’s house is on governed country land... they will have to obey or pay.
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
I still don’t get why Spotify doesn’t do what Netflix did - don’t allow signups and subscriptions in the app. END OF PROBLEM.
Yet Apple didn’t do any of that. So the comparison is totally irrelevant. Thanks.
I basically pulled my number from Apple's ass, which tends to halve the rate to preferential merchants. I certainly don't think it should be full 30-15%.
LOL ok... I was being hyperbolic about breaking them up.
But you know people think Apple is too big and powerful and that Apple "abuses their monopoly"
Go read the comments in any Epic/Spotify article...
Monopolies are not illegal.
The USPS is a legal monopoly. So are many broadband/internet service providers -- many parts of America are only serviced by 1 provider.
I see the trend of some Silicon Valley companies. When their revenue go down, instead of focusing in making better products, they actually spend more money in litigating the platform where they’re on (eg Epic). Strange business decisions.
That would be one of the dumbest moves Apple could make... block out competition just when the U.S. government is scrutinizing them.
No they aren’t. They are asking Apple to break its security model to allow these companies to install their own app stores where they can make their own rules and not follow apple’s rules.
Exactly. This is Netflix's solution:
And it doesn't appear to have hurt Netflix... since they're still the largest video subscription streaming service in the world.
So Spotify... who happens to be the largest music subscription streaming service... could do something similar.
Or... they can go to court... and attack the very same platform that they want to be on.
That's the cost of creating an app for iOS.
It's no different than Sony using the 30% they get from each Playstation Call of Duty copy sold to fund the Playstation Partners program which helps indie developers get their game onto the platform. More games there are on the platform, more consoles they'll sell, and the bigger the pie gets.
Nintendo has been doing this since the 80's. Take a cut from game sales, fund the developer program to attract more developers. More developers = more games = more sales.
Platform owners set the rules. Don't like the rules? Go to a different platform.
I use Apple Music but I'm siding with Spotify on this one. Browsers and streaming apps should be able to use the same features the Apple apps use.
And they can. So what is it that you think Spotify is not allowed to do that Apple’s music app is allowed to do?
Oh, so it's about the subscription thing. They should do what Netflix did.
They can do in-app subscriptions if they pay apple their cut. They don’t want to pay apple. They’re free to make the choice if they want and do what Netflix did. But there’s nothing unfair about it.
Given how one of the minds behind Napster which tanked the music industry to begin with is one of their head honchos, Spotify and its fishbowl music algorithm can get ****ed
How about the Match guy is pulling crap out of @$$? If you really think an Apple exec is going be that stupid I feel sorry for you.
Perhaps you have enough shares of AAPL and do a power grab and kick Tim out of office since he doesn’t seem to be able to run Apple and from your comment you are more than capable of running a 2+ trillion dollar company. Perhaps in to the ground!
I thought Apple Music was bad for a period of time about two years ago. So, I unsubscribed and went with Spotify. (By the way, it is very simple to subscribe to Spotify if your are an iPhone user - you just sign up at spotify.com & then log into your account when you install the Spotify app. I don't see what their complaint is...) In the last year, I was subscribing to both Spotify and Apple Music, but started noticing some persistent bugs in Spotify, the worst of them being a failure to be able to play an album or track without first adding it to your library, as well as the long term bugs involving problems with adding to an existing queue and having that song not show up in the list version of the queue, but showing up unannounced in the album cover version of the queue. Now it seems that Apple Music has really solved most queue bugs and is generally quite trouble free. I do not, therefore, agree that Apple Music is "just bad". Overall though, Spotify is pretty good, and if I could justify the expense, I would subscribe to it along with Apple music. I especially like Spotify's chronological listing of an artist's discography, which AM does not do as thoroughly, although it is getting better at it. And of course, playlists on Spotify, by some very hard working contributors, are superb. From my classical music perspective, Spotify is a great general index of classical music. AM's "curators" section is excellent, and AM is very good in the "you may also like" listing below an album. Now even as I write, I am almost talking myself into resubscribing to Spotify, but keeping AM with it, ha!
Presumably because what match wanted to do was to verify ID by asking for credit card information which match swears to god would never be used for any other purpose?
If true, aren’t they doing about 10% better on mobile despite the 30% distribution cost?
Exactly. Wouldn’t Android and Samsung be a monopoly because Samsung sells more phones than Apple and Android is the defacto OS for all phones other than iPhone. How about all of the pc makers selling way more computers than Apple? Are they not monopolies?
Do feel free to create your own platform. Competition is always nice!
Yes they could. Apple is under zero legal obligation to allow ANY 3rd party apps on the iPhone. They could have kept it 1st Party (Apple app only) if they wanted. They could change the rules and do that starting tomorrow if they wanted. The comparison to the Microsoft Anti-trust trial demonstrates your profound lack of understanding of both the situation AND anti-trust law in general. Microsoft had a monopoly/near monopoly in the market. Apple does not. iPhones are not a monopoly. And you can't have a monopoly on the software on your own devices, thats like saying McDonalds has a monopoly on Happy Meals.
Apple won't and SHOULDN'T lose its control over the App Store, that would be absurd and not inline with prior case law or industry precedent.
If Spotify doesn't like Apples rules they can choose not to make their service available on Apples platform. Since users can get the app on their computer, their Android device, or even through a browser, they still have choice. If enough users complain Apple would concede to Spotifys demands. If enough users don't care, Spotify will have to accede to Apple's demand. This is a case where consumer choice exists and the market can decide, because, and again this is important, Apple does NOT have a monopoly. It doesn't have a monopoly on computing platforms, it doesn't even have a monopoly on smart phones. Spotify just wants all the benefits of Apples work on making the iPhone popular and providing potential users, without paying any of the costs. Sorry, nope.
Why is Spotify trying to compete on price? It doesn't have to match Apple Music's price. Look at Tidal for example.
Apple could change its app store to operate more like console sales. Want to sell something? You're going to pay a royalty fee. It won't matter if it's from a different payment processor. The end result will be the same.