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."
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!
"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!
The situation is not quite as simple as that though. Apple has a monopoly on the market for everyone that uses iPhone while a brick and mortar store would have to compete against other stores. It's more comparable to Visa and Mastercard taking a 30% cut of each sale made at every store unless it's a store owned by Visa/Mastercard.
If Apple had a completely unlocked phone where multiple appmarketplaces could compete for customers they could charge a 90% cut for all I care. But when they lock out the competition it gets very shady. In my mind they are abusing their monopoly position just like Microsoft and Intel did in their heydays, to the detriment of us all.
In what way is Spotify being prevented from contacting its users. Has apple blocked their push notification ability?
Spotify doesn't pay a damn thing to apple for hosting their app, they do pay for processing purchases in the app using the App Store in app purchase method.... which they could easily avoid by simply pushing the user out of the app or even taking credit card information in the app. 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.... Spotify could absolutely do that. They could probably even use Apple Pay and not pay a dime to apple (I dont know how Apple Pay handles subscription style payments). What they cannot do is use the App Store in app purchase feature that auto bills the credit card associated with the Apple ID without paying a fee.
They have options, they just don't want to use them
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
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.
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.
Bullshit. You knew there was only an App Store on the iPhone. But it is not a monopoly because the iPhone is not a monopoly.
The country you were born in, or the country of your descent precludes choice in the matter, and a government is a de facto monopoly on your rule.
The App Store is apple's way of distributing third party apps. If you don't like it, feel free to develop on another platform. If you don't like it, feel free to buy any other phone.
That's what precludes it from being a monopoly. Apple's success is that they have given consumers and developers what they want, and stayed in-bounds enough not to drive their users and developers away.
But iOS 2 isn't compatible with Spotify, not is the iPhone at the time. Once FairPlay was removed, you were free to switch, but didn't.
>which they could easily avoid by simply pushing the user out of the app or even taking credit card information in the app.
Apple doesn't allow taking credit card info in any app that's in the app store, and you have to be very careful about how you push users to pay in any other way or you risk delisting.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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.
>The country you were born in, or the country of your descent precludes choice in the matter
Nonsense, there's this thing called emigration that's available to everyone. Every day you live in your birth country instead of leaving is a fresh choice in the matter.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And that fee covers everything from credit card processing to hosting and bandwidth, which for all of the free app downloads that Spotify enjoys is a non-negligible amount of money.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
If Apple had a completely unlocked phone where multiple appmarketplaces could compete for customers they could charge a 90% cut for all I care. But when they lock out the competition it gets very shady. In my mind they are abusing their monopoly position just like Microsoft and Intel did in their heydays, to the detriment of us all.
I have an Apple iPhone; I'm on my second one. Prior to my first one I had an iPod Touch. I have deliberately chosen the iPhone over all of its Android competitors because of the way that Apple has built IOS and the way that Apple administers the app store. Although I appreciate being able to freely install and run software on my home computer, I also appreciate the "walled garden" approach on my phone as I want it to work more like an appliance and less like another system that I have to administer. I don't see how this could work as effectively without Apple's "monopoly" power over their app store. If I wasn't happy with that, I could easily have chosen a platform with an alternative approach, namely Android. Apple's "monopoly" is over their product and what can run on their product. In my opinion that control is PART OF THE PRODUCT and is one of the things that causes me to choose Apple over Android.
Tell that to the masses shot and killed trying to get over the Berlin Wall, or the starving and parasite riddled North Koreans. Or the masses waiting for a Visa to enter the US.
No, not everyone has that freedom.