Spotify doesn't have any money. That's why they're whining.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Accuses Spotify of 'Resorting to Rumors and Half-Truths', Sets Record Straight on App Rejection
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The ones that subscribe through the App Store are due to the iOS platform. The ones that subscribe through Spotify's website are not. Spotify doesn't pay Apple a penny for customers who have the Spotify App on their phone, use it on their phone all day, and subscribe through the website.
We KNOW Spotify was being deceitful because THEY were the ones refusing to say why their App update was blocked (and they know why, because Apple would have told them). Then Spotify starts to deflect by bringing in Apple Music and trying to infer that the Spotify App was blocked due to Apple being afraid of competition for Apple Music.
Spotify is the one being dishonest here. And it's not the first time they'e done this. They have a history of complaining about their Apps getting blocked and in previous cases did the exact same thing: complain publicly about their App being blocked and "pretending" they don't know why to deflect blame to Apple.
Spotify started this whole thing by whining in public in the first place. Previously Apple never replied because they usually don't stoop to Spotify's level. This time they had enough and decided to put Spotify in their place.
Regardless of whether anyone thinks 30% is fair, it's clear Spotify is the whiny lying btch in this exchange (and in all the previous ones).
Remember that anyone can buy an iPhone, download the Spotify app for free on their iPhone, subscribe through Spotify's website, and use Spotify all day on your iPhone without Apple getting a penny. Spotify has two ways to sell to iPhone users: Directly through the app (30% goes to Apple, 15% after you subscribed for a year), or through the website (0% goes to Apple).
[doublepost=1467409904][/doublepost]
Spotify isn't allowed to send users to their own website _from the app_. Spotify is allowed to do advertisements, on the web, radio, TV, anywhere to get people to their website. Where they can subscribe and then use the app on their iPhone.
Every app in the store has a link to the developer's website. Spotify needs to find a way to get people to follow this link before downloading the app. It's an interesting challenge.
First off, I'm not a lawyer. However, regarding smartphones we currently have 2 companies with competing iOSs. Once you have selected one, you have become a part of their ecosystem. In the case of Apple (40% of US smartphones), their App store would seem to be operating as a monopoly which is illegal. Regardless, by allowing Apple or Alphabet to set unrealistic and anticompetitive regulations on; something as necessary to our population as smartphone apps, we are allowing them to break the spirit of what was intended with our antitrust laws. When we buy our phones we are shown all of the cool cameras, status improvements, or texting shortcuts it will provide you. We are not told we will be promoting an Apple only society where all things belong to apple and your actions and money will be governed by them as well. We no longer need such physical things as cds, books, and movies. What about sex? I'm assuming once virtual reality gets to the next level ****, Apple will also control the pimp game. It doesn't have to be this way, but currently Apple is dictating so it is. Unless our government steps in, it seems like Mike Judge may have gotten some things right in Idiocracy. Regardless, in my opinion the spirit of law is being bent in Apple's favor to the detriment of the consumer with regards to their App store.
[doublepost=1467410506][/doublepost]
faulty at that
I thought the issue was that subscribing to Spotify from within the app is 30% more expensive for users (because of Apple's cut) than signing up for a subscription via Spotify's website.
In reality, there are quite a few iOS developers reading this site, who know the app store rules inside out. And the facts are absolutely clear. How the companies interpret the facts is different.
Apple has some rules for the app store which are hundred percent clear, and apply to anyone. The rules say: Everything people buy on the phone, Apple gets 30% (15% for subscriptions after a year). Everything people buy on your website, Apple gets nothing. You are not allowed to send people from the app to your website. You are allowed to advertise your website anywhere else as much as you like. The rules are absolutely clear, and it is also absolutely clear that Spotify submitted an app that didn't follow these rules. (That just means the previous version remains on the store, until you make changes to your app and submit them and the changed version is accepted, so it doesn't mean you have no app in the store).
The only thing where they disagree is that Apple says these rules apply to everyone, and Spotify claims they should apply to everyone else, but not to Spotify.
I live in the US and am therefore governed by their laws. If you live in some other country so be it.
Yes, you are definitely not a lawyer. That's not how it works.
No it's not . You missing the point that Apple takes 30% of the subscription fee over the whole period, just cause you signed up via the app. The first analogy was correct , yours actually is not. They are selling a service and not physical products .
Even as a customer why should I be charged 12.99 to signup for Spotify that I can use on any device , just to pay the Apple tax.... while if I signed up on the net it's 9.99. Crap like this makes me avoid using the App Store for buying apps that are subscription based.
Apple is 100% in the right here, and Spotify is 100% in the wrong.
I'm glad I no longer use Spotify. They are a company that really has it in for Apple.
I'm glad I no longer use Spotify. They are a company that really has it in for Apple.
eBay will take a very dim view of you if you suggest to bidders, who found your item on eBay, that they instead go buy the item direct from you and cut eBay/Paypal out of the picture.
You don't get it. Spotify can have all that. They are free to have an app without in-app purchases that works only with subscriptions made on their website, and it would be exactly the same app as they have today, except for subscriptions directly in the app. They can sell their subscriptions from their website, use the app store to distribute a free app to everyone in the world, and they get all the advantages and Apple doesn't get a penny.
Only if the customer pays through the app, that's when Apple gets a cut. Customers are free to pay $12.99 through the app or $9.99 on Spotify's website.
[doublepost=1467411878][/doublepost]
You are not bound to buy through Apple. You can download the app from Apple for free, then go to Spotify's website, and subscribe there. Play music on your iPhone all day. Nobody stops you.
Agree with Apple on this one. The 30% cut is quite hefty so the decrease to 15% is very nice!
Apple cannot honestly say they are not biased here, though.
Apple cannot honestly say they are not biased here, though.
I do not think this stupid from spotify. They are operating in a razor thin margin environment. And it is unfair competition when apple's service can afford to price the same as spotify still win more money because it doesn t pay the 15% apple cut.
Let me get this straight - you spend hundreds of dollars on a phone and thousands of dollars on data plans to make said phone work, and you do no research on what you're buying beyond watching a few ads from the manufacturer, and... you are not the one at fault for this?
You mention Idiocracy, a movie about what could happen to society if people lose the ability to think critically for themselves. And your solution is... the government should step in, so people won't have to think for themselves.
Last edited:
This is gonna be a really polarizing debate dependent on either your line of work or business perspective. Both sides do have an argument however each is gonna spin it their way.
I just think it's one of those things. The App Store is essentially a CDN. So with that there are gonna be fees. The only way to ensure fee-less distribution is to distribute directly via the Internet. Only comparison that comes to mind is something like eBay vs Craigslist. This is more of a frustration between apples margins vs developers using the ecosystem and the disparity between the profits. However Apple does make a killing on their system and have grown a bit complacent as of late.
Just curious, how so?
I just think it's one of those things. The App Store is essentially a CDN. So with that there are gonna be fees. The only way to ensure fee-less distribution is to distribute directly via the Internet. Only comparison that comes to mind is something like eBay vs Craigslist. This is more of a frustration between apples margins vs developers using the ecosystem and the disparity between the profits. However Apple does make a killing on their system and have grown a bit complacent as of late.
Just curious, how so?
The app store IS a monopoly. Apple has a long history of being proprietary control freaks and making products that restrict the customers abilities. The App Store is one of the best examples of a monopoly.
The difference between the App Store and other business models is that it is the only way to install an app on your phone which can be purchased on a free open market (short of crippling the phone technically, if that is even still possible). A consumer may not buy a compatible app on the open market, and the developer may not sell their app through other vendors.
This is the opposite of a free market. So antitrust accusations are relevant because Apple specifically has eliminated all competition for selling and buying software for the device. Not only have they restricted the user contractually, they have also disabled the capability technically.
They are the most profitable company on earth, and that is largely due to their monopolistic practices. The fact that there are other phone brands on the market is immaterial. There are no other markets for selling software for Apple phones other than the App Store. It is a pure obstruction of free trade.
The difference between the App Store and other business models is that it is the only way to install an app on your phone which can be purchased on a free open market (short of crippling the phone technically, if that is even still possible). A consumer may not buy a compatible app on the open market, and the developer may not sell their app through other vendors.
This is the opposite of a free market. So antitrust accusations are relevant because Apple specifically has eliminated all competition for selling and buying software for the device. Not only have they restricted the user contractually, they have also disabled the capability technically.
They are the most profitable company on earth, and that is largely due to their monopolistic practices. The fact that there are other phone brands on the market is immaterial. There are no other markets for selling software for Apple phones other than the App Store. It is a pure obstruction of free trade.
I might agree with you if apple didn't have a competing service. This will go to court and I suspect Apple will be "asked" to change their policy. To me, we the consumer have paid Apple for their product and they are providing the convenience to their *phone buying* customers the ability to subscribe to other services. Sure, we can go to android, there are other options for Spotify to offer their subscription through the web, but at the end of the day Apple is making the rules for a competing music service (or Netflix, etc), which is obviously awesome for Apple but no good for Spotify and competition in general. Apple does not deserve a cut of these subscription services. And stop saying Spotify should make their own phone, that's so far from the point it's not even worth arguing. If it weren't for the App Store people would not buy the iPhone - it's a 2-way street, Apple and app developers need each other equally to thrive. Do people really think these companies need to be so grateful for the privilege to make an iOS app?? Smh
They can distribute the app through the app store for free. They can sell subscriptions through their website without paying Apple, or they can sell through the app and Apple takes a cut. They do both. They are free to advice customers on their website to get the same subscription cheaper on the website and cut out the middle man (Apple). Apple doesn't forbid that in any way. The only thing that they are not allowed to do is to advertise their website _within the app_. And that's exactly what they did.
Uh, sure. In the same sense that I have a monopoly on who is allowed to be in my living room. Should there be government regulation over that?
That depends, are you selling tickets to get in to anyone that wants to come in but charging Spotify 30% to stream to your ticket buying guests while they are at your house? If so, yes it's probably subject to regulation.