I agree, and as others have tried to point out, it's foolish to assume that the App Store would continue to operate the same way if a ruling went against Apple. The sole purpose of the App Store is to make money for Apple. If Apple were forced to forgo the subscription revenue, they'd find another way to make money (maybe charge per app download) or shut the store down. They aren't a charity.
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
I agree, and as others have tried to point out, it's foolish to assume that the App Store would continue to operate the same way if a ruling went against Apple. The sole purpose of the App Store is to make money for Apple. If Apple were forced to forgo the subscription revenue, they'd find another way to make money (maybe charge per app download) or shut the store down. They aren't a charity.
Every iOS dev pays a yearly fee for app hosting. It isn't free.
It's not mad at all...artists (the visual kind) will sell paintings or sculptures all the time. The buyers didn't make the artwork...but they still own it outright after buying. When I used to work on remixes, I got paid a fee and had no ownership of the masters. If Ford make a car and you buy it...would you allow them to retain majority (or even minority) ownership of it after you had bought it?
I'm still curious though...are you involved in the music business or just have this opinion based on what you have read?
But why does this only apply to digital goods (and in many cases where Apple is a direct competitor)? I can buy anything I want in the Amazon app except for digital goods. Lyft and Uber don’t have to give Apple 30 or 15 percent of every transaction but Spotify does. Why is that? Because many years ago Apple set up some arbitrary rule that they would take a cut of digital goods?
You know that's not the case, they just have a different system than the US, rules are different on either side of the pond, on both sides you have to play by the rules, bugger off if you don't like it or play the game.
Someone making a product does not create an obligation in anyone else to carry the product. But Spotify does in fact sell its product through other channels, so it doesn't really matter.
That would basically mean Apple's in-app purchases are not competitive and are being used only because Apple has a market position dominant enough to get away with making them mandatory... which is basically why the EU is going to investigate them.
They have that ability today... On their website. They even direct you there to do it. Nobody is stopping them. And that’s not what they want.
Apple offers a full subscription management solution in your settings. This is what they want. For free.
Google charges an identical rate for the Play Store. They also offer a competitor as well (2 actually, for the time being). They also command a much larger market share. Notice how they aren’t being targeted?
Spotify is trying to generate press for itself. And they want these services for free... all because they can’t support their free tier.
But why does Apple only charge a commission for digital goods? Seems arbitrary. And since you can bypass the commission by signing up using a web browser why not just allow that functionality in-app? Many people will still choose Apple for billing because they trust Apple more and/or want all their charges/subscriptions in one place.
Last edited:
Exactly what Apple should be telling Spotify. When they accepted the TOS of their Developer Account it would have outlined what the terms were (financial terms included). Spotify agreed to those terms but, after having agreed to them, they are now running to the EU saying it's unfair! If it was unfair then why did you agree to it in the first place?
Things like this really get on my nerves! People sign up for something and then complain that it's unfair...as if the world somehow owes each and every person a perfectly customised life experience where they never have to deal with anything that's difficult, "offensive" (ugh) or unfair! Wouldn't it be lovely if that were possible? The trouble is, what is "fair" to one person could be grossly unfair to another person...you simply can't have a world where everybody is happy about everything all of the time. Universal Fairness is simply a nebulous concept as everybody has different goals in life and different things that make them happy. So if the outcome that would make Person/Corporation A happy would simultaneously make Person/Corporation B unhappy...why should Person/Corporation A get their way? Who makes that call?
It is Apple's arbitrary requirement that digital goods sold within apps can only reference Apple's in-app payment method. That is the core of Spotify's argument. Look at Amazon's app for a perfect example, you can purchase a book, CD, or DVD from directly within the app and use Amazon's payment system; yet if you search for an eBook, a digital album, or a streaming movie you get a message saying that item is not available to purchase in the app. Yes, digital items are treated differently, but it appears to be in a manner that harms competition in an area where Apple is also trying to sell the same goods.
You are still arguing about how things currently are with no rhyme or reason as to why they should be that way. I'll ask one more time, what justification is there for Apple to restrict how Spotify can collect payments for its services while a company like Uber can directly link to its own account signup and payment services from within the app? Why should both companies not have the same options?
We’ll never know for sure as Apple won’t say. My guess is it’s not that profitable and Apple didn’t care when there was hardware sales growth. Now that sales have slowed down Apple is looking for other ways to make money, hence all these new subscription services and hosting 3rd party content so Apple can get a cut of it.
Apple isn't working for free. Every iOS dev pays a yearly fee. So many fake lies apple spreads to trick iOS users.
The issue here is that Spotify cannot get their app on any iOS device without the AppStore. Selling the subscription services can be done either outside the AppStore or through it. But selling the subscription outside of the AppStore doesn't matter at all IF one cannot get the app onto the device in the first place.
Nope, every single country has laws, you have to abide by them, don't like it then go somewhere else.
If that was the case I could set my own tax rate for instance, if you sell something in a country you have to pay taxes, that's how it works with taxes and it so too works with doing business in those countries, same goes for the EU, play by the rules otherwise they will get ya.
There is no way inside the Spotify app to direct users anywhere. You can’t link to their website or have language that says go to spotify.com to sign up. And I’m not sure what you mean by they want subscription management solution for free. Can you explain?
Apple's app store terms and conditions absolutely do stop Spotify from directing users to their website from within the app, a restriction not placed on other companies like Uber.
Spotify does not want to use Apple for subscription management, they have sufficient resources to do so themselves. Does Google provide payment collection and remittance for Spotify on the Android app? I know Google offers the option, but I don't think Spotify uses it.
Perhaps because it’s a recurring fee on a digital service through the App Stores payment system.
Uber is a service but it’s not a subscription, if it were apple would take a cut of the subscription as well.
Exactly! While I can understand consumers who have a particular love or hatred for Apple coming down hard on one side of the fence in this debate, what would be unforgivable is if the EU only investigates Apple for this when it seems like it is exactly the same state of play in AndroidLand. Although, to be fair, I don't know if it is exactly the same as I don't have an Android device and never have. From a few minutes of research it certainly seems that the basics are all there; commission rates etc.
Somebody mentioned earlier in the thread that the Android app does have a link within the app to go to the website to sign up. While I doubt anybody here has the numbers, I would be interested to know what percentage of Android Spotify app users used the Google-based billing option direct from the app and what percentage clicked through?
While I personally abhor laziness, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a good number of people would prefer to go through the Apple/Android subscriptions simple so that they don't have to keep track of yet another place where their card details might be held/hacked. Even on a practical level, if I am billed for a number of subscriptions through Apple (or Google Play) and I change my bank/credit card then only having to change it in one place as opposed to two...or three...or ten...certainly has value...
You seem to be having trouble being able to post? Because this one makes zero sense with no paragraphs or punctuations?
And no, you still failed to see my point, but I don’t like talking to people who find it fun to use disabilities to insult others, not sure what else you call being deaf? Perhaps in your little world it means something else, I mean you’ve utterly failed to get the point of my posts..
Spotify's real issue is that they know their model is wrong. They have what, 100m paying customers, 117m free. They have too many free users, not enough of them are converting and the ad to cash conversion rate is not sufficient, so paid users are likely subsiding the free ones to some degree. Paying Apple a 15% cut eats too far in and they can't afford it even though they pay less to artists than many others.
Apple's position in the EU market is nowhere near a dominant position.
If it was I believe they would clearly be found in abuse of a dominant position and not only be fined but asked to change the conditions (or leave the EU market if that was their decision)
But as said Apple's market share is quite small so this probably won't get anywhere.
If it was I believe they would clearly be found in abuse of a dominant position and not only be fined but asked to change the conditions (or leave the EU market if that was their decision)
But as said Apple's market share is quite small so this probably won't get anywhere.