And I'm not saying that all of the providers shouldn't be paying much, much more to the artists. But the fact of the matter is that right now, Apple is paying better than any of the other streaming and download services.
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
And I'm not saying that all of the providers shouldn't be paying much, much more to the artists. But the fact of the matter is that right now, Apple is paying better than any of the other streaming and download services.
I just read an article the other day saying how 80% of streaming profits go to record labels, then radio, and DJ's, the artist only get 12%.
You should've been smart enough to sign a deal where you owned the Rights/Masters to your music, but you didn't so in this case you can't complain over something you don't own even if you made it, it's your own fault you're getting the short end of the stick. Also you'd never be able to sell 100 CD's in this day.
I'm curious, why does Apple need to allow Spotify on their platform at all? I wasn't aware that if you make a product that's highly profitable that you need to make it possible for anyone to do anything they please on it. I just don't see the fundamental issue that Apple is anticompetitive because they give others limited access to their platform under a set of rules they've defined. What is it that places an obligation on Apple's part to give anyone any access to iOS devices? It's something they did because they saw it as being profitable. If Apple closed the App Store tomorrow, would app developers have any recourse? I doubt it.
Apple isn't taking any action against anyone who advertises subscriptions or products outside the App Store. They aren't penalizing developers who offer their apps on competing platforms. They are setting the conditions for using their product, a product which by all accounts has only a tiny percentage of the market. Without this obligation to support other products on their devices, I really have a hard time taking the "anticompetitive" claims seriously.
Apple isn't taking any action against anyone who advertises subscriptions or products outside the App Store. They aren't penalizing developers who offer their apps on competing platforms. They are setting the conditions for using their product, a product which by all accounts has only a tiny percentage of the market. Without this obligation to support other products on their devices, I really have a hard time taking the "anticompetitive" claims seriously.
Spotify is also upset over how Apple makes it difficult for them to get app approvals for campaigns. The commission is just one of many practices that they are upset about considering Apple is a direct competitor
The whole outcry of artists getting paid less seems nonsensical. If you’re an artist, you know that Apple Music / Spotify are both promotional tools and will not be your primary source of incomes. You’re going to make more money going on tour and selling physical merchandise.
Next up: Walmart will be required to offer a free shuttle to Costco.
Apple is to be formally investigated by the European Commission after Spotify accused the company of using the App Store to deliberately disadvantage other app developers.
According to a report by the Financial Times, EU competition commission has decided to launch a formal antitrust investigation into Apple's conduct "in the next few weeks" after surveying customers, rivals and others in the market.
Spotify in March filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the EU in which it argued that the iPhone maker enforced App Store rules that "purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience."
Apple swiftly hit back at the accusation, labeling it as "misleading rhetoric" and arguing that "Spotify wants all the benefits of a free app without being free."
Spotify's complaint focuses on Apple's policy of charging a 30 per cent fee on App Store purchases, which means Spotify has to charge existing subscribers $12.99 per month for its Premium plan via the App Store just to collect its standard $9.99 per month charge.
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek claimed that the policy gives Apple an "unfair advantage," since Spotify is unable to fairly compete with Apple Music's standard $9.99 per month price within the App Store.
Alternatively, if Spotify chooses not to collect payments via the App Store, Ek said that Apple "applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions" on the company. Over time, this has also included "locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch."
The EU can force companies to change business practices they deem unlawful and levy fines of up to 10 per cent of a company's global turnover. However, investigations by the European Commission can take years to resolve unless the companies involved offer to settle the probes by making legally binding agreements to change their behavior.
For further details on each company's stance on the issue, see Spotify's Time to Play Fair website and Apple's press release addressing Spotify's claims.
Article Link: EU to Investigate Apple Over Spotify's Antitrust Complaint
Hey Spotify, don't want to pay the 30% premium? Launch your own app store, or better yet, drop out of the App Store completely - then let's see how many customers you lose...
If you don't like the rules don't develop for the iPhone. No one forces you to develop for the iPhone, you could focus on Android instead. Apple doesn't stop developers from selling subscriptions via other means, my Netflix subscription through Netflix works just fine, they just prevent developers from circumventing their terms via an in app method.
If Apple allowed that, every developer could avoid the 30% fee by selling subscriptions, even lifetime ones rather than charge on the App Store. Revenue would plummet, and Apple would either have to raise the base fee way beyond $100 or disallow free apps.
Even now, isn't the fee 15% after year 1 anyway?
As a publisher of multiple media types, 70/30 cut is basically unheard of. A 85/15 cut is totally unprecedented.
Maybe these rates are common for physical goods sold in stores, but for media, I’m really not understanding spotify’s position here.
Are they turning over 85% of the sale to artists of music (big fat no)? What, exactly, do they think they are providing for artists other than discovery and file hosting? How is that any different than what Apple is offering with the App Store?
Maybe these rates are common for physical goods sold in stores, but for media, I’m really not understanding spotify’s position here.
Are they turning over 85% of the sale to artists of music (big fat no)? What, exactly, do they think they are providing for artists other than discovery and file hosting? How is that any different than what Apple is offering with the App Store?
Like I did? Sign for free, test it, and if you like it, sign from webpage. Don’t worry, if you use longer than 5 minutes, you will be told by ads, to subscribe on Spotify webpage.
Don’t worry, you cannot miss those ads, unless you are deaf, in which case Spotify may not be the best app to pick
I think you should stop posting derogatory sarcastic insults, you should remember if you live in the UK you CAN be reported for that...
And I just listened to my Spotify free version, no ads just pop up ads all linking to the website which Apple gets its cut from....
So I don’t believe you are right on that either.
[doublepost=1557146822][/doublepost]
If Apple were really playing unfair against all competitors, how come Deezer has both Apple Watch app, Siri Shortcuts and you can buy subscriptions in their app (redirecting to their own payment site)? Could it be that Spotify is somehow only telling their side of this story?
As I understand it Apple takes its cut from that method still. An app can do whatever it wants, but if it diverts you to another site for payment I believe Apple still gets a cut of the earnings as per the rules. Unless your Uber.
Last edited:
I’m praying Spotify gains traction on this and pushes Apple to improve the Apple Music experience. I have a family AM account because we all have Apple devices, but keep a single Spotify account because the experience and interface is far superior.
They get their cut of sales, however.
As you point out, Spotify needs Apple to host their app so Apple is not "Charging 30% for nothing" and is providing advertising for Spotify during searches and as. atop app on the home page.
Spotify is free to create a web app for the iPhone and not give Apple a penny, but they would lose the exposure as well as features an app offers that are harder to do in a web app.
It’s not. Spotify is simply using a flawed process in the EU System of regulation to promote it’s hypocrisy. The EU is the go to body in 2019 for crying and nose blowing hypocrites.
Why? The big apps are making a lot of money as a result of the App Store. If they were in othe rbusinesses they'd be the ones getting 30% and the distributers/stores/etc. splitting 70%
[/QUOTE]Take Fortnite for example, Epic Games or Tim Sweeney in particular has been critical of the App Store, his argument is that for them Apple is basically providing payment processing and hosting nobody is playing Fortnite because of iPhones or the App Store, a 30% cut is extremely high for that.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps they should go back to the days of physical media and be glad when the get a much smaller cut tahn 70% Digital distribution has been a boon to them by cutting out much of the distributin costs and middle men; and now they whine becasue they want even more of the pie.
SO? Every store with house brands favors them over name brands; in pricing, shelf space, etc. It's called maximizing profits, and that's Apple's job as well.
No one is forcing developers to use the App Store, and they are free to refuse to sell there just as Snapper did with Wal-Mart. Developers want access to the large iPhone market as well as its consistant platform so they know an app will work and have access to all current iPhones unlike the fragmented Android markteplaces.
Well that went south pretty soon ... hey at least we made it trough 15 (well 14 if you do not count mine) post before the usual reply
Yes there is hope, next time let's make it to 20 Derogatory insults? Reported? Oh dear, you really must be fun to hang out with. Also, by your own merits you should be careful, calling people WRONG, you may get reported for that.
Also, may I report you for an obtrusion of a freedom of a speech then?
Anyway, away with snowflakes and back to the original talk.
On my Canadian account I get “subscribe on Spotify.com” about every 2nd to 3rd song, especially when skipping tracks, so you are wrong.
I'm genuinely curious...have you been/are you involved in the music industry? Because no deal that I have ever heard of (with any label worth signing to) has ever allowed the artist ownership of the rights and masters. If the label doesn't own the master then you could literally withdraw the right for them to sell them at a moment's notice and any money that they have spent would be utterly wasted. If you could name a couple of labels that will invest into marketing and promotion of their artists while still allowing the musician/band to actually retain full ownership of the rights and masters then many musicians/bands (including myself) would love to know about it!
Most "labels" these days don't even pay advances (unless you are talking "major" labels which you have no chance of getting signed to unless you are already a superstar) but instead offer to take ownership of your masters and offer you a royalty - but again, no advance - and then simply upload your music to the usual site through their aggregator of choice and do a bit of "social media marketing". It's relatively minimal (read a few hundred dollars at most) of risk to them yet even then they still want ownership of the masters. Why would a bigger label do anything different?
As for me being "smart enough", that is nothing to do with it! Streaming sites didn't even exist when I signed these deals and, back then, the music industry wasn't as harsh and ruthless as it is now. I made a decent amount of money for the tracks I signed so I have no regrets and it's not my "fault" because I signed a record deal based on the industry at the time. Let me put it this way, if I was still active in the music industry today then I would probably not sign any deal that included streaming rights...which probably means I wouldn't sign any deal at all. In which case I would probably do things independently and more as a hobby.
Moreover, I wasn't "complaining" about anything...I was simply stating that if I did have a choice I would pull my material from the streaming sites. I don't subscribe to this social model that seems to be prevalent these days that the simple act of voicing an opinion that isn't glowingly positive is somehow "complaining". I could say "If it wasn't raining today then I would go to the beach"...doesn't mean I'm complaining that it's raining...just a mere statement of fact!
And finally, regarding your point about not even being able to sell 100CDs these days, that's simply not true. The last release I had was on my own label - again, done more as a hobby - and we pressed up 500CDs independently and sold every one of them.
While I am not about to give up personal information on an internet forum, by way of credentials I can tell you that I have had a number of singles released including two UK Top 20 singles...so this isn't just hearsay or lip-service...this is based on personal experience over a period of 15 years.
No it's not. The are not saying "If you don't use our payment system exclusively you may not place your app on our store" nor if "if you put an app on our store you may not sell it elsewhere." Nor is Apple dropping their prices to drive them out of bussiness or colluding with other app stores to force terms on developers..
I disagree. I think Spotify is just being greedy and wrapping themselves in a "poor little guy" jacket beacuse they need to increase revenue. They'd whine louder if Apple dumped them until the EU investigation was over. Apple would, IMHO, be within their rights to mitagate further damages to Spotify and resultant penalties by ending the hosting of Spotify's app.
I agree that there is something very wrong with the music industry model that most on this thread seem to be missing.
Yes, using a disability as part of an insult is derogatory. In the UK that can actually be reported.. no snowflake about it.
And your still wrong, last time I checked people using Spotify in the UK don’t sign into their Canadian accounts, and as I don’t live in Canada and use a Canadian account then I was right with my point, as so could you be.
You forgot to mention that your argument was based on Canadian laws and regulations, those things apps and advertising have to abide by and which differ country to country... next time you make a point you should remember to add that fact into your post, makes it easier to understand where your coming from then
Yeah maybe the EU commission could say the same thing to Apple: just take your business elsewhere.Well that went south pretty soon ... hey at least we made it trough 15 (well 14 if you do not count mine) post before the usual reply
What would Apple say to that I wonder?
But that’s capitalism. Let the market decide (not the courts). “Free” market doesn’t mean free products and services.
The point is if 30% is the going rate then it’s fair. Why should Apple charge less if they don’t have to? They’re a company running a business with the intention of making profit. How is this different to any other business?
Unfortunately, free market for some means everyone has an equal outcome.
Apple could revise their terms so that if a developer puts in a subscription button they have to pay per app download, if they don't they pay the 30/15% fee. Now they have a choice in how they want to sell subscriptions.
Of course, on a per app payment basis every free subscription would now cost them money since they'd have to pay Apple and not get any revenue.
[doublepost=1557149176][/doublepost]
Simply controlling one part of a market does not mean they are a monopoly. Perhaps the EU should punish Aldi for it's commanding position as a hard discounter and overwhelming preference for its own branded goods.
IOS is only 22% of the market, so Apple hardly has a commanding position; and many of the apps for iOS are available for Android, just as books and games are available in multiple stores.
Apple is also not enforcing a required selling price, as some producers of hard goods attempt to do.
Last edited:
There are several rappers (not sure about other genres, though I listen to their music I don't follow those artist) who own their Masters.
Master P with No Limit Records and Baby and Slim from Cash Money Records, here's a clip from the article in XXL
"It was a cold spring day in New York City. Brothers Bryan “Baby” Williams and Ronald “Slim” Williams were keeping warm in Universal President Mel Lewinter’s office in Midtown Manhattan, signing a historic publishing and distribution deal for their homegrown New Orleans label, Cash Money Records. Estimated at the time to be worth $30 million (“It ended up being worth more,” insists Baby), the unprecedented three-year deal allowed the entrepreneurs to retain full ownership of their masters and publishing. “I refused to give them anything,” says Baby, who was 27 at the time. “I can’t let nobody take nothing we work for. If they get something, it’s gonna have to be something we accomplish together.” Under the deal, Universal would give Baby and Slim a $2 million advance every year, plus a credit of $1.5 million for each of the up to six artists they’d be able to put out annually. After the sales came in, they would divide the profits: Universal would get 20% for their services, and Cash Money would bring a whopping 80% back home."