More often it is either blocking or not blocking an app based on where a person is at. Now it is having different versions of the same apps
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 Complains That Apple Hasn't Approved Update With Subscription Pricing and Links in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you're consistently undermining the law like Apple did with the DMA (see how many times Apple had to backpedal on their anti-competitive "implementations") and with other laws in the past (just look at how Apple ignored the Netherlands' laws and had to pay Tinder monthly fines for continuing to deny them their rights), don't act surprised when you end up being called a gatekeeper and people looking where the dirt under your fingernails comes from.
They can charge fees if they want. I don't think though, that they can selectively charge apps published outside of the App Store. The Commission will likely demand from Apple to charge the same fee to App Store apps. That would off course be problematic for Apple, because it would mean that the "shelves" of the Apple App Store would empty quite quickly.
Spotify is able to release it on other App stores now for the EU
They don't have to, and that's the point. Spotify is entitled to its rights, that includes rights in the App Store as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's Apple, an update from Spotify is most likely their nr 1 priority, as soon as they got it they most likely took out their magnifying glasses.
No, this is done intentionally, if there was something wrong with the update they could have notify Spotify by now.
Apple's lawyer team is probably working overtime to find a reason to block this update ...
Maybe Apple should also make their own country where they can sell their stuff. How about that?
"Can we legally delay the update for as long as we want?" - "Paralegal, go and find out!"
Spotify's strategy at this point is twofold: 1) never acknowledge that high quality music was promised three years ago, and 2) whine loudly at every opportunity
What's your basis for saying they can't have a different charging logic/mechanism for apps published outside the App Store?
Why are members picking up on the delay and thus having a go at Spotify? Apple states in it's review process that 90% of app's are reviewed within 24hrs and that the app dev will be notified via email of any status changes. It goes on to say that if the app submission is incomplete then there could be a delay and possible fail to pass the review.
(source: https://developer.apple.com/distribute/app-review/)
Now, if there is a problem with the submitted app then Apple according to it's own review guidelines should be emailing the app dev of 'status' changes. Would the app failing the review be considered a 'status' change? If there is a problem with the app that requires changes to the app, would this not also incur a 'status' change? as in status: app requires changes. If the app failed the review process would this also not incur a 'status' change as in status: app failed?
Spotifiy points out that since the app was submitted Apple has not made any contact with Spotifiy regarding the status of it's app. Is there problems with the app that need changes? did the app fail the review? Spotify does not know because Apple has kept them in the dark and continues to do so.
Apple is clearly failing to uphold it's own review guidelines with regards to Spotify's app submission which takes advantage of the EU's ruling.
Apple is in the wrong here, not Spotify.
(source: https://developer.apple.com/distribute/app-review/)
Now, if there is a problem with the submitted app then Apple according to it's own review guidelines should be emailing the app dev of 'status' changes. Would the app failing the review be considered a 'status' change? If there is a problem with the app that requires changes to the app, would this not also incur a 'status' change? as in status: app requires changes. If the app failed the review process would this also not incur a 'status' change as in status: app failed?
Spotifiy points out that since the app was submitted Apple has not made any contact with Spotifiy regarding the status of it's app. Is there problems with the app that need changes? did the app fail the review? Spotify does not know because Apple has kept them in the dark and continues to do so.
Apple is clearly failing to uphold it's own review guidelines with regards to Spotify's app submission which takes advantage of the EU's ruling.
Apple is in the wrong here, not Spotify.
Which is pointless anyway.
Apple creates these situations that don't benefit them in anyway. They are just acting childish
Because they are a music streaming company.
What's this question supposed to prove? It doesn't make any logical sense.
And you think apple doesn't immediately jump on Spotify's update and treats it like any other update they forget about form any other company? Have you seen how salty Apple is with the hole Spotify situation? You think this is not intentional?
The problem is Apple provides no alternative or allows you to provide an alternative. You don’t have to use AWS or Azure if you want to host something in the cloud. You can always roll your own.
Android you don’t have to to use to Google play store to get onto Android. You are free to host your own at no cost to yours.
Now to get on iOS you have to go through Apple’s App Store. Since Apple require their most of their arguments for fees go out the window. All Apple has to do is allow side loading or alternatively App stores with out the bs core charges and lo and behold all the other issues go away.
Three points:
- The EU Commission does not want to dictate what specific fees Gatekeepers can charge, if they can avoid it.
- The whole point of the DMA is to create competition for app distribution on both platforms. Apple's current proposal for a fee outside the App Store hinders this competition substantially and can therefore be ruled as being anticompetitive easisly.
- Prohibiting the CTF would come across as heavy-handed and possibly inappropriate regulation. Mandating, that the same fees neet to be applied in both distribution channel is likely much easier to defend in court.
Last edited:
so you've seen their code?
oh no, you didn't , so why do you make that claim in the first place?
Your right that’s why Spotify PAY Apple the developer fee $99 a year.
Kind of ironic that the company promising high quality music for like 5 years wants to rush Apple along.
Correction. A smartphone of sufficient sophistication was essential. Yes Apple was the first to bring such a device to the market, but things were already trending that way. Look at the music-centric Motorola Rokr from 2005. Look at smartphones from 2006. Jobs had the ability to bring a very capable device to market, but if you think that if the iPhone had never existed, that we'd all still be using flip phones in 2024, I think that's an absolutely laughable assumption and would bring into question the validity of any of your other arguments.
To wit, almost all technology builds on previous paradigms. What if Microsoft had charged Apple a 30% commission for iTunes downloads when it launched? Would Apple be what the are today? Who knows. Regardless, I bet the EU would've taken exception to such a thing. Just look at the battles between MS and the EU in the 2000's for things that were not nearly so egregious.
Last edited:
That hardly covers all of the bandwidth and storage needed by Apple for the App Store.