How would you refute all the claims that spotify made? -
https://www.timetoplayfair.com/
I guess now is as good a time to consolidate all my arguments as any.
First and foremost, it helps to understand Spotify's motivations for doing this right now. We know that Spotify hasn't been profitable since like forever, and their growth is now largely confined to countries where Apple doesn't not have a dominant presence in. This means that while they may be able to boast large subscriber numbers on paper, the average revenue per customer is actually pretty low. Not least because Apple has managed to corral the best users and monopolise them for itself (Apple Music subscribers tend to be iPhone users after all).
In short, Spotify is getting desperate. Apple Music holds dominion over the US market and some parts of the EU, very lucrative markets that Spotify is now anxious to reclaim. Hence their decision to go at it now. Their current statement now is also quite ironic considering what their CEO, Daniel Ek, said at an earnings conference just last year, and I quote:
"
Spotify executives said there hasn't been meaningful impact from the competition, and that music streaming is not a "winner-take-all" market. The company also said it's not threatened by smart speakers from companies like Amazon, Apple and Google, which also have competing streaming services."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/spotify-earnings-q1-2018.html
What a difference a year makes.
Anyways, on to my arguments.
First, the timeline is absolute nonsense. It's not unreasonable to expect that Apple is continuously reviewing and revising their own App Store rules and guidelines to keep up with the current state of the industry, given that what was crafted in 2008 (when the App Store first launched) would likely not be able to predict or handle every new scenario that came up. Spotify is trying to make it sound like Apple is deliberately changing their rules on a whim to screw Spotify over at every turn.
It makes Spotify seem petty and vindictive, IMO.
Next, it's ludicrous that Spotify is complaining about being locked out of features such as Siri and the Apple Watch. Is Spotify actually arguing that every hardware manufacturer ought to build in support for every available service on the market? Because that's what Spotify is basically suggesting, and you can't expect Apple to be subject to a different set of rules from everyone else "just because it's Apple", if you want to go down that route.
Third, I mentioned earlier why I felt that Spotify shouldn't be viewed through the same lens as Uber or Deliveroo. When you call a car via Uber, only a small part of that interaction happens on your phone. For Spotify, the interaction takes place entirely on your device.
Fourth, if it's choice you want, consumers are perfectly capable of options for phones that aren't iPhones, and choosing music streaming services other than Apple Music. The only monopoly Apple has here is a monopoly on the profits in the smartphone market, and last I checked, it's not a crime to be insanely good at what you are doing (so long as it doesn't break the law).
Last, if Spotify can't pay their 15% cut to Apple and still stay afloat, that's Spotify's problem, not Apple's. They can always do what Netflix did by trying to route users around the App Store. I suspect the argument is less about not wanting to pay Apple their cut (whatever that sum is), and more about wanting total control over their own app, free from Apple's meddling.
I am of mixed feelings on this. I can understand app developers bristling at the (sometimes arbitrary) limitations Apple imposes on their apps, but at the same time, it is precisely because Apple puts in so much thought and effort in curating the App Store that has resulted in users being able to purchase apps easily, cheaply and safely. It's all part of what makes the Apple experience so uniquely Apple. Like it, hate it, it is what it is, and there's always Android if you want out of the walled garden.
In a nutshell, I feel that Spotify's arguments are all over the place. They seem to basically be spraying every single argument they can come up with against the wall in an attempt to see what sticks. After all, it takes way more effort to refute an argument than to make that argument in the first place. Plus, you can't go wrong by appealing to people's (often irrational) dislike of Apple.
Of course, this is all just how I feel, and I expect that the courts and regulatory bodies are going to view it in a far different light than I did. But this is also why I am a teacher commenting on an Apple forum and not a lawyer being paid the big bucks to slug it out in court.
