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

[cmaier]

That being said, the issue here is not whether something can be sold in Apple's store. The issue is whether it's fair or even legal for Apple to charge what they do to be in their store.

You can say "the issue is" but who says that's the issue? What's illegal about it? If I own two out of the ten stores in town, and you want to sell your stuff in my store and I say I'll only sell it if you give me a cut, and subject to certain rules, what law am I breaking (be specific).

 

[akadafni]

They have... We buy their crap phones that have access to one monopolized app store. If all developers were to boycott apple nobody would buy their phones because they'd have no ap

For me to consider Apple's stance in the matter as anything other than unfair, there would have to be competing app stores on iOS we could choose to purchase from. There are not. They have a monopoly on app store purchases of all users of the iPhone. Of course they'll charge 15-30%, they can. Spotify is no saint in the world of business, but let's be realistic... Apple charges this because they can, not because it's what it costs to maintain/or make a reasonable profit. Our antitrust laws are antiquated and need to be adapted so that their spirit still encompasses businesses of the current and future era. Lobbying is also bad. Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Actually Apple does maintain a fleet of employees to service the iTunes and App Stores. So when an iOS Spotify user needs help cancelling their subscription, installing the app, requesting a refund, they call APPLE, they don't call Spotify. Spotify gets to use Apple employees to help service their own subscribers without the additional overhead. Spotify can GTFO!

 

[cmaier]

In the US apple has roughly 40% of the market. Just because they made the rules and you don't seem to care of their fairness doesn't mean they can't be openly questioned or opposed. If Android had the same policy would you have the same opinion?

Yes, because I've actually read Title 15.

As for fairness, seems perfectly fair to me. Apple invested metric ****-tons of money to build the iPhone, make it popular, set up the App Store, get it into the hands of consumers, and create a platform that people want to sell their products on. Why should third parties who are too cheap to do the same thing get a free ride?

 

[2010mini]

All those citing Walmart analogy, if I buy a video game from Walmart and then go home insert the disc in my PS4 and buy additional content (DLC), should Walmart get a share of the DLC purchase?

terrible analogy.

 

[PhoneI]

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.

you guys are hilarious. Yeah, I expect Spotify to walk away from millions of paying customers to spite Apple (of which many would run directly to Apple Music).

 

[szw-mapple fan]

No, what Apple is doing is asking for 30% on your electricity bill from your power company, because you downloaded an app on Apple store. basically if you sign up using an app, apple wants 30% of what-ever for providing nothing else than the initial download. And you can't add a signup here in your app.

Unless you can choose from more than one power company, your comparison isn't even close. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone platforms, unlike Microsoft did in the late 1990s on the PC market. Spotify is free to become an Android only app and still have access to 80%+ of mobile customers globally (of course, Apple users are more likely to pay, but still).

 

[doelcm82]

If you don't like NSA, leave America! That is what you saying.

Spotify should sell subscriptions on the NSA website! That's what you're saying.

 

[btrach144]

really torn on this.

Why can't Spotify charge 30% more for iOS subs and those who sign up through their site get the base rate. They don't have to advertise it anywhere and I'm sure word would pass around quickly enough that Spotify is cheaper on the browser.

 

[JediZenMaster]

Maybe I am missing something but apple is not a non profit company and if you want your app to be in the App Store gotta play by the rules. Makes sense to me!

 

[Tsuchiya]

I wonder if Spotify can build a decent web app that you can download outside of Apples ecosystem.

The Financial Times built a simple but functional alternative that worked pretty well. Though no doubt a streaming app is far more difficult to implement than a simple news one.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

we live in a world where a smartphone is a necesity to thrive. We have 1 of 2 choices (Apple and Android).

There are far more than two smart phones available on the market today. We can limit just to manufacturers and there are still far more (Apple, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Blackberry, Huawei, Xiaomi, as well as a host of manufacturers catering to the lower end of the market). Let's just assume you meant mobile device operating systems, there are still more (iOS, the umbrella of Android that includes a myriad of implementations including Cyogen's offerings and FireOS, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Tizen, etc...). Let's pretend you meant to reference just app stores associated to iOS and Android devices, again there are many more (Amazon AppStore, Apple App Store, Google Play, Firefox Marketplace, Cydia, F-Droid, GetJar, Galaxy Apps, and of course the Chinese app stores like Baidu and Tencent etc...).

I'm not a pedantic person but you have been throughout this thread so I'm responding in kind. Taking your statement in the spirit it was intended there are two primary players today but not too long ago the landscape was very different (remember what Blackberry used to be? Nokia? Palm?). It's an open market, you are dissatisfied so get in here and change it again. Or you can continue to bash Apple and troll forums, it's up to you to decide how much worth you can contribute to the world.

 

[blasto2236]

Did Walmart provide you with the ability to


The part you're missing is what we call in the retail world a "loss leader." Apple distributes millions of apps per day for free to the consumer and developer. Apple pays all costs associated with this distribution. Why? Because it brings in customers. It's a HUGE reason why the App Store, and others like it on other platforms have become a success. How can Apple do this? Because it takes a cut of the profits from other Apps to make up the costs. Just like how Spotify takes the hit on free subscriptions. It brings customers in, and you make up that loss in other ways.

Let's go back to the Walmart analogy everyone keeps making. Walmart runs an ad for $25 off a new video game. Awesome! You just saved money! They lost money on that video game. But Walmart is banking on the fact that you're going to buy your controllers (Spotify) at Walmart, where they will make up the loss.

Sure you may be able to go somewhere else and pay less for your controllers, but there's no guarantee that you would, but Walmart made it so convenient for you, so they should rightfully get a cut of the controllers.

Walmart may also have their own brand of controllers that they sell at a discount or even the same amount of money. HEY THATS UNFAIR! Is Walmart paying an extra cut for their controller? No, because they made it and distributed it. You're more than welcome to sell your controllers only at Winn-Dixie (android), but then YOU are losing customers.

But why should Walmart get a cut of every controller a customer buys from them? They obviously like the controller, because they keep buying them. Walmart distributed it, and is continuing to provide you the avenue to sell them. Pay your share, or go somewhere else. If you started putting notes in the packaging saying "Don't buy another controller from Walmart! Buy it from us online and save money!" Walmart would have every right to stop distributing your product. You have broken a good faith relationship with the company that originally got you that business.

Wait...Winn Dixie is still in business?!

 

[cmaier]

really torn on this.

Why can't Spotify charge 30% more for iOS subs and those who sign up through their site get the base rate. They don't have to advertise it anywhere and I'm sure word would pass around quickly enough that Spotify is cheaper on the browser.

That's what they used to do. Apple Music is growing much faster than Spotify, so they are now desperately trying to provoke a conflict.

 

[Michael Goff]

This whole thing is about subscription services, not one-off purchases. Also, Spotify does not store any of their music on Apple's servers whereas all of the artwork DLC and soundtracks for PS Network purchaseables are stored on Sony's servers. These specific matter when it comes to unraveling the legalities. Glad you ignored the rest of my post - really demonstrates your knowledge on the topic.

So can you subscribe to Spotify and so on using PSN and Sony gets nothing?

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I wonder if Spotify can build a decent web app that you can download outside of Apples ecosystem.

The Financial Times built a simple but functional alternative that worked pretty well. Though no doubt a streaming app is far more difficult to implement than a simple news one.

Not that difficult given HTML5 but the hooks provided by the app model make for a much better integration and experience.
[doublepost=1467408361][/doublepost]

That being said, the issue here is not whether something can be sold in Apple's store. The issue is whether it's fair or even legal for Apple to charge what they do to be in their store.

You're responding to your own posts now? Account created today and posting a large volume. Astro-turfing?
[doublepost=1467408574][/doublepost]

really torn on this.

Why can't Spotify charge 30% more for iOS subs and those who sign up through their site get the base rate. They don't have to advertise it anywhere and I'm sure word would pass around quickly enough that Spotify is cheaper on the browser.

that's what they do.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

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.

Hmm. Read this: http://www.allenpike.com/2015/the-worst-app/

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

At 30%, I think greed is definitely on the table.
[doublepost=1467405335][/doublepost]
Do you work for Apple?

No, just an intelligent human being looking at the facts with logic.

 

[csglinux]

Consider the following. Try purchasing a video from Amazon via the Amazon video app on your iPad. Did it work? Of course not. You're told to go buy it (or rent it) elsewhere, e.g., Amazon's website via a browser, where you purchase the video without paying a 30% commission to Apple, and then you return to your iPad to stream the video. Why are Spotify not allowed to operate the same way? It's not as though there's any special cost overhead Apple has to cover when somebody downloads the Spotify app from the app store. Apple is becoming alarmingly anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Oddly, uneducated consumers are even defending them for it. Look at the eager anticipation brewing over the fact that Apple is going to remove a headphone jack socket and replace it with.... well, absolutely nothing. What an exciting upgrade!! How convenient that Beats headphones are going to come with a lightning cable and an expensive, bulky DAC & amp built in, in addition to the DAC and amp you've already paid for on your iPhone. Of course, other headphone companies are free to compete, as long as they don't mind paying Apple's MFi licensing fees for the lofty privilege of being able to use a socket. IMHO, it's time for these developers to push back by investing a greater effort in other platforms like Android. People voting with their wallets is the only thing Apple is going to take notice of.





As a long-term fanboy, this now-rotten Apple leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

 

[boccabella]

I said it before and I'll say it again, Apple needs a major shakeup of the executive team, there is too much time, energy, and bad PR spent on issues that amount to nothing more than petty cash in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Why can't Spotify charge 30% more for iOS subs and those who sign up through their site get the base rate. They don't have to advertise it anywhere and I'm sure word would pass around quickly enough that Spotify is cheaper on the browser.

Isn't it $12.99 on iOS and only $9.99 on Spotify's website?

 

[cmaier]

Consider the following. Try purchasing a video from Amazon via the Amazon video app on your iPad. Did it work? Of course not. You're told to go buy it (or rent it) elsewhere, e.g., Amazon's website via a browser, where you purchase the video without paying a 30% commission to Apple, and then you return to your iPad to stream the video. Why are Spotify not allowed to operate the same way? .

This is exactly how Apple is telling Spotify to operate. Spotify doesn't want to operate this way. It wants to use the app, itself, to link to the Spotify's website to sign you up (or to send you an email that has the link). Amazon doesn't do this - in the Kindle app, for example, you can add books to your wishlist or download free samples, but you have to go find the website yourself to buy them.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

In the US apple has roughly 40% of the market. Just because they made the rules and you don't seem to care of their fairness doesn't mean they can't be openly questioned or opposed. If Android had the same policy would you have the same opinion?

Last I checked Spotify was a Swedish company that operated worldwide. Why are you bringing market share from a single country (US) when cmaier quoted market share numbers worldwide?

 

[tkatz]

No, just an intelligent human being looking at the facts with logic.

The thing that everyone seems to forget (or ignore) is that we don't have, and probably never will have, all the facts. We only have what each side is saying. Spotify shows us a picture of what they claim Apple isn't allowing. Do we know thats really it? Apple claims that Spotify was trying different methods to direct users to their website from within the app (ie collecting emails to send them a link). Does anyone actually have a copy of the app as Apple rejected? Not that I've seen.

Spotify will say one thing, Apple another.. and then there's what really is.. Three edged sword and all..

 

[a0me]

No, that's not even it. If you think the terms are unfair, you're welcome to become an Android only app.

You can also make a web app that all iOS users have access to and not pay a cent to Apple.

 

[unplugme71]

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.

Yup, it's called direct selling and wholesaling.

If you sell direct, you incur the expense of running your own store, merchant stuff, etc. If you sell wholesale, then obviously they need to make a profit otherwise why do business with you.

To me, Spotify is a little bitch that's scared of losing revenue.

Apple has a strong platform that will generate lots of revenue for the developer because of how many users are there.

You can sell your app to Joe's App Store for Joe's flip-phone, but chances are, you won't get any downloads/subscriptions.