Spotify CEO on Apple and Google: 'If You Want to Be the Referee, You Can't Also Be the Player'

[MacRumors]

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek is urging lawmakers in the United Kingdom to adopt a bill that would regulate competition in digital markets, cutting down on the dominance of Apple, Google, and other large tech companies.

The Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Bill (DMCC) that the UK is developing would allow competition authorities to impose conduct requirements on companies and "promote competition" when a company's policies are "having an adverse effect on competition." Ek has long advocated for legislation that hobbles Apple's ability to both offer a platform (iOS) and compete on that platform with apps like Spotify rival Apple Music.

In an interview with Financial Times, Ek said that Apple and Google's control over how billions of consumers access the internet is "insane."

"Not only are they dictating the rules, they also compete directly downstream with those providers," said Ek. Ek wants the UK bill to make sure that a company that's the referee in the digital market "can't also be the player." The DMCC needs to have "real teeth" he said, adding that the bill is for all developers. "More and more of these developers are now finding that Apple is a competitor," he said.

If passed, the DMCC would give the UK's Competition and Markets Authority the power to impose multibillion-pound fines for large companies that breach the established rules. Tech companies would be required to provide more transparency about how their app stores work, with regulators able to open up specific markets like app stores or search engines.

Spotify has been in a feud with Apple for years, with the dispute between the two companies most recently heating up in 2022 when Apple rejected a Spotify app update that added audiobook support. Spotify back in 2019 filed a regulatory complaint in the European Union over Apple's App Store practices, which is still under investigation, and the company has also backed the Open Markets Act in the United States, legislation that would require Apple to allow for sideloading and alternate app stores.

Article Link: Spotify CEO on Apple and Google: 'If You Want to Be the Referee, You Can't Also Be the Player'

 

[LawJolla]

If you charge $10/month for your music service, it is anticompetitive to take 30% of your competitors $10/month music service.

If you owned a store in a mall selling (price-controlled) Rolexes and the mall opened their own store next door to you selling the same Rolexes, you'd cry foul.

But the mall analogy still isn't as bad as the App Store... The mall does incur lost revenue (not leasing finite space to another tenant) with their own store where Apple does not. And you can at least move malls.

 

[Smartuser]

Europe has internalized that the referee can't be a player on so many levels in the world, high-tech and military just two of them. They love to tell others what to do.

 

[Contact_Feanor]

Isn't Spotify playing referee and player in the podcasting business themselves?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Spotify JUST learned a lesson, directly, at how hard it is to develop, produce, market and sell hardware. And STILL, they trot out this disingenuous argument.

 

[ladodger5]

Stop whining and release hi-fi

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Very true.

Also Apple Music is very very bad.

 

[applesith]

How will the regulation-hungry EU tackle Google's suite of products (Search, Email, Ads, Docs), Amazon with AWS and commerce if this is the path they are going down?

 

[6787872]

correct. jail tim cook and throw away the key.

 

[alexe]

A bit hypocritical since Spotify is doing a lot to distort the market for music, but nonethelss, he's right.

You can either control the only mechanism that users find and access apps (the App Store), or you can offer apps that compete with other apps. Doing both is unfair towards all other developers.

 

[klasma]

Europe has internalized that the referee can't be a player on so many levels in the world, high-tech and military just two of them. They love to tell others what to do.

They have every rignt to tell others what to do in the European market.

 

[PlayUltimate]

If you charge $10/month for your music service, it is anticompetitive to take 30% of your competitors $10/month music service.

If you owned a store in a mall selling (price-controlled) Rolexes and the mall opened their own store next door to you selling the same Rolexes, you'd cry foul.

But with the mall analogy, you can at least move. With the App Store you can't.

Au contraire. Spotify, like Netflix, could offer sales of their service outside of the the App Store and not pay the 30%. There are many businesses that have apps on the Apple App Store that do not offer financial transactions through the store.

 

[The_Gream]

Just wish these people (CEOs) would whine less and push their companies to offer better products.

Apple’s App Store rules have always offered a loop hole to avoid Apple taking a commission. If you as an over paid suit or glorified accountant can’t see them, then maybe you should find a different line of work.

 

[zach-coleman]

I really think a lot of this would go away if they just lowered their cut. It really is ridiculous that they think 30% is an acceptable margin for the service apple provides. It's practically free money to them. And when the EU forces side loading, it's going to cause a headache for all of us when many major players bail from the App Store in order to get a larger cut.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

A bit hypocritical since Spotify is doing a lot to distort the market for music, but nonethelss, he's right.

You can either control the only mechanism that users find and access apps (the App Store), or you can offer apps that compete with other apps. Doing both is unfair towards all other developers.

Well, not towards ALL other developers. The developers of Genshin Impact and hundreds of thousands of others are just fine.

 

[LawJolla]

Au contraire. Spotify, like Netflix, could offer sales of their service outside of the the App Store and not pay the 30%. There are many businesses that have apps on the Apple App Store that do not offer financial transactions through the store.

Tell me you don't make money as a software developer without telling me.

 

[alexe]

If you charge $10/month for your music service, it is anticompetitive to take 30% of your competitors $10/month music service.

If you owned a store in a mall selling (price-controlled) Rolexes and the mall opened their own store next door to you selling the same Rolexes, you'd cry foul.

But the mall analogy still isn't as bad as the App Store... The mall does incur lost revenue (not leasing finite space to another tenant) with their own store where Apple does not. And you can at least move malls.

Precisely. You can't have your own music service compete with another music service who will eternally be at a cost disadvantage because you make it so.

 

[LawJolla]

I really think a lot of this would go away if they just lowered their cut. It really is ridiculous that they think 30% is an acceptable margin for the service apple provides. It's practically free money to them. And when the EU forces side loading, it's going to cause a headache for all of us when many major players bail from the App Store in order to get a larger cut.

I think this nails it. 10% would fly. It's the number that's so oppressive.

 

[klasma]

How will the regulation-hungry EU tackle Google's suite of products (Search, Email, Ads, Docs), Amazon with AWS and commerce if this is the path they are going down?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_23_4328

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news...arkets-act-and-digital-services-act-explained

 

[MangoAvocado]

Europe has internalized that the referee can't be a player on so many levels in the world, high-tech and military just two of them. They love to tell others what to do.

How dares the European Union *checks notes* regulate the European Market to protect the European consumers.

 

[Abazigal]

Spotify is just making a whole lot of noise to cover up the fact that they don’t really have a viable business model to begin with. Nor should Apple be expected to prop them up, and I don’t see why Spotify should be allowed to amass a huge subscriber base on iOS, using Apple’s platform and infrastructure, without paying for access.

This is what it all comes down to - the equivalent of jumping the turnstile at the train station. Spotify wants all the benefits of operating in the App Store, without having to pay a single cent in return.

And they still aren’t profitable.

Spotify should just close down.

 

[applesith]

If you charge $10/month for your music service, it is anticompetitive to take 30% of your competitors $10/month music service.

If you owned a store in a mall selling (price-controlled) Rolexes and the mall opened their own store next door to you selling the same Rolexes, you'd cry foul.

But the mall analogy still isn't as bad as the App Store... The mall does incur lost revenue (not leasing finite space to another tenant) with their own store where Apple does not. And you can at least move malls.

That's not an accurate example. Your example has price fixing (which is an issue of its own) and implies the same exact products are sold for the same price at different locations. That is not the case here.

 

[Ricebucket]

Spotify is just making a whole lot of noise to cover up the fact that they don’t really have a viable business model to begin with. Nor should Apple be expected to prop them up, and I don’t see why Spotify should be allowed to amass a huge subscriber base on iOS, using Apple’s platform and infrastructure, without paying for access.

This is what it all comes down to - the equivalent of jumping the turnstile at the train station. Spotify wants all the benefits of operating in the App Store, without having to pay a single cent in return.

And they still aren’t profitable.

Spotify should just close down.

Strawman argument.
No one is saying Spotify shouldn't pay for access.

 

[JamesHolden]

I really think a lot of this would go away if they just lowered their cut. It really is ridiculous that they think 30% is an acceptable margin for the service apple provides. It's practically free money to them. And when the EU forces side loading, it's going to cause a headache for all of us when many major players bail from the App Store in order to get a larger cut.

100% agree. Most of these laws and lawsuits would go away, or never wouldn’t have happened in the first place, were it not for the absurd cut these companies require. It’s naked greed.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

iTunes Store introduced: 2003
Spotify app introduced: 2008 At that time, STRANGELY entirely fine with the App Store rules. One wonders why? What has changed? The money they made from Apple’s customers?