Yep. They aren’t being forced to use the App Store for payments. They can do it all online like other companies that don’t want to share money with Apple have been doing for ages.
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
Yep. They aren’t being forced to use the App Store for payments. They can do it all online like other companies that don’t want to share money with Apple have been doing for ages.
Aside from the fact that you don't like it, why can't they? What did they do that forces them to give up their right to control their property?
Apple shutting down the app store completely is well within their rights. They have no obligation to allow third parties to create apps for use on iOS. Doing so would not be anti-competitive; however, it would be a horrible business decision as a lack of third-party apps and services would decimate iPhone sales.
Once they do allow third parties to create apps, particularly with the duopoly that exists in the smartphone app market, they have an obligation to play fairly.
The anti-competitive line is potentially drawn when Apple make a distinction between what they allow one developer to do and prohibit another one from doing the same. The line gets clearer when that distinction is based on the type of goods or services offered by the seller and Apple is a direct competitor in the market for which it places additional restrictions.
Last edited:
Look...the debate about the “walled garden” is more than played out! Yes, Apple restricts iOS users to only installing apps from the App Store...but it has been that way from day one. People have a choice...don’t like it...go Android. There is a reason why a company would only want to allow authorised apps...and that is security. In the UK when you get car insurance, if you have changed any of the mechanical parts to third party parts (even wheel rims) then it can significantly increase your insurance premium! Why? Because the car was designed to run with certain spec parts and if you install something that doesn’t match those parts then it won’t function as intended and, in the case of cars, could be potentially unsafe...
So yeah...walled garden...got it!
As for your second point...the Spotify app has just over 1 million downloads on the App Store...so that means that, at most, just over 1 million people have the Spotify app installed on their device. Therefore if that app was removed tomorrow...at most just over 1 million iOS users would ditch iOS because they couldn’t use Spotify on their device. in reality I suspect that way less than 100% of those Spotify users would ditch iOS. So let’s say half did...Apple would lose 500,000 iOS users...out of what...hundreds of millions? It would be a loss for sure...but it’s not like Apple would go out of business...
And I hope these bastards do loose. end of the story and crying drama! Why on earth do they think they are more special from the rest of developers on the iOS platform? If they want to avoid charges, they should create their own platform Oh let me guess..... that means spending a lot of money, doesn't it? It's better if someone else does it, right? And wtf is it with their stupid adverts? If I gave them the money, I am not their fan, I am their customer. Are they really that stupid to not know the difference between fan and customer? I guess they are.
Last edited:
Don’t know why you keep comparing Spotify to Uber, they are not a comparable app business model to Spotify.
Uber offers a physical service, does Spotify?
Deliveroo offers a physical service. Spotify doesn’t.Apple does get a cut from Deliveroos subscription service, guess Spotify is being disingenuous again.
Would you like to quote the part they call it a “tax” as well?
“Apple’s app store is an important distribution platform for Spotify. But Apple takes a 30% commission on all sales made through the app store – including music streaming subscriptions – which Spotify and many other third-party app developers have long complained is an unfair “tax”.”
They just don’t want to pay it.
That doesn't seem clear to me because I don't understand why Apple has any obligation to provide any particular service to any other developer. Where does the requirement that they treat all developers the same come from? How is it different from any business deciding who they will collaborate with on a product?
I admit to being unfamiliar with EU law, but I have trouble envisioning a law that requires any privately run market to support whatever products or advertisements someone else wishes to put in it.
Does apple not allow Spotify to sell a subscription on its own website while still allowing the app in its App Store?
What competition? If a customer wants Spotify they can get a subscription. The ones that do already have a subscription.
Pretty sure they do. You can’t prove that they don’t.
Are you are you already a Spotify subscriber?
Do you use an iPhone?
Or they can end in app subscriptions in Europe.
Don’t think Spotify would like that, or any other developer from the eu.
One thing I think that people have failed to consider in this "fairness" and anti-competitive argument is based around costs. If Spotify sold in-app subscriptions for $10 per month they would end up with $7 from Apple. People seem to be suggesting that Apple ends up with $10 per month for Apple Music subscriptions...they won't. They will still have to pay hosting costs and payment processing costs. Sure, I imagine that wouldn't add up to $3 per month (or $1.50 per month after the first year) and ultimately they will end up making more per month selling their own product through their own store than Spotify will selling through Apple's store (assuming the same $10 per month subscription price). But if the argument is that Spotify should be able to sell their product through somebody else's store and that that person (Apple in this case) shouldn't be allowed to make a profit selling third-party goods then that is, in my opinion, ridiculous!
For those of you who feel that Apple shouldn't be charging 30%/15%...what do you think would be a "fair" charge for Apple to levy on Spotify then? 20%? 10%? 5%? What then happens to all of the other Developers who then demand the same rates? And what about those developers whose apps are massively data and resource heavy so that the hosting and fulfilment costs are much higher?
What about if Apple pay a higher share of the revenue to artists? So that, after all royalties had been paid out, Apple and Spotify both made an equal amount of net profit per subscriber...would that make everybody happy? We don't know what Apple's raw costs are compared to Spotify's. It may be that, at the end of every month, Apple's net profit per subscriber is actually less than Spotify. So why should Apple be forced to sell a competitors product for no profit even though they could end up making less profit per subscriber after all costs are taken into account! This is hugely frustrating as people seem to just be making decisions based on morals and feelings without knowing any of the business behind it!
The word "fair" means equitable or impartial...and that is exactly what Apple's fees are...impartial...the same for everybody! You may argue that it's not the same for Apple itself but how can Apple charge itself a fee? Perhaps if the App Store were spun off into a different corporation and that corporation - let's call it "App Store Inc." - then charged the same 30%/15% back to Apple Inc...would that be better?
For those of you who feel that Apple shouldn't be charging 30%/15%...what do you think would be a "fair" charge for Apple to levy on Spotify then? 20%? 10%? 5%? What then happens to all of the other Developers who then demand the same rates? And what about those developers whose apps are massively data and resource heavy so that the hosting and fulfilment costs are much higher?
What about if Apple pay a higher share of the revenue to artists? So that, after all royalties had been paid out, Apple and Spotify both made an equal amount of net profit per subscriber...would that make everybody happy? We don't know what Apple's raw costs are compared to Spotify's. It may be that, at the end of every month, Apple's net profit per subscriber is actually less than Spotify. So why should Apple be forced to sell a competitors product for no profit even though they could end up making less profit per subscriber after all costs are taken into account! This is hugely frustrating as people seem to just be making decisions based on morals and feelings without knowing any of the business behind it!
The word "fair" means equitable or impartial...and that is exactly what Apple's fees are...impartial...the same for everybody! You may argue that it's not the same for Apple itself but how can Apple charge itself a fee? Perhaps if the App Store were spun off into a different corporation and that corporation - let's call it "App Store Inc." - then charged the same 30%/15% back to Apple Inc...would that be better?
I keep comparing Spotify to Uber because that is the comparison Spotify uses in their complaint. Whether or not they are a comparable app business model is going to be up to the EU to decide.
From Apple's perspective though, the distinction of business models of digital items vs. services vs. physical goods and deciding which one to force to only offer in-app payments that are subject to Apple's 30% fee for providing revenue collection and remittance services while the others can link to their own payment systems is going to be hard to justify. Why should Apple care what the source of the revenue is unless they are also a direct competitor in that market and want to more firmly entrench their market share.
And yes, they do call it a "tax" (note the quotations) which is irrelevant. The reality is it is a fee and Apple is taking actions that prevent digital purveyors from avoiding it like service and goods sellers are free to do. They don't want to pay it, just like Uber users don't pay it.
It literally used to tell you what you had to do to subscribe. What is disallowed is a link, that will in turn open the browser and bring you to the page. The *link* is what is not allowed; not telling your customer what they need to do.
The same link that is allowed for sellers in other markets in which Apple doesn't compete.
A
Please lose the exaggeration...Apple has been reported to the European Commission and they will investigate. They, like all other companies and citizens, are innocent until proven guilty in most of the civilised world. An accusation of wrongdoing isn't the same thing as a fact!
Please lose the exaggeration...Apple has been reported to the European Commission and they will investigate. They, like all other companies and citizens, are innocent until proven guilty in most of the civilised world. An accusation of wrongdoing isn't the same thing as a fact!
Notice I said the line is potentially drawn when Apple applies different terms to developers. As long as it isn't anti-competitive then that would be fine. It is the second part where the problem starts, when the restrictive terms are only applied to markets in which Apple is also competing.
The law may not be able to require a private app market to support all products, but it certainly can ensure that app market doesn't exclude specific sellers solely because they are offering a service the app store gatekeeper is also providing while allowing unrestricted access to all other sellers.
No. The commission/service charge is literally bullet point 1 in their briefing, both in the legal workup on it as well as their press release directly accessible for reading on their own website - both incorrectly citing 30% and failing to mention that it's 15% ongoing. Using their own payment service is a separate item but is tied to the 1st, main charge, they made... citing "discriminatory tariffs"... and their 3rd item is the most garbage of them all... referencing the advertising they receive.
They *want* to use Apple's service offering. They just don't want to pay for it.
Wait wait. Uber is not comparable to Spotify’s business model at all. Could care less what Spotify said you keep spreading fud.
Do I press a button in Spotify’s app and I get a physical good or service? No then your being disingenuous with your arguments.
You asked me for prove they wanted to skirt apple inapp subscription fee, I posted a link where Spotify calls it a “tax “ and the doesn’t want to pay it.
Quick question, do you currently subscribe to Spotify?
Do you use an iPhone?
Monopoly issues come into play generally to protect the customer not individual businesses. I think the EU would first have to ask is whether what apple is doing harms customers? No
Does what apple do restrict choice in the market? No
Is apple even in a dominant market position to unfairly restrict what customers can access in the way windows was? No, especially not in Europe where apple must be under 20% if that.
So really the EU are going to have to rule on whether a company can make a product and define how accessories and additions are made available for that product. For essentially that’s what’s going on here. This has massive implications for lots of industries. Console makers like Nintendo etc.. any company that makes a platform, bears the risk of making that platform etc.. now cannot command how that platform is exploited. Even if they don’t have a monopoly. That is a HUGE call.
Apple do not have to provide an App Store, they do not even have to give everybody a license to create for that App Store. They provide a web browser for companies like Spotify to do whatever they wish.
I think the EU will be setting a huge precedent if they can define how companies allow other companies to add to their product when no customer benefit is involved. Even if it’s unfair (not sure it is) it’s so against the basis of capitalism (ones ability to exploit their own property as they wish).
There will be too much blood to clean up for the EU to side with Spotify here.
I can imagine apple could easily ban Spotify from Eu stores whilst in ongoing litigation with them. I’d hate to see Spotify’s share price if that were to happen.
Does what apple do restrict choice in the market? No
Is apple even in a dominant market position to unfairly restrict what customers can access in the way windows was? No, especially not in Europe where apple must be under 20% if that.
So really the EU are going to have to rule on whether a company can make a product and define how accessories and additions are made available for that product. For essentially that’s what’s going on here. This has massive implications for lots of industries. Console makers like Nintendo etc.. any company that makes a platform, bears the risk of making that platform etc.. now cannot command how that platform is exploited. Even if they don’t have a monopoly. That is a HUGE call.
Apple do not have to provide an App Store, they do not even have to give everybody a license to create for that App Store. They provide a web browser for companies like Spotify to do whatever they wish.
I think the EU will be setting a huge precedent if they can define how companies allow other companies to add to their product when no customer benefit is involved. Even if it’s unfair (not sure it is) it’s so against the basis of capitalism (ones ability to exploit their own property as they wish).
There will be too much blood to clean up for the EU to side with Spotify here.
I can imagine apple could easily ban Spotify from Eu stores whilst in ongoing litigation with them. I’d hate to see Spotify’s share price if that were to happen.
Quick answer, I do not subscribe to Spotify either paid or free. I do use an iPhone XR.
I guess it will be up to the EU to decide of the arguments are disingenuous as they have apparently had their interest piqued enough to open an investigation. Yes, Apple is making a hard-line distinction between digital goods and services/physical goods. Apple is also a direct competitor in digital goods. The question for the EU will be if additional restrictions applied only to digital sellers are for the purpose of harming competition.
What I have consistently said, and what Spotify has put out, is that they don't want to pay the in-app subscription fee by not using Apple's payment system. I have seen nowhere where Spotify says they want to use Apple's payment processing system at no cost. The Guardian article linked above says that they want the same treatment as Uber which is to use their own system lined from within the app.
Can you provide a source where Spotify says it is expecting to use Apple's payment system while still avoiding the 30% commission?
Does Apple Music paying 30% to mother company? When it starts to do this and will have zero support from it = we will have equal competition.
Comparing Spotify to Uber or Deliveroo is the definition of being disingenuous , whether it originated from Spotify or not, you further it by using the argument.
They call it a “tax” and the don’t want to pay it but they still want access to iPhone users and apples platform to sell a recurring digital subscription. Yeah good luck with that.
Apples decision to curate the App Store might not have any bearing on your purchase, but it is one of the reasons I and so many other users choose to purchase and use an iPhone and apples ecosystem.
There is an alternative to apple and iOS....
I have seen nobody give a good reason why payment for a "recurring digital subscription" or a "digital item" should be treated any differently than payment for a service or a physical good.
Uber doesn't pay the "tax" yet still has access to iPhone users and Apple's platform. You again differentiate on a "recurring digital subscription" yet there is no good reason why Apple should make such a distinction.
I don't understand the curation aspect of your statement. How does preventing Spotify from using its own payment service in-app do anything to protect or enhance the user experience more than compared to a seller of services or physical goods? I do like Apple's review of apps to ensure they do nothing nefarious and to quickly remove apps that don't give the results promised, but as far as the payments go any seller can defraud the user regardless if what they are paying for is digital, physical, or a service.
Last edited:
That sort of proves my point. There is so much competition in the supermarket retail space that prices are set as low as possible, pretty much. This is great for consumers!
However, I know plenty of people who go to one supermarket or another based on current sales or coupons they might have. We know this is true because coupons work, and supermarkets keep using them. Obviously they work well enough to sway a material amount of people to their stores.
If your product requires a mobile app, you pretty much are forced to use Apple and Google. There is literally no other way to distribute a mobile app but to use both of them at the same time.
Also, Spotify is agreeing to Apple's terms. That's not at all the issue. Spotify has an issue with how Apple conducts itself in competition, which has nothing to do with Apple's app store terms. Part of the issue is that Apple doesn't follow it's own terms for in-house apps.
Apple wants to be both a platform owner and competitor. The problem is unique to the music streaming space: It cannot fairly do both. The music streaming space here is key because rates are set by statute, so Spotify cannot compete with Apple by somehow getting a lower rate.
Take this simplified example:
- Statute sets rates, and we know the average streaming user streams $7 worth of music per month. Assume that's true for all people.
- Spotify sets their prices at $9/month, but Apple takes a third for in-app payments so Spotify gets $6. Spotify loses $1.
- Apple sets their prices at $9/month too. For Apple it's win-win: If the customer goes with Spotify, Apple gets $3. If the customer goes with Apple, Apple gets $2.
- Apple could also undercut Spotify and set their prices at $8/month, still making money and it's still a win-win.
- Spotify then has no choice but to get around Apple by getting rid of in-app payments, but then it is forced by Apple to have an inferior app. Apple can process payments in app and advertise plans, but Spotify cannot. Spotify is forced by Apple to make trade-offs that Apple does not have to make.