Spotify CEO Daniel Ek on Apple's EU Changes: 'They Think the Rules Don't Apply to Them'

[dannyyankou]

Spotify are paying out 75% of their $12 ish billion dollar revenue to the music industry.

If Apple are paying double (that is very dubious) they are paying out $18 billion on revenues of $350-400 billion.

Not sure how that makes Apple the champion of the starving artist.

Then Spotify is bad at making money. Apple Music only has paid subscriptions. Most Spotify users don't pay to use their service.

 

[Mescagnus]

The EU is a funny entity: they get to be the legistlator, judge, jurors and all levels of the court reduced to one. A lot like a dictatorship.

 

[Beautyspin]

The EU is a funny entity: they get to be the legistlator, judge, jurors and all levels of the court reduced to one. A lot like a dictatorship.

And Apple is different?

 

[Abazigal]

How’s that 1.3 billion debt coming along, Daniel?

Spotify Takes on $1.3B in Debt

Spotify is offering $1.3 billion in exchangeable notes it can pay off with cash or stock, while building its war chest for acquisitions or other purposes.

www.billboard.com

Keep the date March 20, 2026 in mind, everyone.

 

[Zest28]

Time for Apple to sell the EU Phone. Nothing but a phone.

Apple should stop selling the iPhone in the EU and simply make an Android phone instead. Is much easier than transforming iOS into Android.

It's quite funny how the EU wants more competition, while forcing the competitor of Android (iOS) into Android. The EU forces every smartphone to be an Android phone, so there is no competition at all anymore.

 

[Zest28]

Companies are not citizens of the countries in which they operate, and therefor should have no say-so. Spotify is no angel, but they're right.

We the people, not we the corporations.

These developers are not right about wanting a free ride on Apple their platform.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

It almost makes me want to buy a Samsung next tbh totally off putting and I don’t even feel the need to sideload. Just how Apple adapted the rules is kind of cringe. Wonder what the EU will eventually (in like 5 years at their pace) say about it.

It’s like those companies here that adapt a cookie banner but you only have the choice between accepting all cookies or subscribing but then they argue „but you have a choice!“ or Facebook only offering a paid subscription to not be tracked in the EU. Shady!

Go for it, we’ll be here when you come back.

 

[svish]

Not sure what will happen with the core technology fees. Wonder whether this will also change in the future.

 

[krell100]

Spotify giving a commentary on morals? Hahaha right...

 

[Zest28]

He's right. Every bit as bad as Microsoft in the 90's.

You guys really think it is fine that Google should be allowed to put their own Google Play Store in iOS free of charge?

 

[SmugMaverick]

Apple follows the laws and regulations in all markets they operate, even in autocratic countries like China and Russia.

It's a rule I support.

Businesses shouldn't be involved in politics, human rights, environmental and climate policies. They should just make good products and services.

Except when China hack airdrop as I said which you ignored. They allowed it since 2019 and said nothing until the media found out.

Disgusting behaviour.

I get it, you love Apple but don’t pretend they’re about privacy when they’ll sell your whole life for some $$$.

 

[SmugMaverick]

You guys really think it is fine that Google should be allowed to put their own Google Play Store in iOS free of charge?

No ones stopping Apple from doing the same.

Only apples arrogance.

Maybe those blue bubbles impress Americans but the rest of the world like choice with our money.

 

[Zest28]

No ones stopping Apple from doing the same.

Only apples arrogance.

Maybe those blue bubbles impress Americans but the rest of the world like choice with our money.

Just watch Google pull the plug from Android if everybody can put a cheaper Store on Android as Google has to pay for all the development and maintance costs of Android, while others don’t.

Google is known for dropping product lines.

 

[SmugMaverick]

I don't want users to have more control. I don't want the iPhone to be like Windows or the Mac.

A tightly controlled, locked down device is wonderful for so many non-technical people. Having just ONE place to get software in a secure and easy way is also great.

Adding more control to users increases the complexity of the software and the device which isn't good when you just want something which is easy to use and shouldn't require any technical knowledge at all.

So what you’re saying is, iPhones are for “simple” people?

Android has always been open and has 80% of the world’s market share. Those users don’t have any issues with side loading so just relax it’ll be ok.

 

[Zest28]

So what you’re saying is, iPhones are for “simple” people?

Android has always been open and has 80% of the world’s market share. Those users don’t have any issues with side loading so just relax it’ll be ok.

Yet, they still make less money than Apple with all that market share. Sideloading is hurting Google.

 

[SmugMaverick]

Just watch Google pull the plug from Android if everybody can put a cheaper Store on Android as Google has to pay for all the development and maintance costs of Android, while others don’t.

Google is known for dropping product lines.

You do know that Google has always allowed side loading right?

Most users will always use the default store anyway but choice is nice.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Only the letter of the law matters. Don’t like it the EU can attempt to write a new law if they can.

I will just leave this from DMA Article 13 in malicious compliance

3. The gatekeeper shall ensure that the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 are fully and effectively complied with.
4. The gatekeeper *shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance* with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.

7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement.

 

[ellocoescoces]

Fines aren't enough. They need the kind of measures MS got.

I’ll be vey interested to see how the EU reacts to this. Time there was some proper competition for Apple. The level of greed and profiteering in Apple nowadays is frankly disgusting. Much as I am I fan of Apple hardware and software I have seen them continually squeeze both consumers for hardware costs and deliberate forced obsolescence (completely unnecessary and something I would like to see changes to the laws to prevent this iceasing electronic waste!) and the extortionate costs for the smaller developers.

With regards to the Spotify example, I definitely agree that I would also like to see musicians and others getting properly paid for their work, unfortunately, most consumers don’t seem to be willing to pay for these services and I would include quality journalism in this as well. However. people appear to be happier to lose their privacy in return for unpaid services!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You bought an iPhone and accepted this software license agreement. Maybe almost no one reads it, but since you talk about property, that’s your property.

You can break the agreement and jailbreak your iPhone, you can decide not to buy an iPhone and reject the agreement. What you can’t do is forcing someone else, in a free transaction, to reach an agreement in the terms you want.

I’m sorry but that is completely wrong. EULA aren’t legally enforceable at all

1. Yes that’s exactly what the law states. And corresponding legal rulings
2. And no that is a breach of consumer protection laws as you describe it

Legal framework​

The legal framework for this case consists of the following EU law and court rulings:
The Directive 2009/24/EC
The Directive 2019/770/EU
The Directive 2019/771/EU
The Directive 2019/2161

The judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle

The judgment in Case C-166/15 Ranks v Microsoft Corp

The judgment in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd

The judgment in Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box Srl and Others
The judgment in Case T-172/21 Valve v
Commission
The judgment in Case C‑307/18 Generics (UK) Ltd and Others
The judgment in Case C‑373/14 P

• The Directive 2009/24/ECon the legal protection of computer programs:
  • This directive harmonizes the rules on the protection of computer programs by copyright in the EU. It defines a computer program as “a set of instructions which can be used, directly or indirectly, in a computer system in order to bring about a certain result”. It also defines the author of a computer program as “the natural person or group of natural persons who has created the program or, where the legislation of the Member States permits, the legal person designated as the rightholder by that legislation”.
• The Directive 2019/770/EUon certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services:
  • This directive establishes common rules on the supply of digital content and digital services in the EU. It defines digital content as “data which are produced and supplied in digital form, such as video, audio, applications, digital games and any other software”. It also defines digital service as “a service which allows the creation, processing or storage of data in digital form, or the access to such data, such as video-sharing services, cloud services and social media”.
• The Directive 2019/771/EUon certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods:
  • This directive establishes common rules on the sale of goods in the EU. It defines goods as “any tangible movable item, with the exception of items sold by way of execution or otherwise by authority of law; water, gas and electricity shall be considered as goods where they are put up for sale in a limited volume or a set quantity”. It also defines seller as “any natural or legal person who, under a contract, sells or undertakes to sell goods to a consumer” and consumer as “any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession”.
• The Directive 2019/2161amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU
  • the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules introduces new rules on transparency and penalties for online marketplaces, free digital services, and personalised pricing, as well as new rights for consumers to terminate contracts and seek remedies in case of unfair commercial practices.
• The judgment in Case C-128/11UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp: This is a landmark case on the exhaustion of rights and the resale of software licenses in the EU.
  • The court ruled that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the rightholder, who has authorized, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier, has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period. The court also ruled that the exhaustion of the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program includes the right to make available to the public a copy of that program by resale, and that the original acquirer of a copy of a computer program, accompanied by an unlimited user license, may resell that copy and his license to a new acquirer, provided that he does not retain any copy of the program.
• The judgment in Case C-166/15Ranks and Vasiļevičs v Microsoft Corp: This is another case on the exhaustion of rights and the resale of software licenses in the EU.
  • The court concluded that Mr Ranks and Mr Vasiļevičs infringed the exclusive right of reproduction of the rightholder, and that they could not rely on the principle of exhaustion of the right of distribution to justify their actions. The court also clarified that its ruling did not affect the possibility of reselling ‘used’ copies of computer programs that are downloaded from the internet, as long as the original material medium of the software is transferred to the new acquirer, and the original acquirer makes his own copy unusable.
• The judgment in Case C-355/12Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and Others: This is a case on the legal protection of technological measures used by rightholders to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by them.
  • The court ruled that the protection of such measures must respect the principle of proportionality, and that national courts must balance the interests and rights of the rightholders, the users, and the public. The court also ruled that the circumvention of such measures may be justified in certain cases, such as when they prevent or restrict the use of computer programs protected by copyright, which are not essential for the use of the protected works, and which are supplied by the rightholder.
• The judgment in Case C-406/10SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd: This is a case on the scope of the legal protection of computer programs.
  • The court ruled that the functionality, the programming language, and the format of data files of a computer program are not protected by copyright, and that a person who has obtained a licence to use a computer program may observe, study, or test the functioning of that program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program.

Analysis​

Based on the legal framework, the analysis of the consumer’s legal arguments is as follows:

• The consumer owns the operating system and the hardware, as the purchase of the iPhone constituted a sale of goods, and the operating system was an essential and inseparable part of the good. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The iPhone is a good, as it is a tangible movable item, according to the definition in the Directive 2019/771/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods.
• The consumer is a consumer, as he is a natural person who bought the iPhone for purposes outside his trade, business, craft or profession, according to the definition in the same directive.
• The purchase of the iPhone was a sale, as it involved a contract between the consumer and Apple, who is the seller, according to the definition in the same directive. The contract was concluded when the consumer paid the full price of the iPhone at the point of sale, and Apple delivered the iPhone to the consumer.
• The operating system is part of the good, as it is a computer program that is integrated in the hardware and essential for its function, according to the definition in the Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs. The operating system cannot be purchased separately from the hardware, and it is not a digital content or a digital service, according to the definitions in the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services.
• The consumer acquired the ownership of the good, as the transfer of ownership is the default rule in the sale of goods, according to the Directive 2019/771/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods. The transfer of ownership occurred when the consumer paid the full price of the iPhone and received the delivery of the iPhone from Apple. The ownership of the good includes the ownership of the operating system, as it is an essential and inseparable part of the good.

• The consumer’s rights to use and dispose of the operating system are exhausted, as Apple consented to the first sale of the software in the EU, and did not reserve any rights over the software after the sale. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The first sale of the software occurred when Apple sold the iPhone containing the operating system to the consumer in the EU, according to the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. The sale was authorized by Apple, who is the rightholder of the software, and who received a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the software. The sale was also accompanied by a perpetual license to use the software, which implies that Apple intended to transfer the software to the consumer permanently.
• The right of distribution of the software is exhausted after the first sale, according to the Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs and the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. The exhaustion applies regardless of whether the software is distributed on a material medium or by download, according to the judgment in Case C-166/15 Ranks and Vasiļevičs v Microsoft Corp. The exhaustion also includes the right to make available to the public a copy of the software by resale, according to the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp.
• The consumer has the right to use and dispose of the software as he wishes, as the exhaustion of the right of distribution implies the exhaustion of the right of use, according to the judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. The consumer can also transfer his license to a new acquirer, provided that he does not retain any copy of the software, according to the same judgment.

• The iOS EULA is invalid and unenforceable, as Apple did not inform the consumer of the license terms before the sale, and the consumer did not accept the license terms voluntarily and knowingly. This argument is supported by the following points:

• The iOS EULA is a contractual agreement that grants permission to use the software under certain terms and conditions, according to the definition of a license in the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. The iOS EULA is also a standard contract, as it is a contract where all or most of the terms are predetermined by one of the parties and cannot be modified by the other party, according to the same directive.
• The iOS EULA is not binding on the consumer, as Apple did not provide the consumer with the information required by the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services before the conclusion of the contract. The information includes the main characteristics of the digital content or digital service, the total price, the duration and termination of the contract, and the functionality and interoperability of the digital content or digital service. The information must be provided in a clear and comprehensible manner, and must be confirmed on a durable medium, such as paper or email, according to the same directive.
• The consumer did not consent to the iOS EULA, as Apple did not obtain the consumer’s express and informed consent to the contract, according to the Directive 2019/770/EU on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. The consent must be given by a statement or a clear affirmative action, such as clicking a button or ticking a box, according to the same directive. The consent must also be free and genuine, and not influenced by any undue pressure or unfair practices, such as tying the acceptance of the contract to the use of the phone, according to the same directive.

Conclusion​

Based on the analysis, the likely outcome of the case is that the consumer will win the case, and that the consumer’s legal position is strong. The consumer has a valid claim of ownership of the operating system and the hardware, as the purchase of the iPhone constituted a sale of goods, and the operating system was an essential and inseparable part of the good. The consumer also has the right to use and dispose of the software as he wishes, as his rights are exhausted after the first sale of the software in the EU. The iOS EULA is invalid and unenforceable, as Apple did not inform the consumer of the license terms before the sale, and the consumer did not accept the license terms voluntarily and knowingly. The consumer’s legal arguments are supported by the relevant EU law and court rulings, and are consistent with the principles of exhaustion of rights, free movement of goods, ownership, and transfer of ownership. Therefore, the consumer has a strong case against Apple, and Apple has a weak case against the consumer.

 

[19callum93]

Spotify at this point just take your app down from the App Store completely.
Let’s see who needs who first then.

 

[SmugMaverick]

Spotify at this point just take your app down from the App Store completely.
Let’s see who needs who first then.

Yeah let’s see how the Vision Pro does with none of the big players too. 😂

 

[ofarlig]

Spotify at this point just take your app down from the App Store completely.
Let’s see who needs who first then.

I think you’d be surprised how much people like listening to music, I’d even move to Android to continue doing that if Apple’s system forces apps away from the platform.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This is different discussion, but I'll leave it anyway. I think software terms of service are unethical as hell; they are one sided contracts the end-user has no say so in other than to accept, yet the company that writes them can change them at will anytime they want without notice.

I look forward to their legality being tested in the Supreme Court. It's never made it that far.

Oh they aren’t just unethical, I have a comment going through the legality of them. And it’s very strongly illegal and unenforceable. The EULAs as they are are very likely not legal at all with current rulings.

 

[Sarafay]

So you get at least 5 years of updates for free but have to pay for strange gatekeeper activities?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Which is really what upsets him; he didn’t get the free ride he expected.

As I and others have said, Apple will find a way to make up for the lost money with new fees.

well, if Apple is in violation of the DMA, I'm sure the EU will respond ...

They absolutely are within the rules. Do you even fully know the details of the act?

Well Apple will get a rude awakening. I recommend you guys actually read the legislation in full. Especially the part before article 1 describing the intention of the legislation.

4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design

A spokesperson for the European Commission said:​

"We take note of Apple's announcements ahead of the compliance deadline on 7 March. We do not comment on these announcements.​

"We strongly encourage designated gatekeepers to test their proposals with third parties."​

Apple will get a very rude awakening

The software isn't your property.

You're wrong. You own the device, not the software. You have the right to use it and not give it to someone else.
If you buy a game console, you cannot install any game from outside the SONY, Microsoft or Nintendo store.

Which really is the core issue - Apple does not see the commission they charge today as exhorbant, and regulators don't have the ability to tell them they are charging too much.

The EU can mandate decoupling things all they want, but Apple will continue to say (as they have done for the last 15 years) that they take a cut of your success from your app on iOS.

The software on the device is an ongoing service with terms of use and updates. It is unfortunate that the complexity has moved into software and that modern hardware are reduced to paperweights without agreeing to such terms, but thats where we are.

The software is not though. Apple reserves the right to its IP. It’s why even the DMA doesn’t force Apple to not collect any money. Apple’s APIs and IP are theirs. You can’t force a company to give things away for free.

Mmm... that's not how it works in terms of actual property. If you rent out a dwelling, you absolutely don't have the right to do whatever you want. For example, you can't sublet.

is it the same here? I don't know. I think there is a definite case for Apple here if we look at it from this perspective. Is it right though? It seems complicated.

Hahaha I have quite the legal surprise to you When it comes to EU law.
The legal framework for this case consists of the following EU law and court rulings:

• The consumer owns the operating system and the hardware, as the purchase of the iPhone constituted a sale of goods, and the operating system was an essential and inseparable part of the good.
• The iOS EULA is invalid and unenforceable, as Apple did not inform the consumer of the license terms before the sale, and the consumer did not accept the license terms voluntarily and knowingly.

1. The Directive 2009/24/EC
2. The Directive 2019/770/EU
3. The Directive 2019/771/EU
4. The Directive 2019/2161
5. The judgment in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle
6. The judgment in Case C-166/15 Ranks v Microsoft Corp
7. The judgment in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd
8. The judgment in Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box Srl and Others
9. The judgment in Case T-172/21 Valve v Commission
10. The judgment in Case C‑307/18 Generics (UK) Ltd and Others
11. The judgment in Case C‑373/14 P Toshiba v Commission