Apple Accuses Spotify of 'Resorting to Rumors and Half-Truths', Sets Record Straight on App Rejection

[username:]

I disagree with spotify's approach but I am still on their side because their service sh!ts all over Apple Music. Spotify is a must have.

 

[allan6666]

If there is no sunlight the no, they won't.

Brawndo has electrolytes. It's what plants crave.

 

[canadianreader]

It feels like they're stuck in a creepy borderline relationship "I hate you don't leave me".

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

160 million downloads... bandwidth and storage are cheap, thats what, 100GB? 200GB? Apple doesn't let you circumvent the store to install apps, so they forced that distribution requirement on themselves. As a developer, I agree. Apple needs to back off on this 30% charge, because they are doing nothing to justify it. Especially when all these major companies who are complaining already have the payment infrastructure in place to handle payments themselves (which is typically a 2-5% fee from the processing companies, not 30%).

30% for doing nothing is extortion.
We went from the days where the carriers always got caught with their hand in the cookie jar demanding their slice of everything done on their phones, to Apple doing the same.

I normally defend Apple on everything, but f*** apple on this one.

Should go back to school and learn math.

The Spotify App is currently 75MB. It only takes 13.3 downloads to reach 1GB. 75MB x 160 million downloads represents 12,000,000GB (or 12,000TB or 12PB). How on earth you got 100-200GB is mind boggling. How can a developer not even know how to calculate something as simple as storage?

Further, I don't buy the 160 million as a total number of downloads. I think that's the total number of users. But that's another issue altogether.

 

[omihek]

More exposure = more money. Duh.

Thank you captain obvious.

Let me explain it differently since you obviously missed my point. Spotify isn't complaining about not being a part of the essential apps list, they are complaining about having to pay Apple for using Apple's services.

 

[LoveAppleForever]

The key issue here is that Spotify doesn't technically have to distribute through Apple, and doesn't want to distribute through Apple, but Apple forbids anyone from distributing not through them.

This! I just read 30-40 comments from people who are just completely overlooking this. Apple FORBIDS their users from downloading apps directly. When we buy iphones, we are subsequently limited to having apple as a forced middle man in all future interactions.

 

[montygw]

Say you wrote a software package that you sold on the web for $29.

You want the same profit, but you want to sell it at Walmart. Walmart takes a 35% cut. Your software must cost around $49 at Walmart to give you the same profits.

Would Walmart have an issue with your software when someone opened the box there was a note that asked you to 'return this to Walmart - save $20 - and buy it over the web for $29'.

This is exactly what Spotify is doing.

1. Old model. Comparing bricks and mortar with the infinitely more accessible Internet commerce is poor.

2. Using your analogy; do HP make you go back to Walmart to buy ink? Do Krups make you buy coffee from Walmart? No. This is about recurring revenue.

3. Equality. Apple are not subject to the same 30% cut when selling the same services via the App Store. This makes Apples refusal to allow others to direct subscriptions through third party systems in order to have a level playing field a huge matter for concern.

 

[LoveAppleForever]

Obviously Spotify did what they did on purpose so the app update would be rejected. Are they asking for preferential treatment or are they just looking to start a fight hoping that the court of public opinion (or government intervention) will cause Apple to change their policies?

Such tinfoil hat.

 

[2457248]

wait wait, i arrived late on this story, does it mean that apple takes 30% for every spotify prenium monthly subscription payment, if done through the app store as an "in-app-purchase"?
whereas i could pay through their website and the full sum goes to spotify?

and so, if i understand, spotify is trying to circumvent the in-app purchase system by redirecting to a platform where they get the full revenue for themselves?

then, last question, why doesn't spotify go without in-app system alltogether? apple can't be forcing them to use it, right?

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

Apple has no transparency with respect to the app store processes, and they have a history of anti-competitive behaviors. Of course apple is abusing the app store, its just a matter of whether anyone will ever be able to prove it. That's not likely, given apple's highly secretive and paranoid nature.

Bull. Apple is explicit why Apps are rejected. It's the whiners like Spotify who go around crying to everyone who will listen that "Apple rejected our App and we don't know why" while pretending that Apple didn't explain to them what happened that promote this garbage belief that Apple isn't transparent. The rules are very clear.

 

[Stromos]

This! I just read 30-40 comments from people who are just completely overlooking this. Apple FORBIDS their users from downloading apps directly. When we buy iphones, we are subsequently limited to having apple as a forced middle man in all future interactions.

This would be why its a secure OS. This is why malware is impossible on the iPhone. This is why I buy iPhones. I want the walled garden so I don't have to deal with malware crap. Some of us have to deal with information security.

1. Old model. Comparing bricks and mortar with the infinitely more accessible Internet commerce is poor.

2. Using your analogy; do HP make you go back to Walmart to buy ink? Do Krups make you buy coffee from Walmart? No. This is about recurring revenue.

3. Equality. Apple are not subject to the same 30% cut when selling the same services via the App Store. This makes Apples refusal to allow others to direct subscriptions through third party systems in order to have a level playing field a huge matter for concern.

You are fully allowed to get direct subscriptions through third party systems. You are not allowed to advertise those third party systems and not bypass IAP. Ebay doesn't allow people to do transactions outside of Ebay to get around fees. Its the same damn thing. You don't get to use ebay and in your listing say go to my website and buy direct all purchases through ebay will be cancelled.

 

[DTCrave]

Yesterday, Spotify accused Apple of using its App Store approval process as a "weapon to harm competitors" after Apple rejected a Spotify app update, and now Apple has responded to Spotify's accusations to "set the record straight."

In a letter to Spotify lawyer Horacio Gutierrez that was shared by BuzzFeed, Apple's legal head Bruce Sewell says Apple is disappointed with the public attacks and concerned that Spotify is asking for exemptions to rules that apply to all app developers.

Sewell goes on to say that Spotify's belief it should not have to pay to take advantage of the "benefits of Apple's hard work" is "simply unfair and unreasonable," pointing out that the App Store rules existed long before Apple Music was introduced. He also points out the new revenue split rules for subscriptions, which will see Apple taking a 15 percent cut from customers who have subscribed to a service for more than a year, instead of a 30 percent cut.

Sewell's letter to Spotify ends with some clarification on why Spotify's app was rejected on May 26. Spotify replaced its in-app subscription purchase options with an account sign-up feature Apple says was "clearly intended to circumvent Apple's in-app purchase rules."

Apple notified Spotify about the guideline violation and following discussions with Apple, Spotify submitted a new version of the app on June 10 that incorporated the same sign-up feature asking for customer email addresses to be used to invite customers to sign up for a Spotify subscription on the web, which Apple again rejected.In Spotify's own letter, sent to Apple on June 26 but made public yesterday, Spotify accused Apple of causing "grave harm" to its business by rejecting the app update. Spotify said Apple's aim was to "exclude and diminish the competitiveness of Spotify on iOS," which "raises serious concerns under both US and EU competition law."

Sewell's full letter to Spotify can be read over at BuzzFeed.

Article Link: Apple Accuses Spotify of 'Resorting to Rumors and Half-Truths', Sets Record Straight on App Rejection

 

[allan6666]

I don't hear Apple complain about the harm that Spotify did to the iTunes Store and music downloads in general..?
Spotify, please, you've never made any money, and you never will. Please stop kicking in the legs those that have the power to create a generous platform for artists and distributors (yeah, you read good: screw record companies, they are to be demolished).

Apple has done little if any to help the music industry. Create a funnel to channel the majority of the artists', producers', engineers', and labels' profits back to Apple. Yep.

 

[polbit]

Here is what Apple wants the companies to do:

1. You can pay for Apple Music, Apple's own service, that is arguably inferior right now
2. You can pay 30% more for Spotify or have them eat the 30%, the most popular streaming service in the world

The situation is even worse with books:

1. You can pay normal prices for books in iBooks Store
2. You can pay 30% more for books on Kindle, by far the largest ebook store in the world

While the Spotify workaround is easy, since the subscription sign-up on the web is a one-time affair, the book situation is painful every time you want to buy a book on Kindle.

For consumers (you know, me and you) this is not good. Why do you care what's good for Apple? Do you think they care what's good for you? You should care to have the most choice at the lowest price.

 

[allan6666]

This would be why its a secure OS. This is why malware is impossible on the iPhone. This is why I buy iPhones. I want the walled garden so I don't have to deal with malware crap. Some of us have to deal with information security.

Not true

 

[QCassidy352]

Yeah right, "we firmly adhere to the principle of treating all developers fairly and equitably", all except themselves. Which is their whole point.

Yeah, of course except themselves. Apple's store, apple's rules. So yes, they can give their own products competitive advantages.

Any dev that doesn't like the rules is welcome to pick up their toys and play in some other sandbox, or build their own sandbox that gives a competitive advantage to their own products and services. Which, of course, Spotify won't do, because for all their complaining, they make vastly more by having their app in the app store than they would if they didn't, and they know it.

 

[DTCrave]

I think Spotify did a very smart thing. they got the web subscription feature out to the public. sounds just like something Apple would do. now they can have their cake and eat it to. what better way to get noticed than to pick a fight. great publicity.

 

[Zirel]

Say you wrote a software package that you sold on the web for $29.

You want the same profit, but you want to sell it at Walmart. Walmart takes a 35% cut. Your software must cost around $49 at Walmart to give you the same profits.

Would Walmart have an issue with your software when someone opened the box there was a note that asked you to 'return this to Walmart - save $20 - and buy it over the web for $29'.

This is exactly what Spotify is doing.

I think it's worse.

It's like putting a book on B&N for a $1, and then, for the last chapter it had a page saying:

Want to see how it all ends?
Go to our site, pay us $20 and download the last chapter.

 

[demodave]

Yesterday, Spotify accused Apple of using its App Store approval process as a "weapon to harm competitors" after Apple rejected a Spotify app update, and now Apple has responded to Spotify's accusations to "set the record straight."

In a letter to Spotify lawyer Horacio Gutierrez that was shared by BuzzFeed, Apple's legal head Bruce Sewell says Apple is disappointed with the public attacks and concerned that Spotify is asking for exemptions to rules that apply to all app developers.

Well, the good news in all this is that Spotify is gonna get some free media attention out of the deal. [/S]

 

[Zirel]

A dating app like Tinder is labeled as an Essential app, and how much do you want to bet that if Apple were to get into the dating app business they'd sink Tinder down to the bottom of the barrel in a heartbeat.

"Essential" label doesn't do anything. But sex is necessary for the continuation of the human species.

 

[doelcm82]

Maybe they do take a 30% cut of every payment I make for Apple Music, you don't know.

I mean, all that would be is an extra few lines in their financials before the money all wound up in the same place... What was your point, again?

Or you could say they take 100% of Apple Music subscriptions. How is that fair? Spotify only pays 30% the first year, and 15% for renewals.

 

[v4111]

I feel like Spotify should pull out of the Apple App Store completely. I have a feeling the result would backlash on Apple and not on Spotify. Android owns the mobile market anyways. If anything, it would make more people switch to Android. Anytime you get in between a person and their music, your asking for trouble.

I'd just unsubscribe from Spotify and finally start using Apple Music

 

[John Mcgregor]

Here is what Apple wants the companies to do:

1. You can pay for Apple Music, Apple's own service, that is arguably inferior right now

Not that i care very much since i don't use any of the services and will never pay for a subscription, but 15 000 000 paying AM customers in one year say otherwise.

 

[nburwell]

I downloaded the Spotify App and subscribed via Spotify's website, so I don't really see the issue here.

Same here. Yes, I had the option to use my iTunes store credit to subscribe via the app, but why pay $13/month when I can pay $10/month and have the subscription linked to my CC. The only reason I re-upped with Spotify is because of their $9.99 for three months promotion. Otherwise, I use AM.

I'm not sure why Spotify is complaining in the first place. I have yet to see them turn a profit on their service.

 

[QCassidy352]

For consumers (you know, me and you) this is not good. Why do you care what's good for Apple? Do you think they care what's good for you? You should care to have the most choice at the lowest price.

I'm failing to see where Apple is impeding our ability to make choices. Choice 1: do I buy an iPhone or some competitor product with less restrictions? Let's say you go iPhone. Choice 2: do I use Apple Music or some competitor service? Let's say you choose Spotify. Choice 3: do I sign up though the app for more money/month or the website for less money/month?

Please tell me where in the process Apple has limited our ability to make good choices as consumers. If you go through that whole decision tree and end up paying $13/month for Spotify then I'd advise looking in the mirror before pointing a finger at Apple.

 

[John Mcgregor]

I'm failing to see where Apple is impeding our ability to make choices. Choice 1: do I buy an iPhone or some competitor product with less restrictions? Let's say you go iPhone. Choice 2: do I use Apple Music or some competitor service? Let's say you choose Spotify. Choice 3: do I sign up though the app for more money/month or the website for less money/month?

Please tell me where in the process Apple has limited our ability to make good choices as consumers.

Because according to them you have to go to the website and sign up. People are lazy and it's somehow apples fault.