WOW. Did you forget Apple "hoards" more money than almost any other company? If you unencrypt the letters APPLE, it spells GREED. But go ahead and keep bashing Spotify, the #1 music streaming service, globally.
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.
EU Plans to Let Spotify Direct Users to Other Payment Options on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Once again, the EU is leading in the world in allowing smartphone owners to actually feel like they own their devices.
That's largely irrelevant honestly. The problem is that Apple as gatekeeper can take money gained in one market segment, and utilise it to develop their own position in that segment. It's not just the 30/15% from fees paid by Spotify to them, it's also the fact that their own competitor service doesn't have to pay those fees. Their price can thus be lower and their development time is paid for by their competitor. This is true for all markets which is why, in my opinion, it should be illegal to operate a marketplace that sells both your own products/services, and competitors. One or the other, but not both.
That's my opinion and I'm sure not everyone agrees here.
It would not exist anymore, among competing phones that allow for third-party apps and provide a similar (or at least comparable) user experience. Such as Android.
That's why we have sideloading (a.k.a. installing software from the internet) in the EU. Apple can charge as much as they want for the AppStore, they just can't force me (or Spotify) to use it. This is a brand-new concept we in Europe like to call "competition".
I understand your point on the surface, but looking deeper I actually think the new Journal app is Apple at its best. It's a basic journal that doesn't really compete in the areas that Day One (for example) charges for. But it comes with a new technology (suggestions) that any developer can take advantage of while respecting user privacy. Day One has already updated their app to support it.Apple is even competing with small independent apps on the app store example the new journaling app they're giving it for free because they're too big and they can afford it. Now small journaling apps must spend more money and more resources to compete against a free app that comes pre-installed on every up-to-date iPhone. As per governments intervention, it’s the mess they’ve created. The bigger the government the larger in size businesses have become.
Big Corporations and Big Government Go Hand in Hand - FreedomWorks
One policy issue that should unify individuals of all political persuasions is opposing corporate welfare. Progressives tend to oppose big corporations while conservatives and libertarians despise big government. The truth is that big corporations and big government go hand-in-hand.www.freedomworks.org
I think this is a disingenuous argument. Apple spends tens of billions of dollars on a platform that Spotify gets to use for $299 per year. And they pay artists significantly more than Spotify.
If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, this means that Apple is not allowed to release any new apps for their platform ever. No AR measuring app just because numerous other apps already exist. No flashlight app because the App Store is also populated with them. Even the stock mail app cannot get any new features because chances are it has already been done somewhere else.
How is this a better experience for users who prefer to stick with stock apps and have no desire to use third party apps, perhaps out of privacy concerns or because they don't wish to pay for them? If Apple is in a position to use their control over hardware, software and services to create a unique and better experience, I say they go for it, and if it replicates an existing app's functionality, then I say the developer is simply going to have to step up their game. Which again, benefits users.
Which, if you notice, is what Apple typically does. Their apps tend to be more on the basic side, and is just good enough to meet the basic needs of majority of their customers. Which still leaves enough room for third party apps to serve customers who desire more features and complexity.
I doubt it because of the fees paid to artists are handled by the apps and agreements between them.
And Apple should raise the developer fee for streaming apps to cover lost revenue, and charge hosting fees and per d/l fees. No reason all apps should get the same treatment.
I suspect Spotify would whine about that.
Spotify relies on access to apple's user base for revenue, and should pay for that access.
Apple should be free to decide how to charge each category of apps. App;e has decided tangible goods do not require paying a fee and banks are not selling any subscriptions in app.
Will developers lower prices outside the App Store? I doubt it.
Don't have to. Just change fees for App Store access.
The EU didn't like Ireland finding and using a loophole to get Apple to locate in Ireland.
Uh I can't even access my payment info on the iOS Spotify app sooooo......
Apple might soon face a setback in its EU antitrust battle with Spotify, which filed a complaint against the iPhone maker over four years ago.
EU regulators are planning to force Apple to allow competing music services like Spotify to direct users to payment methods other than the App Store's in-app purchase system within their apps, or face a fine of as much as 10% of its annual sales, according to Bloomberg. The decision is slated to be announced in early 2024, the report says.
Apple currently prevents apps from letting users know about a purchasing method other than the App Store's in-app purchase system within their apps, although it does allow developers to inform customers by email. If and when the EU's order takes effect, Apple would be required to drop this so-called "anti-steering" rule. It's unclear if Spotify will be allowed to accept payments directly within its app, or merely advertise other payment methods.
Spotify has been unwilling to let customers subscribe to its streaming music service for its usual price of $10.99 per month within its iPhone app, as it would receive less due to Apple's 15% to 30% commission on in-app purchases. Spotify has argued that being unable to let iPhone users know about other payment options is anticompetitive.
We will update this story if Apple responds to the report.
Article Link: EU Plans to Let Spotify Direct Users to Other Payment Options on iPhone
No. It would be more like HP putting information in or on packaging of its toner cartridges sold in Walmart stores that a customer can (now or in the future) buy HP toner from hp.com.
HP does just that inside the package, as does Canon. Can Spotify include wording in the app that they can pay elsewhere, but not on the front/login page?
No, a similar analogy would be picking up Adidas merchandise at Target with Target being forced to allow me to pay directly to Adidas, subverting the cut Target would get for stocking the product. Target has the privilege of paying for all the overhead - building, shelving, employees, utilities, etc. - for Adidas for FREE.
I explained it in the part that you did not quote. But in short, an iPhone without access to 3rd party apps is worth zero dollars to many people. Hence the developers of these apps provide a critical contribution to the value of the iPhone. As does Apple/the iPhone to the apps.
I do not want Apple to fail, but I think it is disingenuous to pretend Apple alone created the success of the iPhone, and everybody else should accept whatever terms Apple decrees.
Except that's just a strawman. No one is seriously arguing that Apple doesn't benefit from third-party apps. And yes, loaded language aside, its reasonable for Apple to set the terms for access to the platform it created. Happens all the time. Company A offers terms. Other companies choose to accept them or not. If not enough companies accept the terms, Company A adapts by making the terms more attractive.
They can’t.
The exception for “reader apps” forbids developers to “to link to or market external offers for such content within the Licensed Application”
…except: in practice they don’t adapt and they don’t need to.
There is practically a duopoly of platforms and mobile application distribution between Apple and Google.
That’s why terms and rates have remained mostly unchanged for over a decade now - and (especially with Apple) non-negotiable.
As a matter of fact, I’ve bought many macOS app from non-Apple stores at prices lower than the Mac App Store’s.
I am sure Spotify would be happy to host the app installer themselves as they do on every platform they can like Windows, but Apple won't let them for iOS.
Last edited by a moderator:
How is that an "except in practice"? I specifically said they only need to adapt with more favorable terms if they aren't getting enough developer support. And, of course, Apple has made it's terms more favorable for developers over the years.
It your going to use the duopoly justification, the rational response would be to break up Google's anticompetitive agreements with its horizontal competitors.
If you are focused on Apple, then the duopoly claim is just an excuse.
Spotify Doesn't Pay Google Play Store Fees
Google admits in court that Spotify got a sweetheart deal of 0% fees.
Do research so you don’t waste your time. Apple aren’t paying you to be their cheerleader so less defending the indefensible is wise. This verdict is a consumer benefit as allows competitors not to be stifled.