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
Until around 2016, the limit used to be one year. Rolling back that change would be a nice thing to do.
They should just pay up and take their medicine.
Thats the result of a great product vs low effort me too attempt
None of Apples services are best in class in their category really, thats what happens when you just think can use your market position to neuter the competition.
The reason is obvious. Because they were afraid of a potential loophole to bring (open source) apps on the iPhone. And it would also emphasize how rediculous the App Store terms really are.
Why else do you think they could not tollerate that users build their apps and load them onto the iPhone? Github is full of interesting projects.Ah, yes... Apple's well known fear of open source apps.
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
Meanwhile, I'm sitting here with a huge CD collection and a used music store nearby, wondering why people keep paying to rent music at all...from Apple or Spotify.. I'm amazed at how many otherwise intelligent people around the world have fallen for this con job.
Sigh.
I have no idea. But that doesn't make your assumption correct. I'd guess the most like explanation is the reason they choose to prevent the installation of any other unsigned app... some combination of safety, security, and profitability.
Been an iPhone user since 2007, they just build better devices period. Doesn't mean I think that Apple's walled garden is good or necessary.
I can. But I can't then in a reasonable way distribute my open source software to people, and if I don't pay $99/year I can't even keep my own software running on the very expensive phone I've already paid for, unless I keep reinstalling it every week...
it cost Apple literally pennies for those reviews. the vast majority are automated.
I would argue it gives or provides access to "a" store (now with the EU thing, potentially more than "a"). I can't argue that the iPhone "is" a store. I explained to another member here that you could use an iPhone and not actually get anything from the AppStore other than updates to the built in apps. You could live off:
1) Safari
2) Phone
3) iMessage
4) Contacts
5) Photos
6) Facetime
7) Apple Wallet
And be functionally fine.
this is why apple white knights are made fun of on a daily basis. Amazon has been sued many times for both anti-consummer and anti-competitive practices.
hell, the FTC in the USA sued Amazon again a few months ago for anti-competitive practices. why aren't you defending amazon?
So Spotify, a free download on the App Store, has been “neutered”?
Their #1 position on the App Store free music apps list certainly doesn’t support your point.
As for “low effort” — where is that lossless audio Spotify promised 3 years ago?
Underpaying artists really makes Spotify “best in class” doncha think?
Attachments
I can certainly see both sides. I could just as easily argue that it gives or provides access to a phone. I could also argue that it is a store since one of its features is to facilitate transactions for goods (apps).
No right answer here. Just an interesting thought.
The “problem” is the ability for a non-registered dev to spread malware for a year without the ability to nuke an app that comes with App Store distribution.
It must be privacy and security, because that is Apple's standard answer when it comes to questions about the app store.
You could never "spread" any program this way. The certificate was only ever valid for the phone for which the app was built using Xcode.
But on the AppStore it is alsp B2B. If you create an App you have a business, you have to pay taxes on the income.
Spotify are the market leader in music streaming, yeah. More people are paying for their service than any of the others. They have more subscribers than Amazon and Apple combined.
Apple tried really hard to make it difficult for Spotify to push updates to their app etc after Apple Music launched. It didn't make much difference because Apple Music is awful but still, bad form.
Source as to “Apple tried really hard to make it difficult for Spotify to push updates”?
Or did you just make that up?