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 Wants 'Limitless Access' to App Store Tools Without Paying
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A company that makes more money for its customers (developers) than anyone else? Exactly how is that a bad thing? If anyone has a claim on monopoly, that’s Google, not Apple. Most companies with minority or less than plurality market share when multiple companies are involved are not typically called monopolies, nor is anything typically enforced against them for anti-competitive activity. If they had a 51% market share, I might agree with you. See, when you sue a company for being a monopoly, you have to prove harm, otherwise they’re probably not a monopoly. “Um, your honor, Apple makes us more money than any other App Store, but we think they’ve harmed us, so we think we should pay zero… forever.” Facepalm. Keep in mind every company suing Apple is asking to pay nothing, not to pay less.
No. I also don't read books on my phone. So, I don't know what Amazon is doing on the Kindle app either.
Unless you know the full details of the deal and the relationship between Google and Apple, you are making a lot of assumptions and accusations.
An earlier post indicated that Apple paid artists 3x what Spotify pays them per stream, so, assuming that is correct and even if it isn’t as much as you feel the artists deserve, it seems a fairly easy estimate to say Apple is about 3x better in that regard. If you don’t acknowledge the difference, you shouldn’t expect change, as 300% is a dramatic difference. (And this is another of the reasons Spotify seems hypocritical to me on this issue.)
I am really curious as to what Spotify thinks will change if they are allowed to bill customers in-app without needing to pay Apple their cut.
As we speak, Spotify had already managed to migrate most of their iOS user base to website billing, meaning that only a very small minority is still paying via iTunes. The amount of money Spotify loses to Apple in this regard is practically a rounding error on their balance sheet.
We now know from the Google - Epic trial that Spotify had cut a special deal to not pay Google anything. The bulk of their subscriber base comes from android users in developing countries. Users also have the option of subscribing via a website; not everything necessarily has to go through mobile.
So the reality is that Spotify currently isn't paying Apple or Google anything, they do boast a substantially larger subscriber count than Apple, they raised 1.3 billion dollars in funding during the pandemic in 2021 (their foray into podcasting doesn't appear to have borne fruit, and their debt is now 2 years away from being due), and they still aren't profitable.
Let's say for argument's sake that Apple caves in and Spotify gets their way. It still doesn't change the fact that music streaming doesn't appear to be financially sustainable as a business model. It still doesn't change the fact that Spotify is heavily in debt and living on borrowed time. It still doesn't change the fact that their free tier is largely unprofitable and users on said tier do not appear interested in migrating over to the paid tier anytime soon.
Even Apple, with their home ground advantage, hasn't implemented any sort of in-app purchase options inside Apple Music (where they don't have to pay 30%), and are content with charging users $10 a month and sustain it indefinitely as an ecosystem feature to add value to existing hardware such as AirPods, HomePods and even the Vision Pro.
Maybe it's time to admit that Spotify as a business model cannot be saved, and that maybe music streaming doesn't really have a future outside of being an ecosystem feature that is paid for by big tech solely to add value to their respective platforms. Apple has Apple Music, Amazon has Prime Music, Google has Youtube Music, that leaves Microsoft...
As we speak, Spotify had already managed to migrate most of their iOS user base to website billing, meaning that only a very small minority is still paying via iTunes. The amount of money Spotify loses to Apple in this regard is practically a rounding error on their balance sheet.
We now know from the Google - Epic trial that Spotify had cut a special deal to not pay Google anything. The bulk of their subscriber base comes from android users in developing countries. Users also have the option of subscribing via a website; not everything necessarily has to go through mobile.
So the reality is that Spotify currently isn't paying Apple or Google anything, they do boast a substantially larger subscriber count than Apple, they raised 1.3 billion dollars in funding during the pandemic in 2021 (their foray into podcasting doesn't appear to have borne fruit, and their debt is now 2 years away from being due), and they still aren't profitable.
Let's say for argument's sake that Apple caves in and Spotify gets their way. It still doesn't change the fact that music streaming doesn't appear to be financially sustainable as a business model. It still doesn't change the fact that Spotify is heavily in debt and living on borrowed time. It still doesn't change the fact that their free tier is largely unprofitable and users on said tier do not appear interested in migrating over to the paid tier anytime soon.
Even Apple, with their home ground advantage, hasn't implemented any sort of in-app purchase options inside Apple Music (where they don't have to pay 30%), and are content with charging users $10 a month and sustain it indefinitely as an ecosystem feature to add value to existing hardware such as AirPods, HomePods and even the Vision Pro.
Maybe it's time to admit that Spotify as a business model cannot be saved, and that maybe music streaming doesn't really have a future outside of being an ecosystem feature that is paid for by big tech solely to add value to their respective platforms. Apple has Apple Music, Amazon has Prime Music, Google has Youtube Music, that leaves Microsoft...
Let me be a dissenting voice and say no. I actually realized the other day that I am very happy with the lack of sales pitches while I’m listening to my library on my Audible app, and prefer having just a reader app and using the browser when I actually want to shop. I wouldn’t have expected it, but have grown to like it, and Amazon are still getting lots of purchases out of me, whereas I have yet to buy an audio or ebook from Apple.
What if Apple, google and Amazon just dump their prices and blows off Spotify. Hard to imagine a company managed worse. They have never made a $ on their service.
Amid rumors that the European Commission will soon fine Apple 500 million euros for breaking EU law over access to streaming music services, Apple today commented on its relationship with Apple Music competitor Spotify and the ongoing complaints that Spotify has made to the EC to attempt to get the App Store rules changed.
In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said that Spotify is aiming to get unlimited access to Apple's tools and services without paying anything for the value that Spotify receives from the App Store.The European Union's investigation into the streaming music market and Apple's App Store policies was initially sparked by Spotify. Spotify has complained multiple times about the App Store rules that prevent it from allowing users to subscribe to Spotify without using in-app purchases and without paying a fee to Apple.
Spotify began working with the European Commission in 2015, and the company filed a final complaint in Europe in 2019. That led to a Statement of Objections from the European Commission in 2021. After that, the European Commission filed a "replacement" Statement of Objections on two separate occasions as it narrowed the focus of its investigation, with the latest statement released in December 2023. Over the last 10 years, Spotify met with the European Commission 65 times in an attempt to convince the EU that Apple's rules negatively impact streaming music services.
Apple says that while Spotify has claimed that Apple policies were harming competition and stifling growth, the streaming music market was in reality growing, presenting a challenge to the European Commission and leading to the revisions in the Statement of Objections. The commission was not able to pursue Apple for requiring app developers to use in-app purchase nor did it find that Apple was harming consumers with anti-competitive practices, so the investigation shifted to the anti-circumvention rules that prevent apps from informing users about lower subscription prices available outside of the App Store.
According to Apple, Spotify wants to rewrite the rules for its own gain. Apple does not believe that Spotify's complaints are about competition or finding a better deal for consumers -- it says Spotify simply wants a better deal and is using the European Commission to try to get it. Spotify wants access to Apple's technology, App Store reach, and to monetize through the App Store without paying anything to Apple.
The European Commission has said that Apple's anti-circumvention rules are "detrimental to users of music streaming services on Apple's mobile devices" and could lead to confusion for consumers that results in higher prices, but it is Apple's opinion that the European Commission's view on this point is misguided and has been heavily influenced by Spotify's ongoing complaints.
Apple says that Spotify is the dominant streaming music provider in Europe and other countries, and that much of the company's success can be attributed to the App Store. Spotify's apps are able to work seamlessly across Apple devices because of Apple's engineering efforts. Spotify has used TestFlight for almost 500 versions of its app, and it uses thousands of Apple's APIs across 60 frameworks.
If and when the EU fines Apple over this matter, the company will almost certainly appeal the decision, so the antitrust battle between Apple and Spotify is likely far from over.
Update: In a statement, Spotify said it does not have a level playing field with Apple and trusts that the European Commission will take action to create a fair ecosystem.
Article Link: Apple Says Spotify Wants 'Limitless Access' to App Store Tools Without Paying
Or their mutual owners Blackrock and Vanguard might not allow them to do so.
Apple let developers put apps on their app stores so people won't jump ship to other phone OS's - letting spotify on the app store for free keeps people engaged in their ecosystem, there is a beneift to Apple here.
Oh, so Apple Music is too small to matter? Interesting. And Spotify controls the market? Also interesting. You’d think that would have some relevance to the EU in judging Spotify’s complaints.
You can install Spotify on your phone. For free.
Log in to your account and it all works.
Apple get nothing (but headaches from Spotify who cant even admit fees are 30% but drop to 15% after a year).
Installing ANY software is another topic to this...
That's why internally, I refer to the DMA as the "Spotify Boost Act". It's really there just to prop up Spotify's failing business model.
read the article... Spotify have whinged to EU for 10 years...
Spotify can't even deliver the higher quality music tier it announced three years ago (and I hope Daniel Ek threw up a little bit the day Apple and Amazon both announced lossless music at no extra charge). Spotify wants a free ride because it has so far been incapable of being consistently profitable. Meanwhile, if Apple has to pay a $500 million fine, someone at Apple will just press the lets-print-more-money button and not a dent will be made on their financials.
People on this forum have a really weird fetish with being babied by Apple. I just want to install some free software on my phone, why should Apple be allowed to deny me that?
You know the DMA also affects Alphabet, Amazon, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft right?
Does the Spotify app on iOS predate the iPhone? I think that’s what’s in question here is the app. Maybe I’m wrong. How many Spotify users are there simply because of iPhone and the app? May be hard to quantify but I’d guess it’s no small number. Why is Spotify so against paying for the ability to charge users? If I make bread loaves and sell them in the grocery store I get less per loaf than the store does but I get more people to buy them than if I was selling them out of my own shop.
I want to install the app for my vape, but the app isn’t allowed on the app store because vaping is bad for me 🤷♂️
I refer to the App Store terms of service as "Tim Cook retirement fund boost act" internally. It's really just there to compensate for Apple's lack of innovation and stagnating hardware sales.
Because they sell people a vertically integrated product and people knew what they were getting into when they bought an iPhone (as compared to an android phone which does allow for side loading).
OK so I just checked on an Android phone and Google isnt charging to download the app. Just the same as Apple doesnt charge you to download Spotify.
I get a 1 month free trial.
Or sign in with an Apple ID where I have paid Apple to subscribe.
I get offered three plans if I want to subscribe via the app.
Plans are the same price on Android as iPhone.
I have searched but can find no reference that Apple doesn pay Google 30% or 15% when subscribing through the app... people claim special deals but any legit links?
I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. Apple could still be "innovating" in a manner you agree with, they could have wildly growing hardware sales, and still maintain the same App Store terms because, why not?
Not many people get to eat their cake and eat it too. Kudos to Apple for being one of the few to have the enviable business model of selling both highly profitable hardware and run a successful App Store business as well.
