for 'bundling' Internet Explrorer and other 'default' apps into Windows while making it difficult to change the Defaults. Eventually, iOS will be seen like the desktop, with applications a separate layer from the OS itself. Once that future court case is done, Apple won't be able to 'special' select it's own apps to be the only apps that work.
1) Apple has lawyers and accountants; likely they are doing the minimum required. That said, talented people in those areas likely have creative accounting techniques for minimizing their self-payment.
2) Apple's counterpoint is a clear win; Spotify is just being another greedy corp testing the boundaries. That said, Apple didn't address how they pay themselves so I would guess something isn't quite right... the lawyers might be preparing to remedy that if that could be disclosed in detail.
3) They said "Apple connects Spotify to our users" which indicates they feel 100% safe in a self-created gatekeeper monopoly market in openly saying they do exactly what people don't like and going on to justify it. They are safe on this front because it is essentially the same as any retail store... just because it's on the internet people confuse freedom with what retail actually is.
4) 30% is high if you don't understand retail. It is well within, if not LOW when you think of actual retail store markups. Apple probably puts in more effort than Amazon or Google in curation of their store and app review to legitimately justify that cost; like a actual retail store has to stock items etc. If they spend the same labor $ as a real store doing diligent maintenance and curation of their store then the 30% is worth it.
5) If you look over Apple's details, you'll see that they have a huge volume of Apps that skip the 30% fee. So clearly they are shifting the majority of overhead costs to the big players who can afford it. They don't mention what their profits or operating costs are for their store ; perhaps somebody could find an SEC report? I would guess that it is on the high end of normal and nothing close to typical monopoly profits.
6) Private corps need more regulations. They are not a person with human rights; that should be obvious. If you refuse to allow black people in your store, you should have major legal problems (your personal house, it's your right to be racist.) If you refuse to sell anything made by black people, you should have major legal problems. Sadly the process in resolving such issues is poor at best; it needs to be made better and GENERIC. Apple should be forced to allow FIREFOX with their browser engine on their app store and the decision should not be theirs; all that BS about wasting RAM or security on another browser engine shouldn't be possible.
Note: I will not buy a phone I can't run firefox on.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Apple needs apps from third parties in order to have a useful platform. Spotify benefits Apple ecosystem by gracing the App Store with their presence. No need to send remuneration to Apple at all.
So it's really REALLY irrelevant. If you have a monopoly, you don't get to say "But I always TOLD you it was!" to excuse your abuse of it. If that were the case then you'd have to STFU about whatever you complain about government, laws or politics, since you already knew what they were like when you decided to live in the country they existed in. You've never bothered with that explanation and shut up before,though, so I suspect that this argument is a hypocritical one: you trot it out, not use it yourself, when you feel like it.
I thought back in December NetFlix announced no more in-app subscription purchases??? How is this any different?
https://www.multichannel.com/news/netflix-cuts-apple-out-of-in-app-purchase-revenue
It;s more that the Mall owner requires different hygiene standards from other Mall eateries to its own. Which their monopoly on Apple Store allows them their private law, known as ToS or contractual agreement, to write. Which is why Spotify has to go to the government, since the contracts can be voided by government saying that this is an abuse of the monopoly therefore not enforceable and to try to enforce it would be illegal. Note, just getting the court in a civil case to rule it unenforcable doesn't stop it, since the program carries out its programming irrelevant of whether it has legal force, so the actions have to be ruled illegal, which a contract based civil case cannot do. Current law and procedures have not updated to what programming does in a digital reality.
Spotify cannot reasonably compete head to head with Apple on their app because as Microsoft has proven, there is no room for any more ecosystems. I could blame Microsoft because they should have seen the whole 'app store' thing coming, but Spotify is a new company that didn't have the fortune to get their foot in the door in time. Apple has an unfair leverage against Spotify.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
When you got your iPhone, you knew you were locked into the Apple Store, right?
No. When the iPhone was introduced, it had no App Store. The "lock-in" was in the other direction: playing iTunes Music Store purchases required an iPhone (or an obscure model of Motorola flip phone), though the iPhone could play music acquired elsewhere. Apple added the App Store came in iOS 2, and its lock-in was and is bidirectional: adding apps to the iPhone requires the App Store, and App Store apps require an iPhone. People who bought an iPhone because of compatibility with FairPlay DRM on pre-2009 iTMS purchases ended up additionally locked into the App Store once iOS 2 came out.
If they don't pay Apple anything, then explain how they charge 30%? Does that money come from Apple, are Apple taking the Spotify price tag, calculating 30%, then charging someone else that mount for every Spotify app purchased????
Or are you talking bollocks?
They have options THAT APPLE ALLOW THEM. That's abuse of the monopoly, moron. Apple don't act like a shopfront, you want to pretend that this is all they are doing. If I buy from Amazon an Apple product, like an iPhone, say, Apple are not required to put a way to tie the iPhone to the Amazon website so they can sell me their Kindle stuff. They just charge Apple.
It's probably a lie.
Perhaps artists should focus on making their money on concert ticket sales and merchandising
What steps can a recording artist take toward "making their money on concert ticket sales and merchandising" in each of the following cases?
A. The recording artist is independent and relies on income from a day job, which rules out touring, but seeks a way to recover the costs of further production of recordings.
B. The recording artist specializes in a musical style that is impractical to perform live, such as the second half of The Beatles' discography or several forms of electronic dance music.
they could easily avoid [Apple's 30% cut of IAP] by simply pushing the user out of the app or even taking credit card information in the app.
The App Store Review Guidelines ban "pushing the user out of the app" or "taking credit card information in the app" except for physical goods.
I have made a retail app on iOS, you could put things in your cart, put in your credit card info and check out just like on a web page and apple didn't get a dime for it
Were the "things" physical? If so, that is the material difference between your app and Spotify.
You know, otherwise your claim is similar to "How can an amputee have legs?" you've described one who if they had the feature you say they don't have would no longer be the one you described. BY DEFINITION a recording artist is in a recording studio, therefore not public. However, nothing says an artist has to be a recording artist.
They can, you know, play in public.
They are still 100% free to put some time into recording studios too, but them doing so is their choice, not a failure of music sales not rewarding selling copies THE ARTIST MADE NO EFFORT TO CREATE.
If you owned a shopping mall, and had your own restaurant inside that mall as well, would you charge yourself the same as you charged other restaurants?
The accountants would make up some nominal amount to put down in the "rent" category in order to itemize tax-deductible expenses. And in order to keep privileges that the city's zoning board grants to the mall, a city aware of the possibility of monopoly abuse would require this rent to be within a reasonable range of what Chick-fil-A and other tenants in the food court pay.
Except in regulated industries there's no law governing the "fair" share that someone has to offer, or someone has to accept.
Music is a regulated industry pursuant to Title 17, United States Code. In addition, the Sherman Act as amended regulates certain aspects of all industries that engage in "commerce [...] among the several states".
Spotify wants a lower $ charge. Apple owns the platform and controls that access and $ charge.
Specifically, Spotify alleges that Apple is "dumping" the service of negotiating with labels and operating streaming servers by providing it to users for free. (In competition law, dumping refers to pricing a good or service below cost in order to harm competitors.) If the music publishers and record labels get 70 percent, and the App Store gets 30 percent, what does that leave for the service of negotiating with labels and operating streaming servers?
This is basically like saying you can only buy parts and accessories for your car through the dealership.
Then how have companies like Nintendo been getting away with the same behavior since 1985?
"[A]pps should be able to compete fairly on the merits, and not based on who owns the App Store".
Apple owns the App Store. Ownership has it's privileges. And Spotify chose to compete directly against iTunes.
Apple just wants to profit 30% from all the hard working developer revenue. And I do not particularly eye here Spotify, but all the small indie ones. We work so hard, day & night, weekends, rare holidays you name it, and Apple just grabs 30%. As if they do not have enough money, and we would thankful directly sell it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People want the benefits of products without paying for them.
What exactly is there to this accusation?
Oh god Apple is bitching about them not getting money for doing nothing.. The Apple store is just one big ripoff for developers, Apple is getting richt over the backs of other for doing hardly anything. They could easily run their store with profit when they would lower their take to 10% (no no % for subscriptions).
no freebies, Gotta pay
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It added that the App Store has generated $120 billion for developers while offering users a secure platform, and that Spotify is seeking to side to sidestep the rules that every other app follows.
I always laugh when they quote revenue figures instead of profit. It doesn't matter how much revenue they generated if it isn't making any profit. As a professor of mine once said, you can make a LOT of revenue selling $2 bills for $1 - you just won't be in business very long doing it. You see this all the time in entrepreneurial magazines. They'll quote how much revenue some new business is doing and leave out the fact they are losing money hand over fist.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't use Spotify so I don't really care what they do. My initial impulse is that if Spotify wants to use Apple's platform then Apple gets to charge whatever they want. If Spotify doesn't like it then that isn't Apple's problem. I doubt Spotify would do Apple a solid if the roles were reversed. Trying to compete head to head with Apple on Apple's platform doesn't seem like a recipe for success.
Apple's arguments only hold water if Apple allowed competing app stores, which they aggressively prevent.
Apple charging 30% for things is not just about recouping the 3% transaction fee, accepting credit cards for payment means that Apple assumes all the risk that merchants normally assume themselves, liability, when transactions are charged back/rejected, running oversight on what gets put in the store
and yeah, they have a right to make a profit
Apple was the one that actually made this kind of model way better for developers. Xbox and Playstation developers used to get socked with way higher percentages, some as high as 70%. They've since come in line with Apple.
And in any case, ultimately it's not about the 30% anyway. What Spotify really wants is that sweet sweet customer data and the right to sell you to other companies.
Google Play Apps With 150 Million Installs Contain Aggressive Adware
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Tell me again the problem with Apple's walled garden?
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Microsoft had > 90% of the desktop OS market, which is why they were considered a gateway to users. There was no other option. That's why they were a monopoly. They dominated the market. IOS world wide is in the 'teens in terms of market penetration, so yeah... bullshit to your bullshit on my bullshit.
Spotify could upload their app, but they hardly need to do that, being the owners of the company making it, and it really REALLY doesn't help sell it when the only person able to "sideload your own apps" and avoid Apple is yourself. Kinda limited customer base, there.
So, I doubt your name. It's half right: you're a fool, but you know exactly what you are doing, you are DELIBERATELY lying
You need some thinking comprehension. Use the FOREBRAIN, not the brainstem. YOU whinged "How are Apple getting in the wayah?!?!!?" and I said "READ THEIR FUCKING COMPLAINT, SIMPLETON". Moreover you claimed that Spotify did not pay, and I called that up. NOW you're claiming that you showed what spotify paid for???? SELF PWNAGE??? Abd SOMEHOW in your fanboi drooling you "think" this is MY reading comprehension problem?!?!?!?
Fuck off.
By refusing to allow sideloading, the iPhone is a compeltely separate market, and here's a shocker for you: APPLE OWNS 100% OF IT. Moron.
They are NOT allowed to buy direct from Spotify. Banned by the App Store ToS, fucking moron. READ THEIR COMPLAINT, ASSHAT.