Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Alternative iOS App Stores Only Work for 'Grace Period' When Traveling Outside of EU

gnipgnop said:
I already addressed that. Spotify only used IAP for two years. 2008-2013 was entirely web based. 2017-2023 was entirely web based. How can the EU claim customers couldn't know about web based payments when 13 years of Spotify's iOS subscriptions required web based payments?
Click to expand...
Since you refuse to read it, I am putting them here. After Spotify stopped IAP, this is what Apple did in retaliation.

2016 (MAY)​

We opt out of Apple's payment system and the artificially uncompetitive price we had to charge for using it​

Because we turn off IAP, it means you can no longer upgrade to Premium through the App Store *sigh*.

2016 (MAY)​

Apple starts an intensified pattern of Spotify app rejections - and threatens to remove us from the App Store​

Now that Apple has Apple Music, rejections of the Spotify app start becoming more and more common, and they even go as far as threatening to remove us from the App Store. Those rejections seem to coincide with our promotional campaign seasons.

2016 (JUNE)​

Apple tightens the App Store Guidelines...again​

While we haven’t been able to include any buttons or external links to pages containing product info, discounts, promotions, etc. (even if they don’t link directly to a payment system!) since Feb. 2011, this time a “call to action” restriction is added.


2016 (SEP)​

Apple rejects Spotify's proposal for an Apple Watch app yet again​

We submit a new proposal for a streaming app directly on the Apple Watch. Apple declines.

2016-2017​

Apple continues to make more frequent, unexpected and unjustified rejections of our app updates​

Now just having a “Learn More” button is enough to upset the Apple cart even though this is the first time we’ve heard of such a rule. All we can do is focus on ensuring compliance, but that’s not easy when the definitions of what we can and can’t do change from one day to the next.

2017 (JUNE)​

App Store Guidelines are tightened once again​

This app update means that rival apps have to agree not to “directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than IAP or discourage the use of IAP.”

2017 (NOV)​

Apple rejects Spotify's app again​

This time, we are rejected because of a campaign that makes reference to a Spotify Premium promotion (“get 3 months now for €0.99”), despite only directing users to a landing page with no info on where or how to purchase Premium (which Apple had allowed only a few months prior). In fact, Apple’s chief lawyer told us a year earlier that such a landing page was OK, but that didn’t stop the App Store from blocking our app for this reason.

2018 (MAY)​

Apple rejects Spotify's app yet again​

Rejected this time because we showed the word “Free” in Spotify’s app screenshots on the App Store. And apparently that’s prohibited…?!

2018 (JULY)​

And the rejections keep on coming!​

At this point, it’s hard to know how Apple will interpret anything that we do. This time, the phrase “Get in, Get Premium” is prohibited.

2019 (FEB)​

Apple Music disregards its own rules​

Apple Music sends the very type of promotional push notifications that it forbids its rivals to send.


2019 (FEB)​

Next up on Apple's restriction list -- podcast recommendations​

So we announce two podcast acquisitions we are super excited about, and all of a sudden Apple arbitrarily decides to prohibit use of its API to recommend podcasts to users.

2022 OCTOBER​

Apple added a fresh new restriction to the roster—this time, with audiobooks.​

Following the launch of Spotify’s new audiobooks offering, Apple rejected a slew of app updates intended to introduce an intuitive audiobook purchasing experience. This time, in addition to consumers being hurt, authors and publishers are also being punished.


This is called hounding. It cost them 1.8 billion euro.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: dekadent, jakey rolling, Samplasion and 3 others
Analog Kid said:
Yeah, it would have been nice if Europe learned from radio certifications and media licensing and didn't force regionality
Click to expand...
They couldn't reasonably enforce globality in one of their laws, but specifying no regionality is the next closest thing.
Analog Kid said:
because Europe wanted its own laws.
Click to expand...
Wow, are we debating the sovereignty of a coalition of countries? We have reached the bottom.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Sophisticatednut and turbineseaplane
That’s a very strange one. EU citizens are EU citizens, no matter where they are on the planet.
 
hagar said:
That’s a very strange one. EU citizens are EU citizens, no matter where they are on the planet.
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but the laws of your home country don't always apply to you when you're outside of it. There's a lot of things Americans can do in the US but wouldn't get away with in other countries...and vice versa. Being a citizen of a country doesn't mean you can do the same things elsewhere on the planet that you could do at home. When you go somewhere, you are subject to that somewhere's laws. Heck, take drinking age as an example. The legal age to drink in some European countries...will get that same person in trouble in the US because we have different laws. Being a citizen of a country that has a drinking age of 18 means absolutely nothing here, where it's 21. Being an EU citizen won't save you from our underage drinking laws!
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy, steve09090, VulchR and 3 others
Beautyspin said:
This is called hounding. It cost them 1.8 billion euro.
Click to expand...
Apple wasn't fined for "hounding". Vestager and the EU are claiming that customers couldn't know that payments could be made on the internet. Spotify has been on the App Store for 15 years. 13 of those years required customers to pay on the internet because Spotify didn't use IAP. So the claim by Vestager/EU isn't supported by 13 years of Spotify customers paying via the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and iOS Geek
iOS Geek said:
Hate to break it to you, but the laws of your home country don't always apply to you when you're outside of it. There's a lot of things Americans can do in the US but wouldn't get away with in other countries...and vice versa. Being a citizen of a country doesn't mean you can do the same things elsewhere on the planet that you could do at home. When you go somewhere, you are subject to that somewhere's laws. Heck, take drinking age as an example. The legal age to drink in some European countries...will get that same person in trouble in the US because we have different laws. Being a citizen of a country that has a drinking age of 18 means absolutely nothing here, where it's 21. Being an EU citizen won't save you from our underage drinking laws!
Click to expand...

100%. Who here wants to go to Saudi Arabia and say not so flattering things about the Saudi Royal Family? As an American, I should have freedom of speech, right? /s
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and VulchR
gnipgnop said:
Apple wasn't fined for "hounding". Vestager and the EU are claiming that customers couldn't know that payments could be made on the internet. Spotify has been on the App Store for 15 years. 13 of those years required customers to pay on the internet because Spotify didn't use IAP. So the claim by Vestager/EU isn't supported by 13 years of Spotify customers paying via the internet.
Click to expand...
The European Commission fined Apple nearly $2 billion Monday for “abusing” its control over music streaming services by squelching competition through its app store, a major broadside as regulators around the globe push to rein in the tech giant’s alleged antitrust violations.

The commission said it found that Apple violated European competition rules by preventing app developers from informing users about “alternative and cheaper” music services.

They called it "abusing," I am calling it hounding. Semantics.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy, Sophisticatednut, I7guy and 2 others
TigerNike23 said:
This. They have ZERO jurisdiction outside of their borders. Legally, Apple doesn’t have to do a thing once someone is beyond the EU.
Click to expand...
But they have to honor the terms of service. A contract is a contract.

They can cancel the contract, but that would be a mess, because it would mean that all your subscriptions would stop as well. What a mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sophisticatednut and Samplasion
gnipgnop said:
Apple wasn't fined for "hounding". Vestager and the EU are claiming that customers couldn't know that payments could be made on the internet. Spotify has been on the App Store for 15 years. 13 of those years required customers to pay on the internet because Spotify didn't use IAP. So the claim by Vestager/EU isn't supported by 13 years of Spotify customers paying via the internet.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Anti steering= not able to inform customers of better services

Could you stop lying all the time?
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and Samplasion
Beautyspin said:
The commission said it found that Apple violated European competition rules by preventing app developers from informing users about “alternative and cheaper” music services.

They called it "abusing," I am calling it hounding. Semantics.
Click to expand...
13 years of Spotify requiring iOS customers to use the internet to pay for a premium subscription doesn’t support the EU’s conclusion. As Spotify’s own financial records showed at the time of their EU complaint, only 1% of iOS premium subscribers were paying via an App Store IAP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
mdriftmeyer said:
Source: https://reciprocity.com/resource-center/guide-to-gdpr-compliance-for-us-companies/#:~:text=So, for example, if an,the GDPR will not apply.



There is a reason we don’t have a single unified Amazon.com store, Apple Store, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.

Laws are bound by borders. International Laws are ratified by all trading partners and they themselves have limitations to only those participating nations ratifying said laws.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. Certain provisions of the GPDR apply regardless of where the company or the user are based. There are several cases of laws that apply outside of the country that made them (extraterritorial jurisdiction). For example the US outlaws illicit sexual conduct with minors regardless of location (even if the country where it happens allow it), and there are countless other examples of laws that apply outside of the borders of the country that promulgated them.


  1. Data Collection and GDPR: Data collection has seen unparalleled growth in the digital age. When this data collection involves personal data of individuals in the EU or data from EU citizens, GDPR regulations come into play, regardless of the company’s location.
  2. GDPR Compliance Outside Europe: GDPR applies outside Europe as much as it does within the confines of the EU member states. Companies that are established in the EU or are processing personal data of data subjects in the EU, whether they’re providing services or not, are subject to the GDPR.
  3. Exceptions and Special Cases: While GDPR’s intent is clear, there are instances where the GDPR doesn’t apply. Such as data relating to criminal convictions or where the processing of data is not within the context of a company’s professional activities.
  4. Rights and Freedoms of Data Subjects: One of the most powerful aspects of the GDPR is the rights it affords EU citizens, from access to their data to determinations on how it’s processed. Regardless of where an EU citizen is living, their data privacy is protected by the GDPR.
  5. Determining Whether the GDPR Applies: This is where it gets particularly intricate. The applicability of the GDPR can be influenced by numerous factors. For instance, even if an EU citizen is residing in a non-EU country, certain provisions of the GDPR might still be relevant, especially if their data is being processed by companies located in an EU country or aiming to provide services to them.
www.wizaly.com

Does GDPR Apply to EU Citizens Living Outside the EU? – GDPR Frequently Asked Questions Answered – Advanced Marketing Attribution and Analytics with Wizaly

With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) dominating headlines and boardroom discussions, there's a pressing question on the minds of many director-lev
www.wizaly.com www.wizaly.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
Sophisticatednut said:
Wrong again. Anti steering= not able to inform customers of better services

Could you stop lying all the time?
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not lying when I say that Spotify relied on iOS subscribers to pay via the internet. So the EU is only correct in saying that Spotify couldn't communicate inside the app. They obviously were able to communicate via other means that were viable to their business. 13 out of their 15 years on the App Store required customers to pay for premium subscriptions on the internet. And I've already posted a link showing their premium subscription growth curve was not inhibited by the lack of in-app communications. The vast majority of it happened after Apple Music launched in 2015.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
gnipgnop said:
Again, I'm not lying when I say that Spotify relied on iOS subscribers to pay via the internet. So the EU is only correct in saying that Spotify couldn't communicate inside the app. They obviously were able to communicate via other means that were viable to their business. 13 out of their 15 years on the App Store required customers to pay for premium subscriptions on the internet. And I've already posted a link showing their premium subscription growth curve was not inhibited by the lack of in-app communications. The vast majority of it happened after Apple Music launched in 2015.
Click to expand...
What you fail to consider is, how many people decided to just get Apple Music because they either didn't find the option to subscribe to Spotify in-app, or simply didn't find it easy enough to do online? Remember, the average user wants as frictionless an experience as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
turbineseaplane said:
I keep wondering where the bottom for Apple is ...
I don't know if we are there yet

Folks cheering them on ... all the way down ... saddens me to no end
Click to expand...
I guess different people have different definitions of apple. I frankly see them putting up the right fight in terms of governments writing legislation to divest their assets. It’s more the eu is on its way to the bottom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and jz0309
Samplasion said:
What you fail to consider is, how many people decided to just get Apple Music because they either didn't find the option to subscribe to Spotify in-app, or simply didn't find it easy enough to do online? Remember, the average user wants as frictionless an experience as possible.
Click to expand...
I decided to get Apple Music because I didnt like spotify. So I pay for Apple Music rather than free Spotify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and steve09090
gnipgnop said:
Again, I'm not lying when I say that Spotify relied on iOS subscribers to pay via the internet. So the EU is only correct in saying that Spotify couldn't communicate inside the app. They obviously were able to communicate via other means that were viable to their business. 13 out of their 15 years on the App Store required customers to pay for premium subscriptions on the internet. And I've already posted a link showing their premium subscription growth curve was not inhibited by the lack of in-app communications. The vast majority of it happened after Apple Music launched in 2015.
Click to expand...
The thing is EU don’t care at all what Spotify can or can’t do outside iOS ecosystem. EU is concerned explicitly what Spotify and 100% of other companies can’t do inside apple’s ecosystem as is related to anti trust legislation.

Spotifys growth is irrelevant to the action Apple conducted. Spotify could be super successful and it would have close to zero impact to the legal issues at hand.

Spotify having 100% of the market is also irrelevant at hand or having billions of customers are irrelevant at hand to an action being by definition illegal irrespective of outcome on the company.

The issue is Apple uses underhanded tactics to compete instead of the merits. They uses anti competitive practices that are just straight out illegal to try and get a competitive edge is the issue.
 
Samplasion said:
What you fail to consider is, how many people decided to just get Apple Music because they either didn't find the option to subscribe to Spotify in-app, or simply didn't find it easy enough to do online? Remember, the average user wants as frictionless an experience as possible.
Click to expand...
And what you're failing to consider is that IF a consumer thought paying via the internet was too much of a hassle then they wouldn't have paid via a link or in-app communication either. So it's a wash either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and iOS Geek
Beautyspin said:
Since you refuse to read it, I am putting them here. After Spotify stopped IAP, this is what Apple did in retaliation.

2016 (MAY)​

We opt out of Apple's payment system and the artificially uncompetitive price we had to charge for using it​

Because we turn off IAP, it means you can no longer upgrade to Premium through the App Store *sigh*.

2016 (MAY)​

Apple starts an intensified pattern of Spotify app rejections - and threatens to remove us from the App Store​

Now that Apple has Apple Music, rejections of the Spotify app start becoming more and more common, and they even go as far as threatening to remove us from the App Store. Those rejections seem to coincide with our promotional campaign seasons.

2016 (JUNE)​

Apple tightens the App Store Guidelines...again​

While we haven’t been able to include any buttons or external links to pages containing product info, discounts, promotions, etc. (even if they don’t link directly to a payment system!) since Feb. 2011, this time a “call to action” restriction is added.


2016 (SEP)​

Apple rejects Spotify's proposal for an Apple Watch app yet again​

We submit a new proposal for a streaming app directly on the Apple Watch. Apple declines.

2016-2017​

Apple continues to make more frequent, unexpected and unjustified rejections of our app updates​

Now just having a “Learn More” button is enough to upset the Apple cart even though this is the first time we’ve heard of such a rule. All we can do is focus on ensuring compliance, but that’s not easy when the definitions of what we can and can’t do change from one day to the next.

2017 (JUNE)​

App Store Guidelines are tightened once again​

This app update means that rival apps have to agree not to “directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than IAP or discourage the use of IAP.”

2017 (NOV)​

Apple rejects Spotify's app again​

This time, we are rejected because of a campaign that makes reference to a Spotify Premium promotion (“get 3 months now for €0.99”), despite only directing users to a landing page with no info on where or how to purchase Premium (which Apple had allowed only a few months prior). In fact, Apple’s chief lawyer told us a year earlier that such a landing page was OK, but that didn’t stop the App Store from blocking our app for this reason.

2018 (MAY)​

Apple rejects Spotify's app yet again​

Rejected this time because we showed the word “Free” in Spotify’s app screenshots on the App Store. And apparently that’s prohibited…?!

2018 (JULY)​

And the rejections keep on coming!​

At this point, it’s hard to know how Apple will interpret anything that we do. This time, the phrase “Get in, Get Premium” is prohibited.

2019 (FEB)​

Apple Music disregards its own rules​

Apple Music sends the very type of promotional push notifications that it forbids its rivals to send.


2019 (FEB)​

Next up on Apple's restriction list -- podcast recommendations​

So we announce two podcast acquisitions we are super excited about, and all of a sudden Apple arbitrarily decides to prohibit use of its API to recommend podcasts to users.

2022 OCTOBER​

Apple added a fresh new restriction to the roster—this time, with audiobooks.​

Following the launch of Spotify’s new audiobooks offering, Apple rejected a slew of app updates intended to introduce an intuitive audiobook purchasing experience. This time, in addition to consumers being hurt, authors and publishers are also being punished.


This is called hounding. It cost them 1.8 billion euro.
Click to expand...
I find it frustrating that I ever got a splash screen in Music while trying to listen to albums I’ve already bought.

I had a notification from the Apple Store app the other day saying “Upgrade now to the iPhone 15 Pro”, which I find a little intrusive, and I also keep getting bugged to pay for iCloud storage.

I tried switching iCloud off today to try and stop that notification, but it needs to be running in order for me to see my smart devices in the Home app.

If I didn’t need an iPhone to have my Apple Watch I would probably try something else when it came time to buy a new phone.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: hagar and turbineseaplane
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back