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.
Spotify Calls Apple's App Store Restrictions 'An Abusive Power Grab'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
See, and here’s the rub, a LOT of folks like Apple’s services. A lot of folks like non-Apple services. Primarily, it seems, just because they’re “non-Apple”. The big problem for a lot of companies is that “We’re not Apple” isn’t really enough to build their future on. So they have to actually offer features folks like and want to pay for.
I know right? Spotify should have been spending all their time money and effort in creating a mobile phone platform!! Then THEY would be in the driver’s seat! I mean, they could do that. Like TODAY.
Nothing and you can currently do just that, just requiring a Container App or browser based App for each product.
Apple offered this a solution to Microsoft, but required all games to have their own App container so as to not circumvent Parental controls and reviews, so instead MS created a browser based version that did not require the App Store. It may well be the way things work for other subscriptions, like Photoshop in the future.
There are oodles of Apps currently on the store that technically do not NEED an app to function. But having an app gives exposure, offline availability and furnishes companies with the convenience of IAP's.
With the exception of download for offline viewing, The Netflix App, for example has no benefit to the user vs a browser based app and doesn't even offer IAP's.
Spotify could offer the same, but they have decided that IAP's are the quick and dirty way they can get people to sign up for premium without going to an external website to sign up.
No, the goalposts are not being moved. You cannot in any way argue that game streaming is the same as music/ movie/ TV streaming. It is a fundamentally different. It is seperate category that deserves looking at individually exactly because it is such a new concept and that it brings with it the ability to be ran like a mini App Store within the App Store.
I can see benefit in Apple’s logic in allowing streaming but each Game is to be submitted separately to the App store. For one, it would allow Screen Time restrictions for parents for fine grained control on what their kids can and cannot play, how often they play and for how long. As a parent, I see huge value in that alone.
See, and here’s the rub, a LOT of folks like Apple’s services. A lot of folks like non-Apple services. Primarily, it seems, just because they’re “non-Apple”. The big problem for a lot of companies is that “We’re not Apple” isn’t really enough to build their future on. So they have to actually offer features folks like and want to pay for.
I love a LOT of Apple services. That is why I am so invested in their echo system.
But please let’s not even try to compare ATV+ with Netflix, or Photos with Lightroom and Photoshop.
I love iCloud as a synch medium within the Apple echo system, but I would only use it alongside OneDrive or Dropbox, not instead of.
Pages, Numbers, Keynote? Thanks but I’ll stick with MS Office.
I appreciate that Apple Music has a lot of fans, but for me (or indeed, the majority of music streaming users) Spotify is simply miles ahead.
The point is that you might prefer some services over some others, but if you kill the competition you are left with no choice whatsoever.
Sorry for interjecting in someone else’s conversation but I just wanted to say that there are other meanings to the verb “to rape”.
What about my choice as a consumer? You are somehow saying that MY choice doesn’t matter? I chose the Apple ecosystem for my phone and tablet exactly because of it’s locked down nature and the single App Store. The user experience is far greater on iOS than Android and this is one of the reasons that so many people purchase Apple devices. The current system suits so many customers, so much so, Apple top the user experience surveys every single year and have done since the iPhone and iPad were released….all whilst having substantially more expensive hardware, often times with specs less than that of their rivals.
Despite how expensive and how locked down the iOS ecosystem is, consumers CHOOSE to buy into it because it adds value not available elsewhere. If I wanted 1,000 app stores and side loading, that choice is already available.
People like yourself are advocating to remove my choice as a consumer to the locked down, easy to use, secure ecosystem. You are advocating for less choices whilst trying to sell it as more. I don’t want more of the same and I am happy that iOS is different.
That’s what I take exception to.
Last edited:
Does Apple pay Spotify a 30% cut of the Apple Music subscription fee? No? Then it's not an equivalent price.
I have actually thought of this before. The App Store has so many useless apps that Apple could probably nuke half of them overnight and nothing of any value would be lost.
What if instead of just allowing any app, Apple took a much stricter approach and curated the best and most useful apps in the market for its users? At the same time raising the bar for what makes a viable app in the App Store?
It would run counter to the idea of opening up the App Store and allowing users to install any app they want. But if you ask me - the issue isn’t that the App Store doesn’t have the apps I want. It’s that there are so many apps that finding the one I want can sometimes be a challenge.
We need fewer, better quality apps to be surfaced to us. Not just be left to our own devices to wade through a sea of them.
Agreed 100%. If iOS is FORCED to be like Android, I will leave the iOS environment. It would be forcing a company (Apple) to remove one of the greatest advantages (locked down experience). I know MANY friends and family members that prefer iOS ONLY because its locked down. They hate the cost and everything else. So why pay $1,000 for an iPhone when a $500 Android phone is really IMO better in terms of hardware.
Its a no win situation. People here - and probably will get brought up by Epic, argue that Apple's iOS is not 100% secure even with the locked down environment. Have those people (on this site) ever submitted an app for review? The review time is REALLY quick. In order to actually achieve 100% secure system, app review will NEED to take weeks or even MONTHS depending on the size of the application. Do devs really want this? That would force devs to leave iOS if they need to wait months before their app is approved. But it would eventually lead to 100% secure system.
And really, that entire argument is just ridiculous. The answer to not 100% secure walled garden is NOT to take that walled ecosystem AWAY. Are people expecting the security to INCREASE?
You don’t believe in democracy if you believe countries should be able to arbitrarily force people and companies to do their bidding.
Again, you are not arguing for democracy. Allowing government unchecked power to force companies to do whatever they want is a bad thing. What if the government tells Apple/Google that they have to give complete access to your phone whenever the government wants it? You think Apple/Google should just meekly agree? You think whoever is in power should be able to force every company to do whatever they want? No thanks.
It’s hard to see Spotify’s point when they do the same thing with their artists. They take a huge cut, and barely giving them anything. Spotify set the prices at $9.99 knowing Apples 30%. Several millions of dollars later, they never raised their price to compensate for their “loss”.
If Spotify is miles ahead, consumers that are interested in those specific ways will choose Spotify and they will continue to be successful. It’s not about Apple killing the competition, it’s about whether or not the competition has a viable business plan. If your business plan depends wholly on your ability to renege on a prior agreement, it’s not really a business plan.
It could be that Spotify hasn’t really considered their entire business plan fully. And, even if they’re able to in the end pay Apple zero, that will only gloss over the fundamental flaws in their business plan and won’t keep them from evaporating at some future date.
I have not bought a single app from the App Store based on what I see on the App Store. Fortunately for me, I have access to the internet and can search for information about the developer, the features and maybe even find a review… possibly even a video review.
Then again, I AM the person that walks into Best Buy knowing what game or gadget I want to buy before I get there. I don’t depend on them “surfacing” that store brand “AWESOME VALUE” to me.
Epic may be but I don't think Spotify is interested in building a new app store. They just want the same deal as Apple Music.
what does even mean? I searched up SFA and all I could find was reference to visual arts artists few and far between being recognized. So I’m confused what SFA is in your post.
Wrong.
Spotify's paid subscribers hit 155M, but it's still losing money - 9to5Mac
Spotify's paid subscribers hit 155M at the end of the last quarter of last year, up 24% year-on-year. Apple Music's last-declared ...
9to5mac.com
what a load of rubbish Spotify!!
Spotify’s greed is not a problem created by Apple. They should be thankful the App store’s rules do not preclude the Spotify app altogether. It’s Apple’s app store, it’s Apple’s rules!
Spotify’s greed is not a problem created by Apple. They should be thankful the App store’s rules do not preclude the Spotify app altogether. It’s Apple’s app store, it’s Apple’s rules!
This is not on Spotify. Spotify negotiated the rate with the publishers. Blame the publisher, not Spotify. If an artist didn’t want to be on Spotify, they can pull their catalog.
I think the issue with that, is that they can't provide a link within the app to their website to facilitate the payment. Apple specifically prohibits this.
But I think Spotify is big enough that their users would figure out what's what without Spotify having to tell them where to pay.
It’s rich for Match Group to be complaining about monopoly abuse. If anything, they should be on the receiving end of one of these Senate antitrust hearings themselves. They control nearly every mainstream online dating platform, and I’m not convinced they haven’t stopped their shady fake profile practices. Certainly, they could also do more to prevent catfishing, cyber abuse, and romance scams, but they don’t bother. And, with the pandemic and lockdown, online dating is more mainstream than ever (thus Match Group has more power than ever).
I think the bigger issue with Spotify is that free tier of those. They used a free tier hoping that 1) having a large userbase would equal good ad revenue and favorable negotiations with labels and 2) that free users would upgrade to paid tiers. The big problem with that is that advertising isn’t actually all that effective.
Online advertising breaks down into three categories, display ads (which are super cheap, super low interaction), content ads (sponsored videos and posts, native content ads, seems more lucrative), and novel ad units. Advertising isn’t a great way to run an online service because big dollar advertisers are few and far between and very conservative with their advertising (and many of them have their own services they can use to promote their brands, these days). So you get left with low value display ads from random firms.
Spotify seems to have had difficulty encouraging free tier users to upgrade to paid tiers, and their various bundles aren’t increasing their income (I almost said profit, but it turns out they’re not profiting). Most paid Spotify users apparently don’t pay enough to cover the expense of having them on platform. Spotify is an excellent example of a failure of the market share argument, having a large market share doesn’t necessarily mean profit. Spotify is the very definition of a loss leader, but they don’t have another product to sell to make up for the lost revenue, so being a loss leader is costing them money instead of making money. In reality, Spotify is just another startup whose monetization scheme was venture capital with an eye towards an eventual acquisition, but it couldn’t find an interested buyer.
I think the endgame for Spotify was always “be purchased by Apple, Google, Amazon, or Facebook, or someone like that” and the strategy was “focus on market share to get more VC capital to operate on until the acquisition”, but none of these firms were willing to pay for Spotify’s valuation and instead either rolled their own streaming services or purchased streaming services with more sane valuations. But, as a result of needing so much VC funding to operate and the difficulty a large American firm would have had buying one of the rare European tech startups of note [such a purchase would have encountered significant red tape from the EU], Spotify ended up with a price point no one was willing to pay and suddenly actually had to make a profit.