Spotify and Apple Again Clash Over App Store Rules and Fees

[babalougots]

It's cosmically dumb to have a system that fundamentally requires payment through only their environment on one hand, and the other hand disallows any possible mention, link, or reference of alternative payment possibilities. That's monopolistic behavior.

And the argument of "the other guys do it" is also (edit) kind of a cop out. They've simply done it because it worked at the time. Some of these services have evolved to become "the biggest" over the entire ecosystem evolution of both the apple app store and their streaming systems. Apple has never, ever allowed even the mention of paying outside of their bubble or even mentioning how to pay outside of their bubble.

This argument always gets cyclical too. Sure, people have the choice of Apple or Android. But do they really? Once you're on an Apple, you literally have one store. It's not like you'll throw your phone away and go get an Android. You are, in very much reality, locked in to that one store. And that one store's rules even disallow devs, customers, anyone to even know that you can pay for something via alternate methods. It's the Apple Way or No Way.

So even citing your example, if Netflix had existed this whole time with a banner inside the app stating very explicitly "To subscribe to our service, please go to netflix.com and pay there!" you'd have a valid argument. And that would be an amazingly easy answer to this. But no. Not allowed. Not even that. Even without a link.

Like mere knowledge of a different payment system (apps can't even mention how to pay on their own sites) is somehow protecting Apple users? No. That's why this is so dumb, and obvious that Apple only takes this stance to drive more money and payment processing through the Apple app store -- it's purely for money, not security.

Huh? Cop-out? Netflix users have had to subscribe via the Netflix site the past few years. Doesn't seem to have hurt Netflix one bit. Seems Apple users figured out how to keep Netflix without going through Apple. Why doesn't Spotify do the same? Both companies are at the top of their industries.

As for Apple or Android the choice is there and it's not difficult to switch to either unless one is a green bubble fanatic.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly under any definition of the word.

You should tell that to the United States of America’s Department of Justice.
Your insight may prompt them to update their use and definition of the word.

Next you’ll say Burger King has a monopoly on the Whopper or Toyota has a monopoly on the Prius.

They kind of would, if you‘d go by that strict definition.
But there are many reasonable substitutes for Toyotas and Whoppers - namely Hondas and Big Macs (among others).

There is none for Apple’s App Store.

Apple is not required by any law to allow third party apps (nor should it be)

The European Digital Markets Act requires them to allow third party apps (at least as long as Apple provide their services as they currently do).

If you go to a store and decide to buy some food you don’t get to complain that the store charges you the price on that food

I can go to another store and buy it. Many other stores. Or cook and prepare it myself.

If we had as many App Stores and as low barriers (for consumer and food producers) to switch between them as we have for App Stores, there‘d be no need to regulate Apple (antitrust/competition-wise) and Apple wouldn’t have that monopoly power.

And finally no, hyperlinks in Apps isn’t a basic feature. It’s not required for the app to work. Hyperlinks are a web site feature.

It’s a basic feature.
A web site doesn’t require hyperlinks to work or be used either.
Just as a computer (for consumers) doesn’t require a graphical user interface (GUI) to work - but it’s still a basic feature.

Plus the 27% isn’t just for the text and hyperlink, it covers the API and tools.

It doesn’t - they’re covered by the developer tools (Xcode is free!) and subscription.

And neither do others (Uber) pay 27% commission for these tools and APIs.
Does Apple have to provide every developer the same pricing? No - but if they use their platform monopoly to tax their (music streaming) competition while benefitting from free apps from other and controlling the market, they need not be surprised if their conduct will be held anticompetitiv.

 

[1129846]

Hmmm i dunno. No one is downloading Spotify without Apple or Google. Sure, you can just access Spotify on their webpage. No one has time for that. If they didn't develop and app to ride on one of these platforms at least, they would not exist today. Period.

The counter point is if Apple did not make Apple music then it would be a different but the secound Apple made Apple music then it changes. Apple is directly competing and able to undercut by 30%. Subcription music happens because of things like Pandora and Spotify and Apple copies them and their model for there own services and then undercuts.

Remember subcription music is more because of Spotify than the other way around.

 

[1129846]

Huh? Cop-out? Netflix users have had to subscribe via the Netflix site the past few years. Doesn't seem to have hurt Netflix one bit. Seems Apple users figured out how to keep Netflix without going through Apple. Why doesn't Spotify do the same? Both companies are at the top of their industries.

As for Apple or Android the choice is there and it's not difficult to switch to either unless one is a green bubble fanatic.

Dont be so sure on that. How many more could they have had if they could of gone threw the App. It hurt Netflix less to say screw providing it threw the app than it they would of had to pay Apple the 15-30% cut so all we know is Netflix saw their growth/ pain to be less than what they would of had to pay Apple for it. So yes it has hurt Netflix as they could of been bigger.

I know when netflix pulled it you had people on Macrumors saying they would going to leave netflix over it. Each one of those hurt Netflix.

 

[BaldiMac]

As long as two malls control virtually all sales to consumers in the country, and the proverbial online mall (a whole operating system) costs billions to build, they can't just set up another one.

Except it doesn't cost billions to setup a new OS. You can just fork android and choose not to license Google Play Services. There are plenty of alternative apps and services to choose from.

 

[babalougots]

Dont be so sure on that. How many more could they have had if they could of gone threw the App. It hurt Netflix less to say screw providing it threw the app than it they would of had to pay Apple the 15-30% cut so all we know is Netflix saw their growth/ pain to be less than what they would of had to pay Apple for it. So yes it has hurt Netflix as they could of been bigger.

I know when netflix pulled it you had people on Macrumors saying they would going to leave netflix over it. Each one of those hurt Netflix.

Netflix made the correct move. Period. We can argue all day about subscribers this and subscribers that. It's still the largest streamer and still growing. Spotify is the largest music streamer. I highly doubt Netflix users -- if they enjoy and use the service -- cancelled Netflix due to having to go to direct to Netflix to subscribe. Same goes for Spotify.

 

[Realityck]

I wonder if this really is a example of clashing as the article title states or is it posturing by Spotify to benefit themselves when dealing with Apple?

 

[I7guy]

Dont be so sure on that. How many more could they have had if they could of gone threw the App. It hurt Netflix less to say screw providing it threw the app than it they would of had to pay Apple the 15-30% cut so all we know is Netflix saw their growth/ pain to be less than what they would of had to pay Apple for it. So yes it has hurt Netflix as they could of been bigger.

I know when netflix pulled it you had people on Macrumors saying they would going to leave netflix over it. Each one of those hurt Netflix.

Similar to people on MR threatened to go to android over various misgivings with apple. You can say each defection cost apple, but it really didn’t.

 

[1129846]

Netflix made the correct move. Period. We can argue all day about subscribers this and subscribers that. It's still the largest streamer and still growing. Spotify is the largest music streamer. I highly doubt Netflix users -- if they enjoy and use the service -- cancelled Netflix due to having to go to direct to Netflix to subscribe. Same goes for Spotify.

your entire argument was it did not hurt netflix doing that. That part of the argument I can say is completely and utterly false.
What is 100% truthful is by not allowing in app subscription is Netflix loss users. It is all 100% truthful saying if Netflix had the ability to subscribe and change subscription in the App they would have more users. Those are the cold hard facts.

Netflix made its choice because the number of users it lost was less than the what they would of had to paid Apple to do it.

 

[babalougots]

your entire argument was it did not hurt netflix doing that. That part of the argument I can say is completely and utterly false.
What is 100% truthful is by not allowing in app subscription is Netflix loss users. It is all 100% truthful saying if Netflix had the ability to subscribe and change subscription in the App they would have more users. Those are the cold hard facts.

Netflix made its choice because the number of users it lost was less than the what they would of had to paid Apple to do it.

Let's agree to disagree. Onward...

 

[AppliedMicro]

Except it doesn't cost billions to setup a new OS. You can just fork android and choose not to license Google Play Services

Except... your OS has to run on devices.
And hardly any consumer will buy a phone without Play Services (except a few nerds).

I wonder if this really is a example of clashing as the article title states or is it posturing by Spotify to benefit themselves when dealing with Apple?

"Music Streaming Services Entitlement (EEA)" says it all: Another b*llsh*t act of chicanery the C(r)ooks at Apple have come up with, trying to uphold their racketeering scheme.

Apple has been showing its true level of greed and depravedness lately. And I take it the EU did not fully anticipate Apple's pettiness and stubbornness on the matter when drafting and enacting the Digital Markets Act - and handing down that fine to Apple for their anticompetitive conduct against Spotify.

But I'm very certain Spotify is eventually going to prevail on this: There will be a time when Spotify can link to outside purchase options - for free. It may take a while for the EU to weigh its options and words and take action. But there's only so much defiance from Apple's the EU will put up with.

 

[kognos]

No it’s not monopolistic unless you have a monopoly, which the iPhone does not.

"Monopolistic practices" is entirely different than being a monopoly -- a very specific distinction this forum gets wrong an awful lot. They do not need to be conjoined.

• A monopoly refers to a market structure where a single seller dominates the entire market.
• Monopolistic behavior encompasses practices that may harm fair competition, even if a company is not officially declared a monopoly.

There have been precedents in the past where cases have been brought for monopolistic behavior without being a monopoly. In this case, as stated (and often incorrectly attributed) the consumer has only one choice - Apple or Android. Once that singular choice is made to pick Apple, all further choices are removed, even if you were to consider that a singular choice. Apple locks down and restricts the entire "market" within the IOS infrastructure. No options. And they don't allow you to even see other payment plans. Or acknowledge they exist. Or advertise they exist.

The irony to me continues to be that this is a form of Stockholm Syndrome for most Apple consumers. Apple should offer fairness and honesty in it's dealings. By not allowing Spotify the right to even inform and educate their users about where to get their subscription, they are squelched. There is no good, sane, reasonable reason to disallow this. Also simply forcing everyone to buy absolutely everything through Apple Pay under the insane pretense that "it protects consumers" is hogwash. You don't have to buy everything in the world via Apple Pay -- there are other systems out there equally (if not more) secure, and you use them every day.

This isn't devaluing what Apple has built. Don't get your panties in a twist. The point is that the developer, the consumer, the companies working with Apple -- they all deserve that choice. They don't have it now. Monopolistic behavior. Anticompetitive practices. That's precisely what the EU successfully challenged them on. And they don't have to be declared a monopoly. That's is also why the DOJ has brought litigation against Apple in the same way as the EU. It's monopolistic no matter how you slice it -- and limply claiming they are not a monopoly or that users have a singular platform choice once is not an adequate user freedom.

 

[Abazigal]

But I'm very certain Spotify is eventually going to prevail on this: There will be a time when Spotify can link to outside purchase options - for free. It may take a while for the EU to weigh its options and words and take action. But there's only so much defiance from Apple's the EU will put up with.

Assuming Spotify doesn't go bankrupt first (looking at you, March 2026).

I just find it very funny that Spotify has the majority market share around the world, they have actually gotten most of their iOS customers to subscribe via their website (and therefore pay Apple next to nothing in commissions), don't pay Google a single cent for subscriptions made via the play store, recently blew over $1 billion on an ill-fated push into advertising, but they still can't turn a profit, and it's somehow entirely Apple's fault.

Spotify’s Recent Layoffs Impacted The Company ‘More Than Anticipated’

In the company’s earnings call this week, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek told investors that the impact of the December round of layoffs resulted in “significant” challenges.

www.forbes.com

In short, Spotify is already keeping nearly every cent of their subscription and advertising revenue, but apparently, a company with only 20% market share worldwide is enough to drag down its earnings in the other 80% that an entire country's government has to personally step in to intervene.

Here's what I think. Spotify can't be saved, because they never had a sustainable business model to begin with, and regardless of whether Apple capitulates or not, it's not going to change a thing. I am not seeing what difference the ability to link to outside purchase options is going to make.

This is all one giant misdirect to distract from their failing business model. I predict it's only a matter of time before Spotify ends up being acquired, because it's my opinion that music streaming isn't financially viable and really only works as an ecosystem feature subsidised by a tech giant with deep enough pockets.

Apple just needs to wait it out.

 

[.wojtek]

Spotify wants to profit off of Apples services backend and customer base without paying. The real world doesn't work that way and Spotify needs to either pay or remove themselves from Apple services.

Well, apple could finally allow installing apps freely so none would have to be butthurt about abusing precious apple services... Currently apple and their most fervent fans seems to be force - hitting themselves with a hammer and shouting 'abuse'... 🤷‍♂️

 

[BaldiMac]

Except... your OS has to run on devices.
And hardly any consumer will buy a phone without Play Services (except a few nerds).

That's not what you said.

 

[SkweeBop]

Neither of the platforms pay artists adequately. Maybe let's start there and then let them fight things out.