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 on Apple and Google: 'If You Want to Be the Referee, You Can't Also Be the Player'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They aren't a referee in a game. They're the owner of a store selling their own stuff, yet allowing you to sell yours. Shut up or move on.
Aren't we there already?
In 2016 Spotify stopped letting new users subscribe in the iOS app... thus eliminating Apple's 30% cut on those new users.
Then they spent the next few years emailing their existing customers who subscribed in the iOS app to consider moving their Premium account payments to the website.
And finally just a few months ago Spotify stopped in-app transactions altogether. So the tiny percentage of remaining legacy subscribers had to move their payments to the web.
So in a sense... Spotify got exactly what they wanted. No more 30% cut... and people can still listen to Spotify on their iOS devices! Seems like that was their goal all along, right?
of course,
all this chaos, because they know that in the long run they won't be able to stand up against the competition from Apple Music which offers more and at a lower price. Apple music will become the world's first streaming platform in a short time.
The taxes to be paid to Apple are just an excuse, Spotify has the same price even where the taxes are lower.
My2cent
It looks like Spotify is actually competing pretty well. They have twice as many subscribers as the next competitor who is, ironically, Apple Music...
🤣
View attachment 2287329
Consumers can choose from an ever-expanding catalog of free and paid music streaming services. While various smaller providers have amassed impressive user bases in their respective markets over the years, the global streaming landscape continues to be dominated by a handful of behemoths. Data showed that Spotify remains the most popular music streaming provider worldwide, accounting for over 30 percent of all streaming subscribers and outperforming its closest competitors, Apple Music, Amazon Music, and Tencent Music. According to the company’s latest filings, the number of Spotify premium subscribers reached a record 205 million users by the end of 2022, while revenues from its paid and ad-supported streaming models also peaking.
So Daniel Ek... tell me again about Apple's "dominance" and how they are "having an adverse effect on competition."
Now compare the Spotify business on the iPhone only to the Apple Music business on the iPhone only including paid subs vs paid subs, profits etc and compare to their total numbers across all platforms.
It looks like Spotify is actually competing pretty well. They have twice as many subscribers as the next competitor who is, ironically, Apple Music...
🤣
View attachment 2287329
Consumers can choose from an ever-expanding catalog of free and paid music streaming services. While various smaller providers have amassed impressive user bases in their respective markets over the years, the global streaming landscape continues to be dominated by a handful of behemoths. Data showed that Spotify remains the most popular music streaming provider worldwide, accounting for over 30 percent of all streaming subscribers and outperforming its closest competitors, Apple Music, Amazon Music, and Tencent Music. According to the company’s latest filings, the number of Spotify premium subscribers reached a record 205 million users by the end of 2022, while revenues from its paid and ad-supported streaming models also peaking.
So Daniel Ek... tell me again about Apple's "dominance" and how they are "having an adverse effect on competition."
There are many subscriptions that are counted that have been cracked in Spotify.
Many do not pay their subscription and Spotify allows this.
On the other hand, it is not possible to crack Apple Music, so those are all real and paying subscriptions.
You will probably find there is no major demand for it. That’s why they haven’t done it.
The big difference is Apple says to Spotify we need to see your future plans before we approve your app. That’s why they are saying you can’t be both because Apple have a competing app.
Remember in the pre-streaming days the Top 10 of most countries was a mix of every genre. You had metal, rock, pop, rap all in the top 10.
Now the top ten is based on streaming we see this:
1 Taylor Swift
2 Taylor Swift
3 Lazythin Tattoo Boy
4 Guy in puffer jacket saying buy my NFT
5 Depressed sounding guy with gunshot wounds
6 Taylor Swift
7 Guy in puffer jacket saying buy my NFT
8 Taylor Swift
9 Lazythin Tattoo Boy
10 Depressed sounding guy with gunshot wounds
But they are the referee because before Spotify get any new app update approved they have to show Apple the new features in advance & because Apple has a competing app that then makes it a problem.
consumers will always look for the best deal. Apple Music and Spotify have thousands upon thousands of the same song on their platforms. The problem Spotify has is that app store rules states that Apple can take 15% or 30% of in-app purchases because of 'rules' but those rules do not apple to Apple themselves which means Apple can price their songs much cheaper than Spotify because Spotify needs to recoup the money lost due to the in-app purchase rules thereby making Spotify's song's more expensive. Spotify cannot price their songs the same as Apple because they would be making a loss on every song. This is unfair business practice and it should be stopped
It’s not as straightforward as saying ‘it should be stopped’ as it needs to be replaced with something else.
Spotify’s costs are always going to be higher because they are building their product on top of someone else’s product. Offering an app in apple’s App Store is always going to cost Spotify something, a cost that apples own app effectively doesn’t have to pay (it might pay the same fee on paper for accounting purposes, but it doesn’t actually matter since it’s a charge from one part of the same company to another).
No matter how much government regulation there is Apple will always be permitted to charge Spotify *something* whether it be a lower commission, a larger upfront payment etc so there’s no situation where Spotify can compete at the same level as Apple Music.
The only effective solution is for regulators to force Apple to divest Apple Music. But there are broader implications to that that will impact multiple businesses (such as Google having to divest gmail, android from its advertising business etc).
Last edited:
Unlike other products that have lower prices outside the Apple ecosystem, Spotify continues to have the same prices even outside the Apple circuit. Why?
Why does Spotify still not delete cracked premium subscriptions?
Am I stupid if I pay to listen to music on Spotify?
No, I'm not stupid, I'm just honest, but they call me stupid because they don't fight piracy... and I don't like being thought of as stupid.
Why does Spotify continue to pay artists and bands less than Apple Music, despite having a higher cost everywhere?
If you are not happy with the Apple ecosystem, you can always sell outside, as it has already done, inviting customers to pay on the website and then continuing to use the service also on Apple devices, thus avoiding Apple taxation.
If the situation still doesn't suit you, you can always invest billions and billions of dollars, start building smartphones and computers and create your own store.
Apple didn't create its store from scratch, it took years and billions of investments to be what it is today.
I see all these criticisms as just another demonstration of the fact that in the future, Apple music will become the first music streamer in the world and that Spotify is simply afraid of this and so screams, trying to get attention.
A bit angry there?
What they are saying it’s not a level playing field.
It’s not they are afraid it’s about apple’s policies regarding a competing app.
That’s what makes it anti competitive.
No, I'm not angry, Sorry I apologize for my English.
There's a lot of talk about respecting competition rules, but I would first start enforcing those on copyright by fighting piracy.
It seems counterintuitive to me to talk about rules if you don't respect laws first.
This aspect is very important, also because it implicitly calls customers who pay stupid, but also artists, who in addition to being paid less than Apple Music, are also scammed because many people crack their subscriptions.
Before you ask to enforce the rules on others, you should respect them first.
Finally, anyone who cracks the subscription is definitely doing something bad.
Whether Apple is wrong to ask for 30% taxes remains to be demonstrated.
P.s.
Does anyone complain about the factor that on Spotify artists get paid 65% less, per song, than Apple Music?
Spotify complains about the 30% taxes imposed by Apple, but it doesn't say that it pays artist 65% less than Apple.
There's a lot of talk about respecting competition rules, but I would first start enforcing those on copyright by fighting piracy.
It seems counterintuitive to me to talk about rules if you don't respect laws first.
This aspect is very important, also because it implicitly calls customers who pay stupid, but also artists, who in addition to being paid less than Apple Music, are also scammed because many people crack their subscriptions.
Before you ask to enforce the rules on others, you should respect them first.
Finally, anyone who cracks the subscription is definitely doing something bad.
Whether Apple is wrong to ask for 30% taxes remains to be demonstrated.
P.s.
Does anyone complain about the factor that on Spotify artists get paid 65% less, per song, than Apple Music?
Spotify complains about the 30% taxes imposed by Apple, but it doesn't say that it pays artist 65% less than Apple.
Last edited:
That's Apple being a security guard, not a referee. And they better never give that up.
And you don't think those grocery stores don't have to approve competing brands before selling them?
As a customer I wouldn't care. Much better if the mall also sold everything to integrate it better and keep the bad sellers out.
It's a good thing if you consider developers the enemy as I do. I don't want to be contacted by them and I want Apple to shield me as much as possible from them. I just want to use their app.
But developers want to contact me to sell me more and inform me more. Or they want to develop apps free of restraint like showing lots of ads or using a lot of CPU power or memory.
I want Apple to treat them like cheap, replaceable labour.
What so if a biscuit company wants to add ingredients to their item or change the colour of the packaging.
The grocery store approves that in advance?
No, that's what I want for the Mac but since Apple doesn't have enough power to force software developers to sell through the Mac App Store, we're left with old model of installing from multiple sources.
It’s not about being a security guard.
Why would you think that Apple wants to see Spotify’s plans in advance of app updates.
Think about it why is the Spotify CEO
Highlighting this?
That said company who makes a competing music app wants to see what they are doing in advance.