Apple's New Music Royalty Proposal Would Make Streaming Costlier for Free Services Like Spotify

[Pixel & Bracket]

I still think that streaming should cost $0.01 per listen to every song you play and if you reach 100 plays of any song you now own it, can download, and never have to pay to listen to that song again because technically you've bought it. Merge the music purchasing and music streaming worlds. Offer prorated amounts if you want to purchase a song that you've listened to less than 100 times. Everyone then gets some fair percentage of all these amounts. Obviously anyone doing this would be in a "paid" tier, maybe there's room for ad-based free tier but those negotiations would still need to happen.

 

[trifid]

*Sigh* You keep making comparisons that do not hold weight. In the e-Book case, Apple was colluding with publishers to increase prices. With the music streaming case, Apple is requiring the same revenue split they always have from apps in their store. They've literally done nothing shady here. What are they supposed to do (without changing rules for just music streaming apps), charge themselves 30%? Like I said earlier, Google takes revenue split from all apps in its store too, including streaming apps. That they don't have to charge themselves for their streaming app is just a benefit of creating the platform.

At this point, I don't think you're willing to discuss this in an intellectually honest fashion. You can keep making non-sequitur arguments and false comparisons, I'm gonna go do literally anything else.

One more thing, I think you are either being ignorant or dishonest by pointing out the Google example because unlike Apple, Google doesn't require developers to censor information about subscription options, Google gives developers the option to handle payment themselves, so in that case Google isn't getting any revenue split.

 

[springsup]

You don't wanna call it theft? Lets call it a rip off, lets call it milking the userbase, a disservice to the music industry and a disservice to artists. 0% profits on Mac from Spotify, 30% profits on iOS at the expense of artists. It's as clear as that and it's wrong. So please Apple, don't even try to pass this off as you caring about artists.

It's about greed and killing the competition's free tier.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works. When you subscribe via the AppStore, you don't pay Spotify directly. You are billed by the AppStore, and Apple distributes the money to Spotify. Apple charges 15% for that service.

If you subscribe to Spotify in some other way, then you pay them directly. The money doesn't get distributed by Apple and they obviously have no right to claim a cut.

Also, i don't believe it is at the expense of artists at all. I believe Spotify costs more when you subscribe via the AppStore to account for Apple's cut, ago Spotify still gets paid the same amount in the end.

 

[garya73]

This is sooo not gonna fly.

First of all this is not about artists making any money cause 9.1 cents on a 100 streams is an insult but artists have accepted the offer to stream their music so who give a crap about them. They have blatantly chosen to make their money on tours and from merchandise if they have an easy 360 contract.

This hits the consumer the hardest cause they might not have a free option.

What I don't get here is how come the CRB only consulted Apple instead of other leading music streamers. That is the sole reason why this proposal will go down.

In general artists don't make a lot from record sales, their money is made with touring and merchandise sales. There are a lot of people involved in making a record, and the label often fronts the money and the artist pays them back with sales from records. A lot of artists have gone broke or made very little money on bad deals. And you can get a full album for $9.99 now - it used to be much higher when CDs first came out, more like $16.99 or so.

 

[trifid]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works. When you subscribe via the AppStore, you don't pay Spotify directly. You are billed by the AppStore, and Apple distributes the money to Spotify. Apple charges 15% for that service.

If you subscribe to Spotify in some other way, then you pay them directly. The money doesn't get distributed by Apple and they obviously have no right to claim a cut.

Also, i don't believe it is at the expense of artists at all. I believe Spotify costs more when you subscribe via the AppStore to account for Apple's cut, ago Spotify still gets paid the same amount in the end.

Of course I understand how it works, and I'm saying the 30% cut is a rip off.

 

[smacrumon]

Except, that I'm right, you're wrong. You have yet to prove any fact beyond telling me I'm wrong. Yet, I provide you with quotes from the FTC, and you still refuse see anything beyond your own nose. I thought maybe you were simply heard of hearing, thus my reply.

So, perhaps you would actually like to submit facts, like I have. As the trite saying goes: put up, or shut up.

You're right at telling me that you're right, but that's yet to be proven in actuality. Hilarious is your dramatic and way off proclamation "you will never be successful". My comments were providing a perspective of what could occur if Apple exposes shareholders. You've then blasted me with a bunch of anecdotal nonsense specific to your personal habits. You're perspective of "I got mine, so screw everyone else" really isn't how the world works three steps outside your own space and not the way all accomplished individuals operate. It's a very distorted view and I'm sad that is how you experience the world. There are many ways to run successful businesses that don't subscribe to your limited examples. The last time Apple got greedy and stopped focusing on making great products and services the company was heading for the scrap heap. That's why anticompetitive behaviors shouldn't be the focus of Apple's business.

 

[x0vash0x]

You're right at telling me that you're right, but that's yet to be proven in actuality. Hilarious is your dramatic and way off proclamation "you will never be successful". My comments were providing a perspective of what could occur if Apple exposes shareholders. You've then blasted me with a bunch of anecdotal nonsense specific to your personal habits. You're perspective of "I got mine, so screw everyone else" really isn't how the world works three steps outside your own space and not the way all accomplished individuals operate. It's a very distorted view and I'm sad that is how you experience the world. There are many ways to run successful businesses that don't subscribe to your limited examples. The last time Apple got greedy and stopped focusing on making great products and services the company was heading for the scrap heap. That's why anticompetitive behaviors shouldn't be the focus of Apple's business.

Everyone operates in their own self interest. There is no such thing as altruism. People may run a successful business that appear to operate morally, or for nobel causes or reasons, but at the end of the day, this is all an effort at marketing and trying to create good PR.

I actually don't know what I said to. I don't pay attention who I reply to. I just say whatever I want to say and don't think much beyond that.

 

[Cigsm]

It's not highly unnecessary. Since you don't work in the music industry I can understand why you think that. A good friend wrote a #1 hit song. It had nearly 10 MILLION streams on Spotify. His checks totaled $8,000. If you think you can make a living off of that then I don't know what to tell you

Why the heck is the government involved in wages?

BTW, this is even beyond that since they're also dictating exactly how the artists need to be paid. It's highly unnecessary.
[doublepost=1468644645][/doublepost]
Spotify isn't piracy. Artists and producers agree to put their music on it. 100% off their work? They've got a whole service going. Before all this, music was sold on expensive CDs. Apple saved the music industry with iTunes back then.

 

[Cigsm]

So you're a thief. That must be something you're really proud of. Be sure to reach your kids that it's ok to steal from people.

I don't go shoplift, but I wait for big discount and take free samples. For example, i go take free small bottle of shampoo or small toothpaste. If there is store that offers everything free and supported by ads, then I don't mind they target me for the ads. But I will never go to other store.

But I don't pay for music and movie. I also don't buy computer software, hence, I never buy apps from App Store. I wait paid app free or I dowload free alternative. Or I download .apk file from truested sources and manually install them. For music, I will use QQ Music, Google Play Music or YouTube. But I will not pay. For movie, I streaming online or I download from torrent sites using VPN.


I only pay I have to pay. If there is free alternative, I don't pay. For example , I will go take free sample of shampoo every so often. I don't pay for banking.

 

[CarlJ]

If Apple wants to charge a premium for in-app purchases fine, but developers should be able to offer other methods (or at least direct people to other methods inside the app). It would be simple, pay a bit more for the convenience and security of billing plus ease of subscription management via iTunes or pay less using the developers billing option. Some will chose to pay more for the benefits of iTunes billing, others won't. But it seems silly that Spotify can't even tell people go to spotify.com to sign up within the app. And for those that say this is about security and safety, if that was really the case then Apple would force every developer with subscription service to offer IAP as an option. But they don't. If you want to buy Kindle or Nook books you have to do it via the browser. Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

I've explained it before in these threads, I'll try one more time:

Apple charges 30% across the board for initial app purchases, in-app purchases, and subscriptions. This is arguably reasonable for purchases of apps (Apple's handling distribution, billing, taxes, security/anti-theft, etc. across hundreds of countries - I've heard multiple highly placed people in the industry say it's reasonable), it's probably a little high for in-app purchases (though, if there were no App Store, there would be no in-app purchases in the first place, because there would be no apps), and is, indeed, pretty high for subscriptions (and this whole sentence is simply my opinions on the pricing, obviously). But... if any of the three avenues for collecting money had a substantially different deal than the others, the developers would all tend to flock to using that method (whether it was a good fit for the app and for the consumer - anyone want to pay monthly subscriptions for calculator apps?) in order to maximize their profit. The other avenues for payment would effectively cease to exist. So, they have historically needed to keep the price the same without exception. Yes, they have recently instituted the bit where subscriptions go from 70/30 to 85/15 after the first year. This doesn't upset the Apple cart (so to speak) very much, because it is a good deal for legit subscription services like Netflix and HBO (and Spotify, if they played along), but very few calculator app developers will find people willing to subscribe for 2+ years just to get the developer a better cut after the first year. So the rest of the App Store is unlikely to slide towards subscriptions because of this new rule - you have to have an app that people will genuinely want to subscribe to for multiple years, to benefit from it. I was actually kind of surprised by how slick and simple the 85/15-after-a-year rule is, in this respect.

Say Apple did what you suggest, let everyone use outside payment methods in apps, while still keeping their pricing at 30% for initial app purchases and Apple-serviced in-app purchases. What happens then? Eventually, nearly every app would switch to free-in-the-store-but-pay-us-through-our-website (because, of course, companies would like as much of the money as possible to stay in their hands). At that point, the App Store has nothing actually for sale, they only have "free" apps (no cost to download and the developers collect their money offsite), and the App Store brings in no income - it becomes unsustainable and perhaps eventually goes away (it does get crazy amounts of traffic, and that does cost quite a bit to maintain). Is that an outcome you want?

You make very good points towards LovingTeddy - he wants to take digital movies, music, and software for free, insisting that it isn't hurting anyone (flashbacks to the heyday of Napster); if everyone follows his example, what happens? The inevitable outcome is that those spending all the hundreds of millions of dollars to make movies and music won't get a return on their considerable investment, and they'll stop making those all those movies and music that he likes to download. Because making multi-million dollar movies will become unsustainable. That is not an outcome either of us want; LovingTeddy isn't able to think that far ahead, as long as he's getting "free stuff". The pricing on the app store is a similar thing.
[doublepost=1468735113][/doublepost]

FREE IS THE KING AND NOTHING BEATS FREE. I WILL TRY TO GET STUFFS FOR FREE FIRST.

You know, it doesn't cost anything to throw a rock through a store window and grab stuff and run. Why stop at just movies and music?

 

[macfacts]

Its crazy how anti artist Google is in its constant efforts to fight paying us (music artists) a damn thing! The middle class recording artist is just bereft from things like this!

If you are an artist and someone has uploaded an unauthorized copy of your video/music to youtube or any place on the internet, it is your job to sue that user that uploaded it and notify Google so they can take it down. It is not Google's job to find and delete all unauthorized copies.

 

[Mindbomb2000]

I am not paying for music regardless what you say. I will try to use Google Music, QQ music or any free streaming method first, then restore to old fashion torrenting.

FREE IS THE KING AND NOTHING BEATS FREE. I WILL TRY TO GET STUFFS FOR FREE FIRST.

Language is tough. but the word "free" has several meanings. In the context of this conversation, the word free means this:
Free = someone willingly giving you the product that they created.
Theft = you taking said product against their will.

You are a thief.

And apparently, you are fine with it. You actually seem proud of this fact. As someone mentioned before, I actually feel sorry for you and your inability to understand why your position is objectionable.

I mean, I know people who simply can't afford to purchase entertainment, so they steal it. But, they acknowledge that it's wrong, and pay when/if they can. That's what people with a conscience do. They certainly don't f'n brag about it.
[doublepost=1468742664][/doublepost]

If Apple wants to charge a premium for in-app purchases fine, but developers should be able to offer other methods (or at least direct people to other methods inside the app). It would be simple, pay a bit more for the convenience and security of billing plus ease of subscription management via iTunes or pay less using the developers billing option. Some will chose to pay more for the benefits of iTunes billing, others won't. But it seems silly that Spotify can't even tell people go to spotify.com to sign up within the app. And for those that say this is about security and safety, if that was really the case then Apple would force every developer with subscription service to offer IAP as an option. But they don't. If you want to buy Kindle or Nook books you have to do it via the browser. Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

Thanks, you make some good points.

To me, the issue is this (which was mentioned earlier): If Apple was to allow in-app purchases for free, every app would become free with a sign-up for external purchases. Yes, some would prefer the option of the convince of iTunes billing, but Apple would lose a ton of revenue, possibly to the point of not being profitable. Hey, I'd take the ten minutes or so to save 30%. So, to off-set this, Apple would need to change it's business model to one that only sold apps. No more free apps. You want to sell an app though our store, you're going to have to pay us. I'm sure the number-crunchers would come up with a minimum price for an app, and Apple would get their fair cut.

Spotify is choosing to sell the premium subscription at a higher price through Apple because they've created a product that can't be sustained if they give a cut to Apple. Just like my toaster, if I purchased it directly from the manufacturer, the manufacturer would see more profit, but they know that if the product was priced higher at walmart*, I'd likely not purchase it. They may even be able to sell it to me for less, but I doubt walmart is going to let them advertise this fact in their store. They know what price they think I'll pay for the toaster, and they set the price they sell them to walmart for accordingly (making less profit, but enough to be profitable). Meaning, Spotify set a price that only works if they sell direct. And this applies to subscription services as well. Have you ever been to Best Buy and seen people selling cable TV subscriptions? Do you think Best Buy isn't taking a cut of those sales?

That being said, to be honest, I think that the 30% is too high (even knowing the the % drops to 15% after one year).

Regarding the fact that you can buy your Echo from Amazon without Apple taking a cut... well, let's hope Apple doesn't start.

Peace.

*I don't actually shop at walmart.

 

[gnasher729]

Of course I understand how it works, and I'm saying the 30% cut is a rip off.

Plenty of people who understand how it works disagree with you. You also claimed this would be at the expense of the artists, which is blatantly untrue. The artists get paid the same amount, no matter how much Spotify gets. This is between Apple and Spotify.

 

[elmaco]

"If anything, it just shows that a free music streaming option was likely never financially viable to begin with, seeing how it is causing Spotify to haemorrhage losses"

Spotify has targeted growth instead of profitability. If they would have charged from day one what it cost to operate the service, nobody would have signed up.

On the other hand, if they can get 100 million subscribers, which is not that much in a world with 7000 million people, they will profit and able to give back money to investors.

 

[MH01]

It's nice to see musicians benefit from tech competition rather than get squeezed more.

This is not being done for the benefit of musicians or consumers. The real squeezing happens after the competitors are eliminated.

 

[threesixty360]

Movie studios are becoming more aware of Chinese movie goers. There's quite a few of co-productions taking place these days. And everyone in China knows Taylor Swift and Adele. Chinese enjoy Western entertainment. The thing is, there's absolutely no way in Hell that Chinese are going to pay $15+ (100RMB+) for a new CD or movie. This is a ridiculous amount of money.

Take a look at this website: http://vip.iqiyi.com/order.html This is one of the most popular streaming sites in China. It's 200RMB/Yr ($30/Year). These sites typically have movies for individual sale (although a very limited selection) for roughly 20RMB ($3). Before the iTunes movie store went down in China, I could buy movies for a much more reasonable $3-$5 instead quadruple that in the U.S iTunes store.

My point being: Chinese are not willing to pay the prices movie studios have become accustomed to. China is an emerging market, and most emerging markets have high rates of piracy. But, I'm not sure this will ever change, at least in China, because Chinese are so used to cheap entertainment, that it'll be extremely hard to get Chinese to pay more than a few dollars for entertainment.

LovingTeddy is an excellent example of the typical Chinese mentality. Except, most Chinese will admit what they're doing is illegal, or at least is probably illegal.

The problem is if I make an album in LA it costs me thousands of dollars in studio rent, I'm paying engineers and producers money that has to cover their rent and so on and so forth. The reality is the cost of producing product in the west is just a lot higher because the cost of living is higher.

So whilst, the Chinese see it as expensive it's only because their cost of living is really low. It's the reason we don't have factories in the west too much, compared with China. You cant live on a hundred dollars a week in the west.
i don't know what the answer is to this.

 

[CarlJ]

On the other hand, if they can get 100 million subscribers, which is not that much in a world with 7000 million people, they will profit and able to give back money to investors.

You really expect that Spotify is going to get one-and-a-half percent of the entire population of planet earth to sign up to pay for their music streaming service?

 

[alexmarchuk]

I've explained it before in these threads, I'll try one more time:

Apple charges 30% across the board for initial app purchases, in-app purchases, and subscriptions. This is arguably reasonable for purchases of apps (Apple's handling distribution, billing, taxes, security/anti-theft, etc. across hundreds of countries - I've heard multiple highly placed people in the industry say it's reasonable), it's probably a little high for in-app purchases (though, if there were no App Store, there would be no in-app purchases in the first place, because there would be no apps), and is, indeed, pretty high for subscriptions (and this whole sentence is simply my opinions on the pricing, obviously). But... if any of the three avenues for collecting money had a substantially different deal than the others, the developers would all tend to flock to using that method (whether it was a good fit for the app and for the consumer - anyone want to pay monthly subscriptions for calculator apps?) in order to maximize their profit. The other avenues for payment would effectively cease to exist. So, they have historically needed to keep the price the same without exception. Yes, they have recently instituted the bit where subscriptions go from 70/30 to 85/15 after the first year. This doesn't upset the Apple cart (so to speak) very much, because it is a good deal for legit subscription services like Netflix and HBO (and Spotify, if they played along), but very few calculator app developers will find people willing to subscribe for 2+ years just to get the developer a better cut after the first year. So the rest of the App Store is unlikely to slide towards subscriptions because of this new rule - you have to have an app that people will genuinely want to subscribe to for multiple years, to benefit from it. I was actually kind of surprised by how slick and simple the 85/15-after-a-year rule is, in this respect.

Say Apple did what you suggest, let everyone use outside payment methods in apps, while still keeping their pricing at 30% for initial app purchases and Apple-serviced in-app purchases. What happens then? Eventually, nearly every app would switch to free-in-the-store-but-pay-us-through-our-website (because, of course, companies would like as much of the money as possible to stay in their hands). At that point, the App Store has nothing actually for sale, they only have "free" apps (no cost to download and the developers collect their money offsite), and the App Store brings in no income - it becomes unsustainable and perhaps eventually goes away (it does get crazy amounts of traffic, and that does cost quite a bit to maintain). Is that an outcome you want?

You make very good points towards LovingTeddy - he wants to take digital movies, music, and software for free, insisting that it isn't hurting anyone (flashbacks to the heyday of Napster); if everyone follows his example, what happens? The inevitable outcome is that those spending all the hundreds of millions of dollars to make movies and music won't get a return on their considerable investment, and they'll stop making those all those movies and music that he likes to download. Because making multi-million dollar movies will become unsustainable. That is not an outcome either of us want; LovingTeddy isn't able to think that far ahead, as long as he's getting "free stuff". The pricing on the app store is a similar thing.
[doublepost=1468735113][/doublepost]
You know, it doesn't cost anything to throw a rock through a store window and grab stuff and run. Why stop at just movies and music?

Exactly what I wanted to say to trifid. Was hitting my head on the table reading his posts and minsunderstandings.

 

[apolloa]

One more thing, I think you are either being ignorant or dishonest by pointing out the Google example because unlike Apple, Google doesn't require developers to censor information about subscription options, Google gives developers the option to handle payment themselves, so in that case Google isn't getting any revenue split.

Totally agree, I have a couple of the same apps on Android and iOS, on Android I can buy or rent things in the app, on iOS I cannot. It's a very clear example of the different approaches by the two platforms.

 

[alexmarchuk]

Totally agree, I have a couple of the same apps on Android and iOS, on Android I can buy or rent things in the app, on iOS I cannot. It's a very clear example of the different approaches by the two platforms.

That's just different store policies. Amazon doesn't sell their music or books on iOS app. They don't complain.

Both stores also take a 30% cut. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en

 

[smacrumon]

Everyone operates in their own self interest. There is no such thing as altruism. People may run a successful business that appear to operate morally, or for nobel causes or reasons, but at the end of the day, this is all an effort at marketing and trying to create good PR.

I actually don't know what I said to. I don't pay attention who I reply to. I just say whatever I want to say and don't think much beyond that.

Well you're wrong, some of us are running our businesses for ultruistic reasons and they are running successfully as well. Both can occur at the same time. In fact it will be those businesses that will succeed most into the future as customer sentiment shifts. Customers are quite good at picking baloney marketing and faux company reasons for being.
Apple needs to gets its priorities right otherwise it's a long glide slope as customers start to avoid it. Once customers continue to leave developers no longer want to support it. We've been there once, we don't want to go back.

 

[apolloa]

That's just different store policies. Amazon doesn't sell their music or books on iOS app. They don't complain.

Both stores also take a 30% cut. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en

How do you know they don't complain? Your now suggesting a big consumer corporation is happy to confuse its users with different app features on different platforms. One seems happy to allow in app purchasing (Android) for what must be free, reduced terms, reduced percentage taken from each sale, something that entices big Giants to do it, and the other (iOS ) not budging an inch on its frankly ludicrous 30% cut.

It has no defence despite anyone's attempts to do so as the FACTS stand, one platform has iap and the other does not, that will be due a legitimate reason.

Then again this is a story off blatant dirty tricks by Apple to eliminate the competition.

 

[alexmarchuk]

How do you know they don't complain? Your now suggesting a big consumer corporation is happy to confuse its users with different app features on different platforms. One seems happy to allow in app purchasing (Android) for what must be free, reduced terms, reduced percentage taken from each sale, something that entices big Giants to do it, and the other (iOS ) not budging an inch on its frankly ludicrous 30% cut.

It has no defence despite anyone's attempts to do so as the FACTS stand, one platform has iap and the other does not, that will be due a legitimate reason.

Then again this is a story off blatant dirty tricks by Apple to eliminate the competition.

*sigh*. Spotify can remove IAP and deal with browser subscriptions all day, Netflix does. By not complaining I mean they accept the rules of the court (App Store). Google takes 30% off a $4.99 app, how's it different from Apple? Apple clearly states to use their IAP you can't double dip and tell your customers to get it cheaper on the website, ESPECIALLY when they're jacking the price up for the consumer on the IAP to begin with. Spotify can't take a loss for a platform that basically built them and that's why their business model sucks. If they don't get rid of the free tier they won't last.

 

[LovingTeddy]

You know, it doesn't cost anything to throw a rock through a store window and grab stuff and run. Why stop at just movies and music?

Language is tough. but the word "free" has several meanings. In the context of this conversation, the word free means this:
Free = someone willingly giving you the product that they created.
Theft = you taking said product against their will.

You are a thief.

And apparently, you are fine with it. You actually seem proud of this fact. As someone mentioned before, I actually feel sorry for you and your inability to understand why your position is objectionable.

I mean, I know people who simply can't afford to purchase entertainment, so they steal it. But, they acknowledge that it's wrong, and pay when/if they can. That's what people with a conscience do. They certainly don't f'n brag about it.

Tell me what I am stolen? What is the thing that got moved around?

Downloading torrent or downloading from YouTube is merely copying original 0 and 1 to my computer. What am I exactly stealing?

Looking at Wikipedia:

In the general definition above, the Supreme Court of Canada has construed "anything" very broadly, stating that it is not restricted to tangibles, but includes intangibles. To be the subject of theft it must, however:
1. be property of some sort;
2. be property capable of beingtaken (therefore intangibles are excluded); or converted (and may be an intangible);taken or converted in a way that deprives the owner of his/her proprietary interest in some way.

So when I am downloading, what exactly am I taken? Or what I am converted? I don't thinking making copy of some short is converting.

So is downloading or torrenting is theft? Hell no.

To answer, If I go to store and taking stuff without getting owner's constent, it is theft. Downloading or streaming music or movie is not.

By the way, it is legal here in Canada to watching any movie or TV shows from sites like prime wire.

Never will give my single penny to paid subscription services.

Thanks

 

[apolloa]

*sigh*. Spotify can remove IAP and deal with browser subscriptions all day, Netflix does. By not complaining I mean they accept the rules of the court (App Store). Google takes 30% off a $4.99 app, how's it different from Apple? Apple clearly states to use their IAP you can't double dip and tell your customers to get it cheaper on the website, ESPECIALLY when they're jacking the price up for the consumer on the IAP to begin with. Spotify can't take a loss for a platform that basically built them and that's why their business model sucks. If they don't get rid of the free tier they won't last.

Ah so because as I suspected you cannot explain why on android you have iap in an app like Amazon Prime and on iOS you don't, you've decided to make some attempt at an excuse for Spotify's business model, tell me do you run your own global multi million user music subscription service? Or just act like you do, I mean you seem to feel experienced enough to comment on Spotify's business model, which is really just you appologising for Apple and its attempts to crush the competition no matter what for more profits...