I just don’t feel they should apply here.
This case is never going to hold water in the US. There might be some risk for Apple in the EU, but by and large, I feel it’s too early to conclude that this lawsuit is a shoo-in for Spotify.
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 Says Spotify Seeks to Keep All Benefits of App Store Without Making Any Contributions to Marketplace
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just don’t feel they should apply here.
This case is never going to hold water in the US. There might be some risk for Apple in the EU, but by and large, I feel it’s too early to conclude that this lawsuit is a shoo-in for Spotify.
If it were in the US, it wouldn't be trivial. It took the US Govt nearly 3 years to complete a case against Microsoft when it was dealing with Internet Explorer. Imagine if it was just Spotify vs Apple.
I don't think it's a "shoo-in" for Spotify in the EU by any means. However, EU is well known for being more consumer friendly. Apple will obviously have their lawyers, but if Apple loses it's a big win for the consumer. Of course if all you care is profits, then I guess you win.
Spotify has thrown out a lot of accusations, so what happens in the end also depends on which actually end up sticking.
For instance, if it's cheaper prices consumers want, there is nothing stopping them from paying directly via Spotify's website (which is a one-off inconvenience). If consumers decide that they would rather pay the extra $3 a month for the convenience of iTunes billing, then that's really their prerogative, isn't it?
Spotify is essentially trying to have their cake and eat it too. I just came back from lunch at KFC at a mall near my house, and as I looked at the stores around me, it suddenly struck me what Spotify is really trying to do.
Imagine a departmental store, where each outlet is free to sell whatever they want, and use whatever payment options they desire. Except here, Spotify is basically trying to get a mall outlet without paying any rent, while intending to benefit from the traffic that 900 million active iOS users will likely bring, as well as leverage on Apple having aggregated the best customers.
While not intending to pay a single cent ($99 a year is practically negligible here) that would contribute to the maintenance of the App Store.
Second, devices like the HomePod and Apple Watch not supporting Spotify could simply be a case of Apple deciding not to invest the resources to support third party services (yet). I asked the same question and nobody answered me - is Apple somehow obligated to ensure that all their devices come with inbuilt support for every possible service out there, regardless of however much engineering resources that might entail?
Third, that Apple has their own equivalent services is exactly why they are able to integrate both hardware and software so well together. If the courts ruled that Apple is prevented from doing this just to "give competing services a fair chance", how am I, as a user of both the Apple Watch and Apple Music (and also a consumer), going to benefit here?
It's not that care only about profits that don't end up in my own pocket. At the end of the day, Spotify is also just looking out for themselves. It's not a matter of fair or unfair. It's just business.
Great analogy! Kraft or Kelloggs certainly could open their own online store and sell directly to the consumer.
So why then does Apple allow free apps? Why then doesn’t Apple get a cut of every sale within an iOS app? If Apple’s argument is this is just a finders fee or commission for access to a lucrative customer base why does it only apply to digital media?
So glad they came out with such a clear-headed and unambiguous response so quickly. That is one well written, fair, and potent press release.
[doublepost=1552718259][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1552718557][/doublepost]
Also, if Spotify is whining about Apple taking 30/15% cut, how must they be bellyaching about having to share revenue with Hulu? That’s got to be as much as 30-50% depending on which door the customer came through.
[doublepost=1552719669][/doublepost]
You are badly misinformed if you believe that Apple is going into the streaming video business with nothing but Carpool Karaoke. The truth is, in fact, the opposite of what you said. That was a small experiment they did to have programming that would mesh well with Apple Music. They have dozens and dozens of shows in development being made by the biggest names in showbiz: Spielberg, Fincher, Withesooon, Carrell... the list goes on and on.
Also, the Hulu deal is a temporary promotion. There is nothing guaranteeing that it will be around in a year. Or that either company will still be solvent.
[doublepost=1552718259][/doublepost]
So nice to read someone who gets it, rather than seeing another post petulantly complaining that companies in a capitalist system are acting in their own self interest to gain competive advantage over their rivals. The nerve!
[doublepost=1552718557][/doublepost]
The Hulu/Spotify thing is a promotion, and it doesn’t feel sustainable to me.
Also, if Spotify is whining about Apple taking 30/15% cut, how must they be bellyaching about having to share revenue with Hulu? That’s got to be as much as 30-50% depending on which door the customer came through.
[doublepost=1552719669][/doublepost]
You are badly misinformed if you believe that Apple is going into the streaming video business with nothing but Carpool Karaoke. The truth is, in fact, the opposite of what you said. That was a small experiment they did to have programming that would mesh well with Apple Music. They have dozens and dozens of shows in development being made by the biggest names in showbiz: Spielberg, Fincher, Withesooon, Carrell... the list goes on and on.
Also, the Hulu deal is a temporary promotion. There is nothing guaranteeing that it will be around in a year. Or that either company will still be solvent.
Because digital media is consumed on the device itself, compared to physical media purchased via an app on the device, which is consumed separately.
From a consumer perspective, Apple's vision for the App Store and the way we consume content on devices makes sense. I also think that Apple has some ground to stand on for taking a portion of goods revenue sold through the App Store.
I have mentioned previously that while the iOS store is undoubtedly valuable for bring new users, that value kinda diminishes rapidly over time. For instance, say I am subscribed to Todoist (which I am), and I subscribe via iTunes due to the convenience. Apple arguably does deserve a 30% cut for helping in facilitating that transaction.
However, past the 1st year, that relationship is of less value, since Apple has done nothing to help keep my as a Todoist user (that's entirely on the onus of the developer). As such, decreasing the cut Apple gets to 15% makes sense. Should it go even lower? I guess a case could be made that for subsequent years, Apple's cut could go down to 10% or even 5% (they still have to put in work in vetting updates and fielding customer support requests).
But for the first year at least, Apple absolutely does deserve that 30%, I feel. As it stands, that pretty much every other company seems to conveniently omit the fact that this drops to 15% from the 2nd year onwards seems pretty dishonest to me.
Unfair business practices? EVERY SINGLE retailer on the planet either charges a fee or buys wholesale and sells products at a markup. Why you and other people insist on labeling a basic, fundamental principle of commerce as “unfair” really defines logic.
And btw, you think Google doesn’t also charge app developers 30% for selling in the Google Play store? Of course they do. It’s Retail 101.
Thats not what monopoly investigations would look at.
They would see that Apple gives a music service for $10 and spotify on its own site would give a service also for $10.
But if they go through Apple they have to offer it at $13 if they want to keep the same margin
or lose $3 or so to compete with Apple.
Since Apple owns the platform, here in lies the conflict of interest and hence monopolistic behaviour.
What would you rather Apple do?
What if Apple Music wasn’t priced at some other figure like $5? What if Apple gave it away for free?
No matter how much spotify charged, they would still have to give Apple their cut (be it 30% or 15%), which brings us back to the original problem.
I don’t believe the solution should be for Apple not to have its own music streaming service either.
And if Spotify were allowed to use their own billing service, then they are effectively using Apple’s platform for free.
Curious.
Well, in Android, you can sideload apps and app can distributed with different store front. Don’t forgot, Amazon has its Amazon App Store, Spotify can open its own store inside of Android as well. Still remember when Fortnite on Android? It didn’t launched on Google Play Store, instead it launched with its won App Store.
Second Google never ban developer redirects payment via link or other payment method.
As end user, I would do whatever I can do pay less. It is funny where I can pay less on subscription via Android and use the subscription on iOS.
Brave move from Spotify, call it what you want, it's taxes baby.
Apple taxes everyone for use of their ecosystem, and at the same time 'competes' by offerering similar services. Not a fair and level playing field by any meaning. Spotify (and other firms) are having a point and cannot compete ever, Apple would always be 30% ahead.
Ironically, Apple is the Uber tax avoider by using/seeking/exploring all available and often dubious methods. (Yeah,yeah 'all legal' but hardly moral) At the same time Apple is using infrastructure all over the world for you and I ARE paying our fair share.
Tax avoidance, you can do it too, and get your Spotify subscribtion from Spotify's website. Works with lots of subscriptions. Or better, all developers should pull their apps and content, just stop competing with Apple.
Apple taxes everyone for use of their ecosystem, and at the same time 'competes' by offerering similar services. Not a fair and level playing field by any meaning. Spotify (and other firms) are having a point and cannot compete ever, Apple would always be 30% ahead.
Ironically, Apple is the Uber tax avoider by using/seeking/exploring all available and often dubious methods. (Yeah,yeah 'all legal' but hardly moral) At the same time Apple is using infrastructure all over the world for you and I ARE paying our fair share.
Tax avoidance, you can do it too, and get your Spotify subscribtion from Spotify's website. Works with lots of subscriptions. Or better, all developers should pull their apps and content, just stop competing with Apple.
I think it should be up to the store owner since it is their property.
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
-Samuel Adams
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson
It is not arbitrary, it is carefully decided.
It is easy to complain that the rules should be better, but I have yet to see anyone propose a set of rules which would bring Apple more money than the current rules.
[doublepost=1552743862][/doublepost]
They can compete by being much better than Apple Music, they can provide their service in countries where Apple Music is not available, they can provide their service on other devices.
[doublepost=1552744419][/doublepost]
It is a membership fee for being part of the Apple Developer Program. One of many benefits is help with distribution which could be the Mac App Store.
It is a sales revenue commission as seen from the developer because without Apple it would be much more difficult to generate revenue.
[doublepost=1552745126][/doublepost]
That is probably under $20 per customer. I do think that stores should be able to maker more than $20 per customer before worrying about them making too much money.
Im not sure why you keep focusing on the 30%. That is a small part of the problem, but yet you are honed into it as the primary problem. As I mentioned before the 30% is a weak argument by Spotify.
The core issue is you have Apple Music and Spotify. Apple Music isn’t subjected to the same rigorous requirements for app submission and compliance as Spotify. Spotify for every app submission is subjected to a lot of stupid and asinine demands from Apple. Once you open the store and start to strangle direct competitive apps, that is where legal juridisctions prevent anti competitive behavior. It’s part of the antitrust laws.
It does not matter how logically you feel things are. You keep forgetting that we have laws everywhere. Maybe this might be a good time for you to familiarize with these laws.
Apple does not have the power to enforce a 30% commission on many of these transactions. It is therefore rational to come up with a set of transactions which they do have the power to enforce and which is easy to identify.
Seems pretty rational to me.
I focus on it because Spotify is the one making such a huge deal out of it.
I addressed this earlier. I don’t think Apple is specifically singling Spotify out to be targeted as claimed. The App Store is constantly evolving, and rules and guidelines change in keeping with the new challenges that arise.
Apple Music isn’t subject to these stringent checks because Apple feels they can police themselves.
Spotify is because it’s a third party and therefore needs to be monitored, like all other apps.
It’s not personal.
I will leave that to the lawyers, since this can really be argued either way. Nevertheless, I don’t see the charges sticking, but maybe I am being too optimistic here.
It's always refreshing to hear from legal experts in European commercial law. Interspersed with a smattering of whataboutism as if that clinches the argument. The only thing that really matters here is whether Apple (and anyone else by implication) has acted outside the law. Spotify clearly thinks so and has acted accordingly. I would suspect that the EC would have a better idea about the merits of the case than you.
One thing I do get from this whole saga is that Apple's recent grandstanding about paying labels (not the artists, necessarily) increased royalties for each song streamed rings rather hollow when you realise that Apple's coffers are somewhat subsidised by the 30% it creams off its rivals.
Because Apple has its home advantage and does not allow competitive other marketplace run on iOS? Unlike Apple, Google allowed third party application store runs on Android. Apple does not. Therefore, if you are disallow competing marketplace and disallow other ways of transaction, then it is anti-competitive in my book. I am going all the way to subscribe by using website not using App Store, if option is available.
That is not what checks I am talking.
Without divulging into specifics, Apple can still hold your app from release due to a myriad of asinine reasons even when you comply with their rules.
It hardly has much to do with policing, as you seem to call it.
Thoroughly sarcastic response, but predictably empty. And it indicts you as much or more than me, because while the EU regulators certainly know more about their laws than I do, they know more than you. And you’re the one who brought up the topic by crying that Apple was being unfair.
I am correct in that charging 30% as a retailer isn’t unfair or illegal. Neither is having a better business model than your rivals. You seem convinced that wrongdoing is afoot, yet offer no examples of anything Apple is doing that is patently unfair or illegal. Nice try, son.
Last edited: