They already get yearly developer subscriptions of Spotify and any app developer that publishes an app. Don't forget that Spotify is a free app.
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 in Breach of EU Competition Law, European Commission Finds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The comments about Siri and HomePod are interesting.
Any application can allow itself to be controlled through Siri. It's a bit of work, but not particularly difficult. I can't quite see what problem Spotify has there. And any application playing sound and video can play it through AirPlay. For audio, there's a call that you need to make to allow output outside the phone (which in practice means Airplay), and you have to display a UI to choose where to send audio to, and that's it. Again, I can't see what problem Spotify has there. It's a bit more work when your audio is DRM "protected" in a way that Apple's audio player class can't handle, but still no big deal.
Any application can allow itself to be controlled through Siri. It's a bit of work, but not particularly difficult. I can't quite see what problem Spotify has there. And any application playing sound and video can play it through AirPlay. For audio, there's a call that you need to make to allow output outside the phone (which in practice means Airplay), and you have to display a UI to choose where to send audio to, and that's it. Again, I can't see what problem Spotify has there. It's a bit more work when your audio is DRM "protected" in a way that Apple's audio player class can't handle, but still no big deal.
I get where you are going, but I believe you're not making a good comparison. In the real, physical world, there is an extremely wide variety of shops. There will be a few bigger chains, but generally, not a single shop has an extreme amount of power.
If the creator of the CD (let's call him Spotify) doesn't agree with the terms of one shop (let's say a 15%-30% revenue cut), than the creator (=Spotify) could still sell his CD in dozens, hundreds or even thousands of different shops. He'll lose the ability to sell his CD in just one shop, but that won't materially impact his/her business.
On iPhone, there's just one gigantic shop (Apple's App Store). The creator of the same CD is now basically forced to go through this one shop, because if he doesn't than he'll directly lose access to at least hundreds of millions of customers.
So what does the creator of this CD do? He reluctantly agrees to the terms...
Suddenly, the shop owner (=Apple) also creates its own CD: different cover, same music. The product is 30% cheaper, because the shop owner obviously doesn't have to pay a 30% rate to himself. This means the original creator can't compete in a fair and equal way. He also is forbidden to even simply inform customers that there's still a small shop on an internet website, besides Apple's App Store, where you can get the CD for much cheaper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion isn't really "should Spotify profit from Apple's ecosystem for free?". The discussion is about being able to compete.
Apple is no longer a small company. It's not a big company. It's a huge company. And the bigger you get, the more scrutinized you'll be for the actions you take.
So, for example. You could argue that the App Store is Apple's and no one else's. Apple build it, Apple is allowed to set the rules. But the App Store is the only way to reach billions of customers and Apple actively forbids other companies from building alternative "app stores". That's not okay.
Basically, this all would be fine if Apple was a small company. It's not when you're the gateway to billions of people. And it certainly is not when you actively start to compete with other companies, while forcing your competitors to be at a disadvantage - because you (=Apple) set the rules.
No one would be batting an eye if Apple said "maintaining the App Store costs money, so you'd have to pay 5%, so we can properly maintain it" - 5% would probably be considered a fair percentage. No one would be batting an eye if Apple said "maintaining the App Store costs money, so you'd have to pay 75%, but we're allowing other 'app stores' to compete on our platform" - 75% is extreme, but there would be alternative app stores where people can go.
Last edited:
Apple isn't a payment processor. That's nonsense. Apple actually has to pay the payment processor (for example your credit card company) for processing your payment. The money Spotify is supposed to pay finances among other things all the free apps on the App Store. Including the distribution of the Spotify app itself, which is available for free. All the services that Apple provides are paid for by Apple.
Mhm, when you think about it, Microsoft was forced in the EU to bring up a browser selection thing on first install and to remove Windows Media Player.
I could see the EU saying Apple has to allow alternative store fronts which is basically allowing side loading. Apple is the ultimate gate keeper of what appears on your phone and Microsoft wasn't even doing that and still had to advertise alternative browsers in their own operating system so I could easily see the EU going much further with Apple.
I can do it for Apple.
This move would be good for Spotify, but bad for the overall health of the App Store. This would basically allow every company to sidestep iTunes billing while retaining the convenience of letting people register within the app.
I still believe that if we want a thriving App Store ecosystem, every developer who can pay their share ought to do so.
I think most people won't care. We here are the enthusiasts but there's almost a billion people out there who don't care and won't spend a second of their lives to read more about the situation to understand the nuances of why it matters.
For all those people who just buy an iPhone because its a status symbol or there is a luxury aspect to it over competing devices they'll still buy.
Netflix does exactly that, and so does Amazon Prime. I can play Netflix and Amazon Prime movies on my iPhone, and not once did I make any payment that went through Apple. There are other TV services that I could pay for that work exactly the same.
There’s pros and cons of both sides.
spotify want to be able to sell their product to iPhone users without giving Apple anything. That can do that via their website.
If they use the Apple shop (ie App Store) then there should be some form of payment to Apple surely?
the problem is that Apple’s cut isn’t a one off payment it’s a fixed percentage for the life of the subscription.
the risk is that if apps that generate revenue are allowed to bypass giving that to apple, what incentive is there for Apple to invest and run the App Store?
perhaps differing pricing schemes for devs is needed, as there’s not a suitable one size fits all approach.
spotify want to be able to sell their product to iPhone users without giving Apple anything. That can do that via their website.
If they use the Apple shop (ie App Store) then there should be some form of payment to Apple surely?
the problem is that Apple’s cut isn’t a one off payment it’s a fixed percentage for the life of the subscription.
the risk is that if apps that generate revenue are allowed to bypass giving that to apple, what incentive is there for Apple to invest and run the App Store?
perhaps differing pricing schemes for devs is needed, as there’s not a suitable one size fits all approach.
You should complain to the EU commission then, maybe they can do something about that in a couple of years.Apple TV claimed. Had trouble purchasing through the website, the app worked smoothly though.
Was hoping they'd sell the new multi-coloured Magic Mice separately - still only white and grey available in the store.
And Apple actually does that. For subscriptions, the cut is 30% the first year and 15% after that.
For small developers earning less than $1M there is also a reduced cut.
Spotify as a big corporation that profits from having it's free app distributed by Apple should not be exempt from paying it's share, that's what I think.
The EU is losing relevance by the day.
Remember folks, the EU is NOT Europe.
Apple can ignore them.
Remember folks, the EU is NOT Europe.
Apple can ignore them.
Bold: Really....
Any company that does business in the EU has to abide by their rules, if not they can be fined, it's the same everywhere, whether in the US, China or any other country.
That'll be the week after they pull out of China...
The "solution" would be for Apple to change the store model. As I've said elsewhere, Apple's problem is that App Store functions like an open consignment store. Many of these problems could "go away" if Apple just changed its model to be like a retail store, where Apple purchases licenses and sets the sales price and "limits" what is sold on the platform.
Albeit, the EU et al. would then complain about how the iOS platform is a closed system to competition.
And regarding high rates, what's the restaurant retail markup for wine? or jewelry?
Albeit, the EU et al. would then complain about how the iOS platform is a closed system to competition.
And regarding high rates, what's the restaurant retail markup for wine? or jewelry?
With each of their recent questionable rulings, the EU is making Brexit look like a smart move.
Well it looks like Steve was right. They should have excluded 3rd parties from running natively. If Apple chose to keep all 3rd parties on web Apps as initially designed these companies would not exist at this level and this case would not be happening.
I bought an iPod on 2003 and my first Mac is 2005; so I’ve used Apple products since the early 00s.
And Apple are increasingly resembling the Microsoft of the 00s and it’s not a good look. I’m sad that they’ve become this way.
Like Microsoft, it’s using its size to wipe out any far smaller competitors and give its own services unfair advantages. This is a problem given Apple’s size, as the EU ruling points out.
The situation where Apple only allows Apple Pay onto the App Store is now untenable.
I’m no expert on corporate/ business structures, but it feels that its Services business should be hived off from the rest of the company and have to work with the same restraints that 3rd parties do.
And yes: similar problems exist on loads of other digital stores: Google Play, Xbox etc.
In the end I’d rather not bash Apple & I’d rather there be a one size fits all approach legislation for all digital stores (and their payment methods) that major economic blocks (USA, EU etc all agree to).
And Apple are increasingly resembling the Microsoft of the 00s and it’s not a good look. I’m sad that they’ve become this way.
Like Microsoft, it’s using its size to wipe out any far smaller competitors and give its own services unfair advantages. This is a problem given Apple’s size, as the EU ruling points out.
The situation where Apple only allows Apple Pay onto the App Store is now untenable.
I’m no expert on corporate/ business structures, but it feels that its Services business should be hived off from the rest of the company and have to work with the same restraints that 3rd parties do.
And yes: similar problems exist on loads of other digital stores: Google Play, Xbox etc.
In the end I’d rather not bash Apple & I’d rather there be a one size fits all approach legislation for all digital stores (and their payment methods) that major economic blocks (USA, EU etc all agree to).
I think one of the main issues here is Apple forbidding companies from just putting "To sign up for premium go to spotify.com" or similar in the app. Not only are you not allowed to have alternate signup methods in the app itself, but you're forbidden from linking to alternate signup methods, even though they exist.
I don't like the way the music app tries to cram an Apple Music subscription down my throat every time I want to play my own music. Maybe this time I agree with EU. Doesn't seem very fair to the other players.
I don't understand why people say this.
Even if Apple allows sideloading and such, 99% of people will still install everything from the app store. It will be up to each person to decide whether they want to use an alternate app source.
If you want a curated, safer environment, stick with the app store. Believe me, companies like spotify will still be there, just as they are on Google Play even though Android can sideload.
There could be a switch in the OS to enable sideloading, with a warning when you flip it. Most "regular people" will never touch it. Not only that, but apps from third party sources will still have all the protections from Apple's sandbox environment and system security. Those don't change just because an app was sideloaded.