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 CEO Daniel Ek Speaks Out on Dispute With Apple Over App Store Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a solution. And that's Spotify paying the 30%. The choice is Spotify's.
He who owns the platform makes the rules.
Spotify is free to build up their own platform painstakingly from scratch and design their own hardware the same way Apple did if they want to call their own shots.
No. Paying an extortion rent is not a solution. The solution will be EU regulators forcing Apple to cease their anti-competitive behavior, if they want to continue doing business in their market.
Not much point of debating this with you further, as you clearly don't understand the meaning of simple words such as "choice".
Next.
Well it's Apple's AppStore meaning Apple's rules. If Spotify charges customers $12.99 a month through AppStore IAP to help negating Apple's 30% cuts, then it's customers loss for lack of researching before buying. It's also normal for Apple to prevent Spotify to promote its own IAP outside the AppStore. I agree that 30% cut may be too big (or not), but yelling at Apple for not giving 0% is ridiculous too.
Customers could get smart, go to Spotify.com, subscribe with a better rate by paying directly and call it a day. Apple Music won't get much more subs if Spotify could undercut Apple, even from its own website.
Let's call that 30% a convenience fee for collecting the bills through Apple.
Netflix is doing this just fine with this method and customers are paying, I don't know why Spotify should be any different? Wants to negate the cut? Then add 30% through the iTunes billing. Too expensive? Well customers could go out there and pay directly.
Last edited:
Without getting into details, Apple is a stickler for competitor products in their marketplace. They will cause lengthy delays for questionable reasons.
Your examples are different. Those stores don’t tell those manufacturers what they can or can’t do in their products.
"Apple's AppStore - Apple's rules" is NOT a justification for anti-competitive behavior, and rent seeking. Apple is the owner of one of two dominant smartphone platforms, in what's basically a duopoly market. They should not be leveraging their platform to lock out or disadvantage their competitors, in favor of their own services.
Apple has locked down the entire ecosystem of iOS device owners to the AppStore, and they don't allow alternative means for content owners to distribute their apps, and reach huge numbers of their customers.
To not even allow companies like Spotify to provide a link within their app to where their customers can sign up for the premium service is just bonkers. It's bad for the competition, it's bad for the market, it's bad for us, as consumers.
What Apple is doing is at the very least immoral, and possibly illegal. The EU court will decide on then latter.
Last edited:
Who is really the greedy one? The one who complains about uneven practices, or the one that creates them in the first place?
Using that logic, no wrongs in this world would ever get fixed.
See my above comment. Things would never improve if everyone had that attitude. The solution is pointing out the inequities, and if necessary, sue to fix them.
When Spotify raised the price of the in app subscription to $13, a user will see that and compare it to Apple's music subscription of $10. That's how apple music grew so fast, tricked users into believing that they picked the low cost alternative.
Last edited:
No, that's not true. No matter how much time and effort you put into something, if that something does not conform to local laws, in this case, the consumer friendly EU, you do not get to make the rules.
American companies, especially tech companies, have been getting smacked up side the head for decades now in Europe. The Right to be Forgotten case. Forcing Microsoft to create a EU acceptable version of Windows. GDPR. Multiple fines and forcing companies to pay back taxes. Don't equate the playing field in the U.S. with the one in the EU.
Well that's the smart part coming in. You go to Spotify.com, subscribe with them directly for the same amount as what Apple Music charges. I did that and I didn't pay $13, I paid $10.
At least that's what I did for some time. I switched to AM though, not because of pricing leverage but because of Siri integration. You do with what you have in hand. Apple has built the ecosystem, so Apple prioritize AM over third party service, well which part of it is cheating?
If Apple cheats than probably Apple could've just removed Spotify or Tidal or Pandora altogether from the AppStore. It didn't.
Even with utmost integration, if it sucks so bad, Apple's service wouldn't survive too. Remember Ping, or MobileMe, or iTunes Connect? In the end market determines the outcome.
Eh, it is EXACTLY this the debate is all about.
Does anyone here actually read the article before making up thier mind and commenting?
* Spotify has an app @ the apple app store.
* Rolling Stone has a magazine @ Barnes&Noble
* If Spotify had decided to charge for the app, Apple would take (30%) as commission
* Barnes&Noble sells Rolling Stone and get a commission (I have no idea what they charge, but I hardly think they charge 30%)
* Spotify (no longer) sells their subscription on the App Store, Apple gets 30% commission
* Barnes&Noble sell subscription to Rolling Stone: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ma...-year-subscription/18146719?ean=2000003975945 for the same price as signing up on Rolling Stones website, and probably get commission on that (but just for the first year, as they sell one year subscription. Year 2, if you decide to renew, B&N will get nothing).
* Spotify sells their subscription on their homepage, but are not allowed to in any way make that known within their app. Not just "not allowed to code in an outside store", it's more, not allowed to mention or even hint about it.
*Rolling Stone sells their subscription on their homepage on which they probably make a better profit than selling through B&N as there is no commission to be paid, fair enough.
* In the Spotify app available on the app store, there can be no mentioning about the fact that the subscription can be had outside the apple app store, that will immediately block the app (and they will be put in quarantine for a while, I know that for a fact from first hand sources)
* In the printed Rolling Stone magazine, there is no mention of you being able to buy a subscription through B&N, just their website, or phone or even snail mail. Just imagine if B&N required Rolling Stone to remove all mentioning of being able to subscribe elsewhere
There is no reson for this Apple rule besides market control and greed.
Google takes the same 30% commission if you use their payment service, but they allow the app to direct customers to other sites to subscribe to get around that. The payment service is a service for the small developer, not the big corp.
Also, Apple makes a strange distincion about subscriptions consumed within the app or not. It's quite obvious this is due to Apple wanting the economic edge on any service someone will come up with. Let's say someone comes up with a subscription to jokes and this will become bigger than the streaming music industry. Apple immediately has the 30% competetive edge in their app store as they can price their service at the same level as anyone else, but does not have to pay the 30% commission AND recieves the 30% commission from all it's competitors, who cannot even make it known the subscription is cheaper elsewhere. Now, if that isn't an unfair advatage.
I always accuse Apple and his greedy Tim to be unfair but this time I must say that they are right about Spotify. App store is on Apple server, they are maintained by people paid by Apple and it's OK if they also decide the policy. If someone doesn't like the policy he can either use another store or build up his own one, that's called free market.
Instead spotify wants a big slice of apple customers in change of nothing. It's obvious also to say that if Apple's fee are too expensive for developers and companies compared to returns, they are free to leave.
Instead spotify wants a big slice of apple customers in change of nothing. It's obvious also to say that if Apple's fee are too expensive for developers and companies compared to returns, they are free to leave.
So if I get this right...
EU regulators > Apple > Spotify
Hence Apple can't do whatever they want as a business, the minute they abuse a dominant position harming consumers/competitors they risk regulators/goverment stepping in.
By the way, I hear Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Apple too.
EU regulators > Apple > Spotify
Hence Apple can't do whatever they want as a business, the minute they abuse a dominant position harming consumers/competitors they risk regulators/goverment stepping in.
By the way, I hear Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Apple too.
Not really. For example if you want streaming or offline music on your Apple Watch you have to use Apple Music. But at least this seems to change soon...fingers crossed!
More like if you want streaming or offline music on your Apple Watch, use an app that allows that. If you want to specifically stream Spotify from your watch, get a watch that works with Spotify. Choice.
There is almost no similarity at all. Firstly, Apple’s iOS commands less than 15% of the smartphone market, so Apple doesn’t have any monopoly power to enforce the negotiation privilege Microsoft had. Secondly, Microsoft got itself in trouble mostly because it requires the computer manufacturers to pre-install Internet Explorer if they want to pre-install Windows, while Apple has no similar business partner to enforce such kind of a requirement. Lastly, Apple didn’t treat Spotify any differently from other developers that use its App Store.
I don’t see any danger in Apple being ruled for antitrust or antimonopoly violation here. However, this lawsuit will definitely get a lot of Spotify users to:
1. Hate Apple for depriving their convenience to easily change their subscription status within the iOS app.
2. Stop their current subscription, then re-subscribe on Spotify website, so that their monthly payment can change from $12.99 to $9.99.
So, although Apple won’t lose in the court, it will lose big for Spotify making this lawsuit a news headline.
Be serious, Google has been paying fines for years and has been investigated since 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google
I say people are acting way to emotional regarding this situation.
The Final Decision doesn't belong to Apple or Spotify, it belongs to the EU commission, which will say who's right or wrong. Taking in consideration EU commission's past decisions in similar situations I would say Spotify has quite high chances to get a decision in their favor.
Last edited:
The PlayStore Spotify app redirects users from within the app to Spotify's web's site the moment a user wants to subscribe for the ad free tier.
So they are bypassing the 30% cut from Google.
"use an app that allows that" - isn't that the problem to begin with? Apple controls which app allows that and - if what Spotify tells us is true - they tried hard to keep Spotify out of the game. Again: This is at least changing now and I can't wait to see Spotify on my watch with all the right features. But I wonder how many AW owners switched to Apple Music because Spotify wasn't any good on the watch...
And to your "choice" to buy another watch: So far Apple made it look like it's Spotifys fault and I bought a watch under the impression that any developer can bring their app to that ecosystem.
You can even buy Android phones that don't come with any Google services installed.
Have you ever buy anything, anywhere? They are a middle man too. Shelves and staff and cashiers (or servers and it crowd and admins)
With this number you should sue a vending machines, they are hell expensive middle men.
Spotify gets a cut for the database of users, and it is not even remotely a small number.
And, the Spotify always asks for money from outside of App Store, so what is the deal?
I do not use AM and have a free Spotify and occasionally have a time to enjoy it, but this is a ridiculous argument
[doublepost=1552642364][/doublepost]
So the rich gets richer and poor gets poorer. I have a way smaller income than a doctor, shall I pay more for everything too?