EU Prepares to Charge Apple in Antitrust Dispute With Spotify

[Michael Scrip]

This is how Netflix gets around Apple's restrictions. It doesn't appear that there's a way to sign up or pay for Netflix inside the app anymore.

Is this a special deal that Apple gave Netflix? Or is this available for any developer?

In other words... could Spotify also do this? Just have a "Sign In" button with no other options?

I think if someone wants Spotify bad enough... they'll figure out how to sign up (even if Spotify can't have directions or a link in the app)

 

[coolfactor]

But Apple really does treat Spotify fairly. They're subject to the same fees as every other company, and Spotify can now be set as the default music service on most (if not all) Apple devices.

They are subject to the same fees, which Apple itself is exempt from. If Apple charged themselves 30%, too, that would be different.

 

[macfacts]

Why can’t Spotify do the same?

Epic tried selling fort night bucks on the web and apple had a problem with that

 

[jarman92]

After 13 years also conveniently after this complaint was made. I'm sure its just a coincidence.

So? If your complaint is that Spotify can't be set as default, and then it can be set as a default, you can't still complain about it. In legal terms, the issue is moot.

 

[jarman92]

They are subject to the same fees, which Apple itself is exempt from. If Apple charged themselves 30%, too, that would be different.

Um...what? How exactly does Apple charge itself for anything?

 

[Rob_2811]

So? If your complaint is that Spotify can't be set as default.

It isn't. It's that Apple App Store rules are anticompetitive. A default music player wont change that. 👍

 

[Mcmeowmers]

Get a computer if you want complete control. iOS is fine how it is.

As a developer I'm more inclined to support iOS because of how hard it is to pirate apps. If piracy was allowed on iOS (which is essentially what you're asking) then the only reason to support iOS is taken away.

Lol. Jump to more conclusions please?

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is fantastic.
You can really feel the momentum building on stuff like this.

Apple had a lot of time to get ahead of so much of this stuff and chose to do nothing, or the absolute bare minimum too late.

This is great to see.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Who said anything about Android? nobody gestured towards android as being the optimal solution because if anything’s it’s probably a lot worse.

It allows exactly what you have requested. It allows alternate app stores, side loading, and making other apps the default. How exactly is it worse?

Apple doesn’t exercise nearly as much control on macOS and yet the app market there is as healthy as it can be and there’s no issues with security.

The app market on macOS is no where near as strong as on iOS/iPadOS, as evidenced by the number of apps that have Windows and iOS/iPadOS versions, but no macOS version.

There is an issue with security on macOS, just as there is on Windows. The biggest reason we do not see as many problems is that the market is so small it is not worth targeting for most bad actors. However, we have seen malware that targets macOS including some that targets Apple Silicon macs. This would be exponentially worse if the platform were anywhere near as popular as iOS/iPadOS was.

If these rules were making it nice for developers and users apple wouldn’t be swimming in investigations and lawsuits.

There are a billion iOS/iPadOS devices in use. There have been a small number of lawsuits, mostly from two groups: those who oppose Apple’s privacy rules, and those large players who want the advantages of Apple’s platform but do not want to support is developement.

There are under 25 members of the “Coalition for App Fairness” and millions of developers with products in the App Store. Given how much larger the Android market is, if Apple’s ecosystem was so terrible for them, why would they be there in the first place (and even more telling why are they so many apps that are still iOS first)?

Clubhouse is a prefect example. It is still iOS only, despite the fact that Android is the dominant platform (by number of users), even in the U.S. If things were so bad in the space, why did they make that decision?

 

[bsolar]

Um...what? How exactly does Apple charge itself for anything?

Back in the day, when Microsoft was under big anti-trust investigation, one of the options on the table was to break-up their business lines into separate, independent entities, so that e.g. Office could not unfairly profit from the dominant position of Windows.

Note that I don't think this will ever happen to Apple and the situation with Microsoft was one of a full-blown monopoly, but it's technically a way anti-trust can employ to break-up integration between products deemed to be unfairly anti-competitive.

 

[az431]

I do think there's merit to this. Users should be able to seamlessly integrate other music apps like Spotify as well as Apple does with their app. I'm currently getting a free Pandora premium account and it sucks on the Apple Watch and on HomePod you have to finish every request with "... on pandora".

Spotify should just require subscription signups on its website, isn't this what Netflix and Disney+ do?

there’s zero merit to this, and it will end up just like the EU’s previous efforts.

You can choose to use any music app you want on an iOS device, and you’re not required to pay in app for a Spotify subscription. The first thing you get after you sign up with Spotify is an email directing you to pay on their website.

Moreover, Spotify could just as easily charge everyone the same monthly fee at a rate between 9.99 and 12.99 to account for the mix of distribution costs for each platform. Their argument is like saying that Visa should not be able to charge merchant fees because some gas station charge customers .50 cents more to pay with a credit cards.

Spotify isn’t even required to accept payment via the App Store. It could simply offer the app and require people to register and pay outside the app, just like Netflix does.

Maybe the EU should spend its time figuring out why Spotify pays artists almost half of what Apple pays them.

 

[az431]

I can buy an eBook on Amazon, and read it on my iPad Kindle one instant later. No Apple-Tax.

I subscribed to one year of Babbel on their website. No Apple tax, Babbel working great on my iPad.

Why can’t Spotify do the same?

If you want a platform, go build your own, like Apple did betting the house on the iPhone.

Spotify does the same. It simply chooses to pretend like it doesn’t to bolster it’s absurd argument.

 

[WiseAJ]

Epic tried selling fort night bucks on the web and apple had a problem with that

No. Apple had a problem with Epic trying to enable their own payment system in app.

 

[jz0309]

Disclaimer: I do not subscribe to any music streaming service.
To me it feels like when there is a true competing app/service, the non-Apple app should have be allowed to redirect iOS users to sign up via a website and pay there without having in-app purchases and such. So in this case, Spotify app redirects new user to its website and people sign up and pay through Spotify's payment service ... any app wanting to get a "free" ride is not fair, Apple set up the infrastructure and you pay for that.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Sadly Apple is turning MacBooks into locked down iOS appliances.

While they are not, I would be much happier with that than turning iOS/iPadOS appliances into the unrestricted world of macOS.

 

[Rob_2811]

Disclaimer: I do not subscribe to any music streaming service.
To me it feels like when there is a true competing app/service, the non-Apple app should have be allowed to redirect iOS users to sign up via a website and pay there without having in-app purchases and such. So in this case, Spotify app redirects new user to its website and people sign up and pay through Spotify's payment service ... any app wanting to get a "free" ride is not fair, Apple set up the infrastructure and you pay for that.

Yes, but Apple prohibits developers from redirecting their customers from their app to the web to sign up. They even reject apps for mentioning it.

 

[ani4ani]

They'd actually have to charge $14.27 to get $9.99 after the 30% cut if my 6th grade math education holds up.

0.7x=9.99
x=14.27

It doesn't...they charge an addiitonal 30% to recover the 30% Apple take...$9.99 x 30% = ~$3 Apple fee..they add the $3 on to cover Apples fee

 

[calzon65]

It's disgusting to see the anti-competitive sentiment ... I'm sure many work for Apple or have drunk so much of the cool-aid the sugar has destroyed their brains along with any sliver of empathy for those who are just asking for a choice.

Even the slightest suggestion of an alternative to the Apple store is met with seething resistance. Users can choose what applications they want to load on Windows, MacOS or Linux, but God forbid if IOS users wish for the basic right to load applications not "blessed" by the holy Apple.

 

[Ursadorable]

Funny.. I haven't paid Apple a cent to access my spotify account on my iPhone. That tells me right there that there's already an alternative, so this lawsuit is BS.

 

[Alan Wynn]

We're not talking about the mobile phone market. We're talking about App Distribution Why is this so hard for you to understand?

App Distribution for the Mobile Phone market.

I can get apps for Android (not a phone but an os), Linux, or any other os such as Windows from any place.

Great. Android, Android OSP, iOS/iPadOS and Linux Phone are all part of the same mobile phone app market.

I can ONLY get apps for iOS from one place - the App Store.

First, you can use PWA on iOS/iPadOS and those need not be purchased on the App Store.

THAT is a complete monopoly.

Your definition of the market is too narrow. All of these devices can do basically the same thing and serve basically the same purpose. That is how the market is defined.

 

[turbineseaplane]

There are so so SO many ways Apple could break out the offerings for developers in the store so as to enable much better support and meeting needs where they are for each size/scale/type of developer and App.

It's very myopic to think that the nearly one size fits all approach Apple has stuck with is "the only way that would work".

Unfortunately it looks like, based upon their actions and responses, they're going to need to be forced to "think different".

 

[Suckfest 9001]

It allows exactly what you have requested. It allows alternate app stores, side loading, and making other apps the default. How exactly is it worse?

The app market on macOS is no where near as strong as on iOS/iPadOS, as evidenced by the number of apps that have Windows and iOS/iPadOS versions, but no macOS version.

There is an issue with security on macOS, just as there is on Windows. The biggest reason we do not see as many problems is that the market is so small it is not worth targeting for most bad actors. However, we have seen malware that targets macOS including some that targets Apple Silicon macs. This would be exponentially worse if the platform were anywhere near as popular as iOS/iPadOS was.

There are a billion iOS/iPadOS devices in use. There have been a small number of lawsuits, mostly from two groups: those who oppose Apple’s privacy rules, and those large players who want the advantages of Apple’s platform but do not want to support is developement.

There are under 25 members of the “Coalition for App Fairness” and millions of developers with products in the App Store. Given how much larger the Android market is, if Apple’s ecosystem was so terrible for them, why would they be there in the first place (and even more telling why are they so many apps that are still iOS first)?

Clubhouse is a prefect example. It is still iOS only, despite the fact that Android is the dominant platform (by number of users), even in the U.S. If things were so bad in the space, why did they make that decision?

I’m allowed to have criticisms about something I own and you’ll just have to deal with that. If running off to another platform is how you deal with challenges then so be it but I’ll pass

 

[bsolar]

To me it feels like when there is a true competing app/service, the non-Apple app should have be allowed to redirect iOS users to sign up via a website and pay there without having in-app purchases and such. So in this case, Spotify app redirects new user to its website and people sign up and pay through Spotify's payment service ... any app wanting to get a "free" ride is not fair, Apple set up the infrastructure and you pay for that.

Apple explicitly prohibits Apps from directing users to third-party sign-up sites or online stores since 2011.

 

[Analog Kid]

There are so so SO many ways Apple could break out the offerings for developers in the store so as to enable much better support and meeting needs where they are for each size/scale/type of developer and App.

It's very myopic to think that the nearly one size fits all approach Apple has stuck with is "the only way that would work".

Unfortunately it looks like, based upon their actions and responses, they're going to need to be forced to "think different".

When Apple has made efforts to cater to different size/scale/types they’ve been accused of giving special treatment and anti-competitive behavior.

 

[jz0309]

Yes, but Apple prohibits developers from redirecting their customers from their app to the web to sign up. They even reject apps for mentioning it.

ok, so that might be the change that needs to happen ...