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

[CarlJ]

One of the challenges is that yes, Spotify "broke" the rule.

Why the quotes around broke, like it doesn't really count? Spotify agreed to a contract, and then violated the terms of the contract. That's pretty cut and dried.

"Sure, your honor, it's true that my client "shot" the victim, but let's discuss something more favorable to my case..."

 

[alexmarchuk]

Why the quotes around broke, like it doesn't really count? Spotify agreed to a contract, and then violated the terms of the contract. That's pretty cut and dried.

Exactly, if Spotify wants to use Apple's IAP then they must abide by the subscription rules as does everyone else. They are free to sell their product exclusively though their website. Apple has no problem with that. If you want to use their paid services to process transactions, you agree to those terms. Same with Visa and Mastercard etc.

 

[CarlJ]

Exactly, if Spotify wants to use Apple's IAP then they must abide by the subscription rules as does everyone else. They are free to sell their product exclusively though their website. Apple has no problem with that. If you want to use their paid services to process transactions, you agree to those terms. Same with Visa and Mastercard etc.

Yep, the credit card companies charge money to process transactions, and have a list of rules by which you must abide if you want to play in their sandbox. You are free to go elsewhere, or you can stay and abide by the rules and be sad, but you don't get to break the rules just because you don't like them yet still continue to use their service. In fact, I don't know if they still do it, but for a long time they had a rule that you couldn't offer a discounted price if someone paid with cash instead of credit.

 

[alexmarchuk]

Yep, the credit card companies charge money to process transactions, and have a list of rules by which you must abide if you want to play in their sandbox. You are free to go elsewhere, or you can stay and abide by the rules and be sad, but you don't get to break the rules just because you don't like them yet still continue to use their service. In fact, I don't know if they still do it, but for a long time they had a rule that you couldn't offer a discounted price if someone paid with cash instead of credit.

Oh you know how "well" that worked out when the companies tried to say you can't offer discounts using cash. Yeah no way to even tell.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Look back to my entry post 625.

Despite your use of "monopolistic" you don't seem to understand the definition of the word. You declaring Apple a monopoly doesn't make it so.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

True, and they stopped doing that. Apparently Apple was pissed off enough about it to not approve the app update.

Why do you insist on lying to try and make a point? Is it because you can't stick to the facts?

Apple DID NOT block the App because Spotify removed in-App purchasing, thereby cutting Apple out of any revenue. This is a blatant lie. Apple blocked the App because of Spotify trying to do direct payment links outside of the App.

Spotify broke the guidelines. How is this so hard to understand?

EDIT: I see this was already brought up. But worth repeating, considering the ridiculous things being repeated claiming Apple is a monopoly, are being anticompetitive, are forcing Spotify to raise prices or any of the other BS being spewed.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Predatory is very difficult to prove. What is open is if the definition of the App Store is a monopoly in itself. There is an open case in the Appellate Court that is looking at that.

Lots of open / unanswered questions. Your assumption that it isn't monopolistic is unfounded.

Plenty of case law says otherwise. Generally held beliefs are that a single entity has to hold at least 70-80% of the market to be considered a monopoly. I know the fifth and tenth circuits have both ruled that way. I know that conversely the third, eleventh, and seventh have all held that less that 50% (or higher in the case of the third I believe) is not sufficient to be a monopoly. So unless it is your honest believe that iOS so great that it is imminently going to knock Android out of the market you assertion that Apple has a monopoly won't hold up to any legal scrutiny.

Perhaps you should attend another "session."


* Disclaimer, anti-trust law is not my area of legal focus.

 

[dk001]

Why the quotes around broke, like it doesn't really count? Spotify agreed to a contract, and then violated the terms of the contract. That's pretty cut and dried.

"Sure, your honor, it's true that my client "shot" the victim, but let's discuss something more favorable to my case..."

Chuckle
Contracts are never cut and dry. There are always arguable terms and wiggle room.
btw: your "shot" is hilarious even if it is ludicrous and doesn't apply at all. Scope.
[doublepost=1467590672][/doublepost]

Yep, the credit card companies charge money to process transactions, and have a list of rules by which you must abide if you want to play in their sandbox. You are free to go elsewhere, or you can stay and abide by the rules and be sad, but you don't get to break the rules just because you don't like them yet still continue to use their service. In fact, I don't know if they still do it, but for a long time they had a rule that you couldn't offer a discounted price if someone paid with cash instead of credit.

Yep. They charge 30%.
Not.
[doublepost=1467590881][/doublepost]

Despite your use of "monopolistic" you don't seem to understand the definition of the word. You declaring Apple a monopoly doesn't make it so.

Really? Go jump on the FTC's website and look at "monopolistic". It has a broad range of interpretations.
There are still open court cases trying to define specifically that that term means in digital download venues..
Even the Justices in the 9th Circuit are debating what that term really means.
Let's let the court settle it then we can all legally agree.
[doublepost=1467590972][/doublepost]

Plenty of case law says otherwise. Generally held beliefs are that a single entity has to hold at least 70-80% of the market to be considered a monopoly. I know the fifth and tenth circuits have both ruled that way. I know that conversely the third, eleventh, and seventh have all held that less that 50% (or higher in the case of the third I believe) is not sufficient to be a monopoly. So unless it is your honest believe that iOS so great that it is imminently going to knock Android out of the market you assertion that Apple has a monopoly won't hold up to any legal scrutiny.

Perhaps you should attend another "session."


* Disclaimer, anti-trust law is not my area of legal focus.

Wrong interpretation of "monopolistic" practices.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Wrong interpretation of "monopolistic" practices.

No, it's not. Which again leads me to believe you aren't aware of the definition and are using the wrong term. I suspect you may be referring to market power. The two are different.

edit: you mentioned the ninth reviewing. Give me the case number so I can look it up. If you're referring to 14-15000 though the issue being reviewed is standing of the plaintiffs, not status as a single entity monopoly.

 

[castlerock]

I said here before and on the last thread that the "no links outside the app" rule is unfair, but I realized Apple deserves some money for referring customers who are willing to pay, which are more abundant on their platform. Otherwise, they're just hosting Spotify for free (except the trivial dev fee) on their store and sending millions of customers their way for nothing. Apple doesn't have any kind of monopoly power either.

And Spotify would probably earn the same profit, er... loss, either way. Customers can sign up on their site if they want. If the customer buys through Apple, he pays more, Spotify earns the same, and the customer still considers it worth the money. What's the problem?

P.S. Spotify's software on PCs is borderline malware.

All well and good that Apple "refers" customers to Spotify (a dubious claim, since it's not really possible to be sure why someone downloads the app- its being featured on the App Store or because they knew to look for it there anyway), but what choice does an iOS user have? If you want to have a native app on your phone you HAVE to use the App Store. Devs on other platforms have choices. Not here.
[doublepost=1467592642][/doublepost]

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

They want to remove the in-app subscription option but make it easy and obvious for their customers to figure out how to subscribe via the web. Apple says no. As an example, Amazon gives a cryptic "Videos you've purchased or rented from Amazon are available to watch here." dialog box when you click on "How do I watch this?" for a video that isn't part of Prime in their Amazon Video app. They are trying to hint at the fact that you need to go on the web to rent or buy it but note that they don't actually TELL you to do that.

 

[alexmarchuk]

Apple has contracts that are as cut and dry as they come, otherwise exposure to such terms would be negligent. They know what they're doing and developers are agreeing to sell on their marketplace.

 

[castlerock]

I think you should have paid more attention in that session. Apple is not monopolistic; or if you alleging collusion, with whom?

Huh? How is it not a monopolistic practice that Apple prevents anyone from installing a native app on an iOS device unless it's an app from the App Store?

I really don't follow. How else does one describe it?

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Huh? How is it not a monopolistic practice that Apple prevents anyone from installing a native app on an iOS device unless it's an app from the App Store?

I really don't follow. How else does one describe it?

This one would describe it as policy set via licensing agreement or terms of use.

It's abundantly clear from this thread that there are a large number of individuals out there that have a highly inaccurate picture in their head of what constitutes a monopoly. I've spent too much time in this thread attempting to educate already so unless I start billing I'd recommend you read title 15 chapter 1 on the US code, particularly sections 1 and 2. If you can't understand it you can obtain legal counsel to interpret it for you.

You not liking the terms of use of a product you purchased is irrelevant to monopoly classification.

It's been fun - or at least interesting - folks. I'm abandoning this thread

 

[alexmarchuk]

"You not liking the terms of use of a product you purchased is irrelevant to monopoly classification."

Oh my goodness, so much content there. A+

Huh? How is it not a monopolistic practice that Apple prevents anyone from installing a native app on an iOS device unless it's an app from the App Store?

I really don't follow. How else does one describe it?

I will allow you to explain yourself how this is a monopolistic practice, with no analogies please. Your understanding of "monopolies" are as flawed as they could be. Considering this isn't even the discussion.

 

[akash.nu]

I'm abandoning this thread

So am I.

 

[CarlJ]

I will allow you to explain yourself how this is a monopolistic practice, with no analogies please. Your understanding of "monopolies" are as flawed as they could be. Considering this isn't even the discussion.

Many of the folks in this thread: "I absolutely do know what a monopoly is, I've played the deluxe version of the board game. Several times. I'm totally serial."

Yeah, I'm going to join the group departing. Good idea.

 

[sammnz]

If you're taking advantage of a great platform like the App Store, a 15% fee is reasonable.

I think the problem is that this is the only medium allowed to download the app on to your iPhone, by doing this creates a monopoly in that market (and therefore reducing competition) especially now that Apple has a competing product where they pay the fee to themselves.

 

[Phoenixx]

Typical response. When you can't form a cohesive argument, resort to FUD.

To accuse Apple of ripping off everything they can get their grubby hands on is hardly lacking as a cohesive argument and resorting to fear, uncertainty and doubt. Apple have a long history of stealing ideas.

Look at their latest upcoming "developments" with iOS and WatchOS and what is immediately clear is that they are direct rip offs of Android, and Android Wear. MacOS isn't much better.

Now, other companies also rip off ideas, but none do it as blatantly as Apple, or pretend so hard that they have come up with these ideas themselves.
[doublepost=1467601195][/doublepost]

And that's exactly the problem. Can you imagine if Microsoft started enforcing a rule where anything you bought using your Windows PC gave them a 30% cut? If you were to sign up for an Apple Music subscription through iTunes on Windows and were forced to use a special "MS in app payment system." And even if you're listening to it primarily on your phone, or Sonos, or any other platform, Microsoft still gets a 30% cut every single month? It's ridiculous. And that's exactly what Apple is doing here.

I'm fine with them taking a small processing fee if it's handled through their payment system. That makes sense. But 30%? No way.

Agreed. Apple should be getting paid a finders fee, or a small transaction fee, and that's it. A 30% royalty, or even a 15% royalty is ridiculous.

 

[EricTheHalfBee]

To accuse Apple of ripping off everything they can get their grubby hands on is hardly lacking as a cohesive argument and resorting to fear, uncertainty and doubt. Apple have a long history of stealing ideas.

Look at their latest upcoming "developments" with iOS and WatchOS and what is immediately clear is that they are direct rip offs of Android, and Android Wear. MacOS isn't much better.

Now, other companies also rip off ideas, but none do it as blatantly as Apple, or pretend so hard that they have come up with these ideas themselves.
[doublepost=1467601195][/doublepost]
Agreed. Apple should be getting paid a finders fee, and that's it. A 30% royalty, or even a 15% royalty is ridiculous.

You have anything to contribute regarding the myth that Apple is doing something wrong to Spotify? Or are you only capable of deflecting so you can find something else to complain about that Apple is supposedly doing?

 

[X Cruz 187]

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.

 

[Michael Goff]

Various comments:

Re: "It's been a year, and Apple hasn't been charged by the FTC"

As of last week, Senator Warren commented that, "The FTC is (still) investigating those issues and deciding whether to sue Apple for antitrust violations.”

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/30/apple-federal-investigation-music/

Re: "Developers owe Apple for access to the iOS ecosystem"

Of course, that works both ways. Apple owes much or most of its success to all the apps that are available.

If Apple never existed, would developers still have mobile platforms to target? Yes. If developers had never made apps for iOS, would Apple's devices have been as successful? Absolutely not.

Re: Apple only allowing their own app store

The irony of Apple's walled garden, is how Jobs had called carriers "orifices to get to the end user" back in 2005...

And yet he built his own walled app garden that was higher than anything the carriers ever had for smartphones.

He also made the iPhone exclusive to AT&T for years, started out with monthly kickbacks, then switched to subsidy model to get more upfront, and has constantly fought to get the government to make jailbreaking illegal. We also lost the ability to own a smartphone without a required data plan. So much for 'reinventing' the basic cellular market.

Moreover, just like the carriers did with NFC and the ill fated ISIS wallet, Apple has tightly controlled access to the end user by forcing banks for pay for their own customers, on their own phones, to be able to access their own banks' NFC payment apps.

--

Yes, much is debatable, however one thing is for sure... I don't think most people's minds will be changed much by this thread . Especially the ones who are using ad hominems as arguments.

Apple is still better for both the developers and end users than the carriers were pre iPhone. If you think the split is bad now, just remember tha 30% is less than what the carriers. took at the start.

 

[tjleonard]

It doesn't make sense. Subscriptions to a service not offered by Apple, have nothing to do with Apple. Why should they earn a percentage of every paying subscriber, for the life of that paying subscriber? Nobody is arguing they shouldn't make a profit for hosting the initial app discovery for Spotify in the App Store. Maybe take their 30% for the first month of the subscription and that's it. But forever? To 'force' Spotifys subscription prices to be different via Apple or via the web does not make sense. It's monopolizing and wrong.

Wait? You say "subscriptions to a service not offered by Apple, have nothing to do with Apple" but it does have a lot to do with Apple...it is an App distributed through THEIR service, to the phones THEY sell, and every time something goes wrong with it, THEY get blamed...yes, they deserve a cut. The servers to distribute that App, the Bandwidth, and the time in R&D isn't free...

The 30% for the first month wouldn't apply when Spotify offers 3 months for free. I'd like to point out this to you, Spotify can't give 3 months free (25%) and then complain and cry when Apple wants 30% or wants them to NOT have an external link to Spotify's site...its Spotify's choice to comply or to sacrifice making money on iOS devices.

 

[X Cruz 187]

This i

To
I agree they should pull out or apple should remove them trust me they need apple more than apple needs them. This is a store no one said apple has to have spotify on their App. Store. If you sell @ Walmart that doesn't mean nordstrum has to sell you too! Be great full for the money apple allowed you to make this far & fall in line. Enough Said move on to real news.

 

[tjleonard]

Oh you know how "well" that worked out when the companies tried to say you can't offer discounts using cash. Yeah no way to even tell.

I know paying by cash for gas (even now) makes it around 5 cents cheaper per gallon. There are several of those gas stations around here.

 

[castlerock]

This one would describe it as policy set via licensing agreement or terms of use.

It's abundantly clear from this thread that there are a large number of individuals out there that have a highly inaccurate picture in their head of what constitutes a monopoly. I've spent too much time in this thread attempting to educate already so unless I start billing I'd recommend you read title 15 chapter 1 on the US code, particularly sections 1 and 2. If you can't understand it you can obtain legal counsel to interpret it for you.

You not liking the terms of use of a product you purchased is irrelevant to monopoly classification.

It's been fun - or at least interesting - folks. I'm abandoning this thread

Good. Are you really a lawyer? I'm not but I can read. The FTC says that an anticompetitive practice by a single firm is, quote:

It is unlawful for a company to monopolize or attempt to monopolize trade, meaning a firm with market power cannot act to maintain or acquire a dominant position by excluding competitors or preventing new entry. It is important to note that it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge “high prices,” or to try to achieve a monopoly position by aggressive methods. A company violates the law only if it tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.

Just because regulators and the DOJ choose not to prosecute doesn't make it legal. Just because Uber's or Airbnb's business model is based on breaking the law but they've managed to BS their way into getting jurisdictions to agree to allow them to conduct business doesn't mean their business model isn't based on having people engage in unlicensed taxi or hotel services. So don't give me this nonsense that "Oh, but you agreed to it" somehow legitimizes monopolistic practices.

And remember, the Apple iOS user is the PRODUCT here, and Spotify is the one objecting to the lack of access to iOS users except through the App Store and their toll.