Apple Rejected Spotify's App Update Adding Audiobook Support

[MobiusStrip]

Look at this bullshìt:
We have no issue with reader apps... linking users out to websites to sign up for services, or communicating with customers externally about alternative purchase options. The Spotify app was rejected for not following the guidelines regarding including explicit in-app communications to direct users outside the app to make digital purchases"

So, you're fine with linking to external sites but you're not fine with TELLING them what the link is for? That is some despicable, embarrassing douchebaggery, Apple.

 

[contacos]

While we are at it, let’s be consistent and do the same for Sony, Xbox and all the other proprietary online game stores as well.

Do they stop game developers from promoting their games availability elsewhere?

Taking a cut is one thing (if you are doing it correctly, users will also choose the convenient way (Apple IAP)) but Apple seems to be afraid to even loose "some" purchases to other sources.

The icing on that is that Apple made an exception for Amazon in the past.

 

[bernoulli]

As everyone knows, Spotify is a notorious paragon of fairness and integrity.

Classic whataboutism there

 

[jimbobb24]

Alternative title “Repeat Rulebreaker Spotify at it again in the App Store”

 

[strongy]

I'm no fan of Spotify the company (although I love their service). This rejection shouldn't be possible. It's time to loosen Apple's iron grip on its own platform and make free installation of apps a reality.

i hope you are going to pay for any and all things that go wrong with your 'free installation of apps' because it's not going to be as rosy as you think it is

 

[GMShadow]

Classic whataboutism there

What about it?

 

[unsynaps]

Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook, which involved a customer tapping on an audiobook and seeing a screen with a lock over the play button. Pressing on the play button provided customers with a page where they could request information on how to buy a book through an email, and the email offered up a link to purchase the book.

This has to be the dumbest crap I have ever heard of.

 

[bwillwall]

Love it! Hate the company behind Joe Rogan.

and I hope anyone who echos your nonsense gets removed from public life instead (not really, but maybe a little)

 

[OnawaAfrica]

If I get malware on my device because I downloaded something sketchy, that's my fault, my hardware. Look at macOS.

ya but mobile devices have a tighter security than laptops desktops etc for a good reason

 

[bwillwall]

ya but mobile devices have a tighter security than laptops desktops etc for a good reason

And what's that reason? macOS doesn't handle important info? Photos, texts, banking, saved passwords, etc.

A smartphone is a pocket computer. Apple has gaslit so many of you to think that a computer is supposed to be completely locked down to Apple for your security. I agree Apple should and can do much better than Android, but it's not an excuse for their outrageous App Store restrictions they lock all iOS software to.

 

[KidAKidB]

Apple refuses to play nice with others.

 

[Bawstun]

Apple is clearly still upset that Spotify has a better interface, better algorithms, and 3x the amount of users.

 

[zarmanto]

ya but mobile devices have a tighter security than laptops desktops etc for a good reason

And what's that reason? ...

I would suggest it comes down to the portability factor; just as it is easier to carry around a cell phone than it is to carry a computer, so too is it easier for another party to steal that phone. As such, it makes perfect sense for Apple to focus on things that prevent our would-be thief from obtaining access to the data stored therein... and if the likelihood of malware somehow getting into the phone goes up, so too do the chances that our thief could take advantage of that malware to access the device.

 

[Apple$]

Apple will full crash against the wall soon, i will LMAO once Tim Cooks surprised and distorted facial expression shows up in the news.

The expression Tim shows would be better than the face Tim showed at the F1 race..... 😉

 

[bwillwall]

I would suggest it comes down to the portability factor; just as it is easier to carry around a cell phone than it is to carry a computer, so too is it easier for another party to steal that phone. As such, it makes perfect sense for Apple to focus on things that prevent our would-be thief from obtaining access to the data stored therein... and if the likelihood of malware somehow getting into the phone goes up, so too do the chances that our thief could take advantage of that malware to access the device.

It didn't come down to anything. Apple had the opportunity to lock down iOS and they were unwilling to change even when the iPhone became a pocket computer used by half of the US.

 

[jole]

Not seeing the relevance here, Apple likely pays well for that Ad space like a number of product makers pay for space in retail. Win for that store, no supply chain, no need to stock Apple products.

That picture is not real.Walmart would never allow Apple to place ads for buying their products from a competing store.

What is being suggested that Apple should be forced to allow Epic and Spotify advertise buying from their stores - skipping Apple's store and not paying Apple anything. Right at Apple's platform.

 

[jole]

I hate Spotify for buying up and locking podcasts behind their app but Apple really should just allow apps to direct people to a website to purchase something.

Why?

Apple is the one bringing their store and tools for app developers to use and build business on. Why this should be any different from Walmart doing the same for products they sell in their stores? Why should Walmart or Apple not be allowed to take a cut from the products sold in their stores?

 

[BrightDarkSky]

Think Apple is being evil? It's a company whose aim is to make as much money as possible. It ain't no charity and it has no legal or moral duty to make a competitor's life easier.

Best Buy wouldn't allow HP to advertise on its in-store display laptops that BB customers could buy them on Amazon.com either.

What a bad example, yikes man..... Yikes!

 

[KajP]

Apple and Spotify are once again feuding as Spotify attempts to break into the audiobook market, reports The New York Times. Apple has reportedly rejected Spotify's latest app update three times in the last month.

Over the years, Apple and Spotify have had a long running dispute over Apple's App Store policies, with multiple public conflicts over app and subscription fees and app rejections due to Spotify's attempts to skirt the up to 30 percent cut that Apple takes from purchases.

Apple says that Spotify is again trying to get around its App Store rules, and the Cupertino company claims that Spotify's audiobooks update is not in line with guidelines that cover how apps can communicate with users about purchasing options outside of the App Store.

Apple last year agreed to an App Store rule change that allows developers to use communications like email to share information methods about payment options that are available outside of an iOS app, but Spotify is running into issues attempting to implement this feature. With the rule change, Spotify wanted to direct customers to buy books online to listen to in the app, rather than giving Apple a cut of its audiobook sales.

Apple apparently told Spotify that it can send customers emails about online purchases, but Spotify is not able to offer a button inside of the app to request emails. The feature was designed with Spotify's legal team involved, and Apple initially approved the update in September, but later reversed course, rejecting subsequent updates.

Spotify designed a nine-step process for purchasing an audiobook, which involved a customer tapping on an audiobook and seeing a screen with a lock over the play button. Pressing on the play button provided customers with a page where they could request information on how to buy a book through an email, and the email offered up a link to purchase the book.

An Apple spokesperson told MacRumors that Apple "has no issues" with reader apps like Spotify adding audiobook content, but Spotify did not follow Apple's guidelines around in-app communications directing users outside the app.After the multiple rejections from Apple, Spotify released a version of the app that removes information about how to purchase an audiobook from the Spotify website, which Apple did approve. Spotify now informs users that there is no option to buy an audiobook in the app. "We know it's not ideal," says Spotify in the app text.

Spotify in 2019 filed a regulatory complaint with the European Union over Apple's App Store practices, and it maintains an anti-Apple "Time to Play Fair" website. Spotify has continued to meet with European regulators, but the case has not concluded as of yet. Spotify has also sided with Epic Games in the Epic Games v. Apple legal battle, and it participates in the "Coalition for App Fairness" alongside Epic Games, Tile, and others who are unhappy with Apple's "anti-competitive" policies.

Article Link: Apple Rejected Spotify's App Update Adding Audiobook Support

The audiobooks from Books aren’t even sold in my country 🙄

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Sheesh these comments... 😅 Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this anti-trust?

Apple sells an audiobook for $14.99; $10.50 goes to the publisher and $4.49 goes to Apple.

Spotify sells the same audiobook for $21.40; $10.50 goes to the publisher and $4.49 goes to Spotify -- the exact same as Apple!! (Apple also collects $6.42)

What's so wrong with that?

Spotify would only raise prices in an already expensive world. I don't know about you, but I'd gladly pay $14.99 over $21.40 any day! If anything, we should be thanking Apple for keeping prices so low!

It couldn't be clearer USING YOUR OWN EXAMPLE!

Given your scenario, the publisher and Spotify get the same money, sure. BUT, as a consumer, are you going to buy that audiobook from Apple for $14.99 or from Spotify for $21.40? This literally steers consumers to Apple and away from Spotify. That's the definition of anti-trust.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Could also use a headline like: “Spotify, desperate for profitability wishes it had its own hardware platform. But they don’t.”

Maybe we'll see headlines like "No new versions of Spotify iOS app as Spotify concentrates on Android platform for all new features going forward".

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

As much as I dislike Spotify (I both hate them as a company and despise it as an Apple, also I’m an Apple Music subscriber) I can’t help but feel like Apple is being pathetic here.

Surely if in-app purchases are superior in user experience and security people will prefer them over whatever the alternative is so why not allow apps to sell content however they see fit as long as they also offer IAP and are not allowed to use different prices to push customers towards one method over the other?
Oh, right. No 30% cut… 🤷‍♂️

And yeah yeah, they’re allowed to do this, the walled garden, blah blah blah
I just miss when Apple was better than this and service revenue didn’t mean devs had to choose between UX and forking over 30% of their revenue while Apple does NOTHING (and yes, they absolutely do nothing. in app purchase content is either an unlock or hosted on the app’s server, and Apple doesn’t promote it, processing the payment is NOT worth 30%)