Or through their website.
Don’t want to discuss, you never answer, which iPhone do you currently use.
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 to Investigate Apple Over Spotify's Antitrust Complaint
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or through their website.
Don’t want to discuss, you never answer, which iPhone do you currently use.
Why is that a problem? Seriously, what about the iOS platform gives Spotify a right to be a part of the platform, let alone to dictate the terms of their involvement?
You are aware that Spotify does not give back as nearly much as Apple does to its artists in royalties?
1) You might expect Apple to take a cut of physical goods and/or services from App Store purchases, but they don’t. They also don’t charge based on how crucial iPhone or the App Store is to a company’s business model. I suppose these could be additional avenues for future Apple revenue, but for now there is no charge for any of those. I’m not really sure what your point is though, or how any of that is relevant.
2) You might expect Apple to charge a $0.99 minimum for any app, but they don’t. I suppose that could be an additional avenue for future Apple revenue, but for now companies don’t have to charge for apps if they don’t want to. I’m not really sure what your point is.
3) Apple isn’t charging a fee for customer acquisition, they’re charging a percentage of the sales of digital goods sold through in-app purchases. Spotify or any other company can choose not to offer in-app purchases; Apple is still glad to host their app, even if that results in billions of downloads of the app, like Netflix. If companies don’t want to pay Apple for in-app sales, they can simply choose not to sell in-app.
4) If Apple doesn’t actually do the billing, how would they know what the amount of the sale was, or whether there had even been a sale at all? I suppose Apple could offer PayPal or some other payment method during checkout, but Apple would still be entitled to their portion of the revenue share since it’s still an in-app purchase.
5) App updates are also handled through the store, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. If the app has in-app purchases of digital goods, those purchases are subject to the 15/30% revenue share. What do you mean by “part of Apple’s store”, and how is that relevant?
I'm sure you know perfectly well that Uber isn't using Apple to process payments, but rather uses in-app links to their own payment processing system. That is exactly what Spotify wants to be able to do too.
From the linked article: "...if Spotify chooses not to use Apple’s payment system, to avoid paying the commission, the company applies “a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions” on consumers running its streaming service on the rival tech company’s devices." and "Spotify argues that its complaint to regulators is not about seeking “special treatment” in its global music battle against Apple but the same treatment as numerous other apps such as Uber and Deliveroo, which are not subject to the 30% app store charge."
Nobody is asking to use Apple's payment system for free, only to have the same opportunity to use their own payment systems under the same conditions as other sellers like Uber.
OK sure...but in reality how many people will do a multi store price check on their groceries every week before they go shopping? I am sure that some do but most will simply go to their regular store given that, in the UK at least, there is usually very little difference in the price of "brand name" products from one store to the next (special promotions excluded of course) and even if there is, while BRAND A may be cheaper in Store A, BRAND B may well be more expensive. If there was that much of a variance from once store/chain to the next the consistently more expensive one would risk going out of business.
With respect, of course there is the option to pull out if you don't like the terms. You make it sounds like Apple is literally forcing Spotify to have the app on the App Store. I think what you are saying is that there is "no option to pull out" if you want to keep selling your product to those customers and you have a point there. I think what frustrates me is the fact that Spotify wants to sell to Apple/iOS users...but it wants to do it on its own terms. They are choosing to try to grow their business...fair enough...but they don't want to agree to the supplier's terms...
This is all quite simple in my mind to be honest. If I had a choice between not having access to hundreds of millions of iOS users or having access to them but taking a hit on the profits, basic economics dictates that the lower ARPU from iOS users would be more than made up by the sheer number of additional users that I would be bringing on board.
To me it seems a no brainer to have the potential to increase your customer base by up to 20% with only a 6% overall drop in revenue...but maybe that's just me
You have to realize that is what essentially every free app from a known company already is, free advertising. Apple still gets its $100 a year developer fee for hosting the App so Apple still makes money. Why shouldn't Spotify or any other company with a sub be able to do the same?
True. At worst Apple would have to allow Spotify to have a button for EU downloads, which would reach about 36% of their user base. Apple could also chanegs the TOS for apps with buttons to charge for them to be hosted, or even drop Spotify in the EU.We will see how the EU thinks about that
Beyond laziness, there's absolutely no incentive to the end user to go off to another website to make a payment. They don't get extra features nor a lower price. It's only in Spotify's interest to reduce its overhead. To take your example further, one of the reasons, perhaps not the main one, but one nevertheless, that Apple promotes exactly one method of payment on its platform is to simplify the user experience. If they're going to pay the same either way, most users will choose the most convenient method. So, Apple wins because they can charge for the payment service and users win because the payment method is convenient, familiar and uniform. This convenience is a competitive advantage of iOS devices. Maybe it's small, I don't know, but it's a distinctive feature of the ecosystem.
Apple launching a competing service per-se is not anti-competitive, but if Apple has a dominant position (which is to be decided by the European Commission) and if Apple is abusing its dominant position to unfairly compete against Spotify (again to be decided by the European Commission), then of course it could fall under prohibited anti-competitive behaviour.
Spotify argues that this is the case, Apple denies the accusation.
No, I said there's a conflict, that's all, most here agree there's a conflict/issue, how to resolve this is up to the EU.
But you still ignored the post I replied to in the original OP, I said you have to play by the rules, whether that is in the states or on the other side of the pond, that was my original reply to the OP, you missed what I said there, nothing to do with either Apple nor Spotify, Laws are made to be followed by the ones who do business there, if "you" don't like it than go somewhere else.
Apple disallow Spotify or other app developer link their website through app. This is the whole argument. Please let me know the logic behind that. And that is prevent competition, you know you can do in app subscription to Apple Music through App and does Apple charge themselves for 30% cut?
To continue with my storefront analogy, a truly free app would be like a charity asking for window space (there is no money being made by the "advertiser"), while an app which then leads consumers "offsite" would be like a competing business demanding advertising space in a competitors window.
And yet, Apple get's $100 per year but don't forget that also includes the license for development tools for developers. Plus, let's be honest, with estimates of close to 1 million total downloads and a (current at least) files size of 162.7MB, that's an awful lot of data (about 155TB!) to transfer for just over $1000 of developer fees. Just doing a quick check on Amazon AWS using 1.3TB per month (which is the average over the last 10 years) gives a cost - just for raw data transfer - of over $118...per month! And apparently Apple should be more than happy with the $100 per year it gets from Spotify...
Perhaps that 30% fee has something to do with this? In effect, Apple is using Spotify money (the fee) to pay more to the artists. How generous of them!
No, the problem is that Spotify can't get their app installed unless Apple permits it through the only avenue any app developer has, the App Store. Apple's position is absolutely monopolistic but they make it all warm and fluffy through the it's so secure within the walled garden excuse.
Apple doesn’t run the App Store just so they can break even on hosting expenses. They do it to generate revenue and profit.
Nobody (well, definitely not Spotify) needs Apple to distribute their app. Apple forces companies/people to use it and then charges them. So, to continue with my analogy, it is just like mafia charging store/restaurant owners a fee for "protection" that one cannot refuse.To continue with my storefront analogy, a truly free app would be like a charity asking for window space (there is no money being made by the "advertiser"), while an app which then leads consumers "offsite" would be like a competing business demanding advertising space in a competitors window.
And yet, Apple get's $100 per year but don't forget that also includes the license for development tools for developers. Plus, let's be honest, with estimates of close to 1 million total downloads and a (current at least) files size of 162.7MB, that's an awful lot of data (about 155TB!) to transfer for just over $1000 of developer fees. Just doing a quick check on Amazon AWS using 1.3TB per month (which is the average over the last 10 years) gives a cost - just for raw data transfer - of over $118...per month! And apparently Apple should be more than happy with the $100 per year it gets from Spotify...
[doublepost=1557162041][/doublepost]
They also run App Store to sell their hardware. Remove Spotify app and see how iPhone sales drop. So, distributing Spotify app for free is economically profitable for Apple.
Where the app is downloaded from has nothing to do with anything. If Spotify hosted their own app download, I’m sure they’d still complain about the revenue split from selling in-app.
If Spotify doesn’t want to pay Apple, they don’t have to sell in-app. Where the app download is hosted is not relevant.
Firstly, let me say that I do completely understand your point, but the fact that the European Commission has the final say on this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth as this is the same body of thought that passed Article 13, a massively biased and ridiculous piece of legislation which actually puts legal culpability on the heads of those who have no way to actually comply with the law without the blanket restriction of uploads from many smaller content creators. These are the people who will be deciding what is anti-competitive???
I don't think - as many others have pointed out - that Apple can have any kind of "dominant position" when it only controls 20% or so of the smartphone market. That's like saying that Renault has a dominant position because it controls 100% of the Renault car market!
However, when Apple launched Apple Music it cannot be said to have had a dominant position because its service had precisely zero users compared to however many million Spotify had at the time. Apple used the integration with its whole product range and infrastructure as a selling point which many people bought into...and many more didn't.
Spotify subscriber numbers are up...Apple Music numbers are up. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Apple Music, by virtue of Apple's supposed "dominant position" are actually cannibalising Spotify subscriber numbers. Perhaps Spotify numbers aren't growing as much or as quickly as they would like...but it all comes down to "fairness" doesn't it? And I wish that somebody, anybody, could provide me with an iron-clad definition of what "fair" actually means...a definition which could apply equally ("fairly"...ironically!) to all people at all times. Only then do I feel that the standard of fairness should be applied in cases of Law...and particularly Commercial Law.
Is Spotify suing Google? Maybe this has something to do with the fact that Google let the companies to install the apps from their own websites/stores?
If Apple said no one could develop apps for iOS, would that be anti-competitive? If yes, explain why development of iOS created an obligation on Apple to permit outside development? If no, where's the line between the current App Store and no App Store where the rules become anti-competitive?