Spotify Complains That Apple Hasn't Approved Update With Subscription Pricing and Links in EU

[CarAnalogy]

You clearly have forgotten what installing software was like for normal people before iPhone, or maybe you weren’t alive/old enough for it. Apple’s approach to apps and the App Store ABSOLUTELY created massive values to developers.

I’ll quote Steve Sinofski (who literally ran Windows, so not a die-hard Apple fan), who said it well better than I ever could:

I was around for all of this and all I have to say is that when Apple is making Sinofsky look like the good guy, they need to take a long hard look at their life choices.

I come from Windows and around those parts he is not remembered fondly. He is largely responsible for essentially ruining the Windows that people of my time and place knew and more or less loved (to hate).

Perhaps it is not coincidental that the Mac is starting to suffer some of the same problems that he inflicted upon Windows.

 

[heretiq]

Deceptive behaviour and disregard for guidelines? They clearly have a gripe with the rules and challenged them legally - but they've been playing along. They didn't just put their own in-app payment (in like Epic).

Taking it straight from the horse's mouth, Apple themselves:

"Our App Review team has reviewed and approved 421 versions of the Spotify app — usually with same-day turnaround"

👉 If Spotify had a history of deceptive behaviour and disregard for guidelines, don't you think Apple would have mentioned it right there!?


Don't think so. It's probably rather Apple desperately trying to find something wrong with it, deny approval on minor technicalities and/or make it as hard and bad for Spotify as possible.


👉 What would be so hard about this?

The only potentially contentious thing we know of that Spotify added is "pricing and a link to our website".
In other words: a few words, images and a link, maybe a pop-up or something

👉 That really doesn't take rocket science to approve. And is nothing dangerous to consumers.


Could Spotify have included something else that's contentious in their submission? Possibly, but that'd be really dumb, if they want - as they're now doing - blame Apple for refusal to approve. The clever thing is to only include the pricing information/link as they only end user-facing change in the app.

You make some good points and ask some good questions, but net-net: We are all speculating about what is going on and who is right and who is wrong. My push back throughout this discussion is on the disparagement and demonization of Apple, the AppStore and the incredible iOS app development and distribution platform that Apple invested billions of dollars and incalculable life energy in building — and which has made the lives of hundreds of millions of people better including most of us in this discussion. Is Apple defending its hard won competitive positioning? Of course. Is Apple pushing back against changes it deeply believes will undo or weaken innovations created to protect users? Absolutely. Is Apple being malicious and spiteful? I don’t think so because that doesn’t square with its 48 year track record of ethical and principled leadership — despite the occasional stumble. We can agree to disagree for the moment as time will tell the truth of this event.

 

[wbeasley]

ah i see Suspended. again...

i dont understand what you meant saying "at least I had a choice".

Of course I had a choice to turn my paid account into a free one.
And it cost Spotify.

Seriously, you need to understand what bullying is.
It's Epic that broke the rules and were booted for their behaviour.
Spotify want something they can't have. And whinge.
Both lobby the EU to do their dirty work. But even the EU booted most of Spotify's complaints.
Read any HR manual. A company taking action against an employee (or a company they do business with) is not bullying if the rules are clear. It's a breach and actions happen because of it.

Angry dude? That was Victors response.
Oh dear. No example? No life experience?

Bullying is bullying.
And is quite clearly defined.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple implementing the ability for alternative App Stores and App downloads through the Web, don’t think Spotify has a stance on this one. It depends on the Apple policies around these.

Not implementing … i think it does.

Cheers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

My push back throughout this discussion is on the disparagement and demonization of Apple, the AppStore and the incredible iOS app development and distribution platform that Apple invested billions of dollars and incalculable life energy in building — and which has made the lives of hundreds of millions of people better including most of us in this discussion. Is Apple defending its hard won competitive positioning? Of course. Is Apple pushing back against changes it deeply believes will undo or weaken innovations created to protect users? Absolutely. Is Apple being malicious and spiteful?

• Did Apple create the platform? Yes.
• Was it innovative and has it been useful for the lives of hundreds of millions? Yes.
• Did and do they deserve to be compensated for that? Absolutely (and they were and are)
• Do they deserve to be compensated for in-app purchases? Surely, if done through their system.
• Is a centralised, single App Store provided bwith review processes beneficial for consumers, consumer trust and protection? Certainly.

But...

• Do Apple deserve to regulate and prohibit the content of applications down to information provided? On a platform that serves millions of people with few alternatives (de facto Android and the Play Store?). Prohibit mere words and links that developers may want put into their apps, or even just email communication with users. 👉 Flipping NO!
• Does that have anything to do with innovation? No.
• Does that have anything to do with protection of users? No.

We're not talking anything dangerous or illegal here. We're about talking about a trusted global brand.they can make in-app purchases using their credit cards just fine in tons of other apps, and I'm sure some of the stuff from the likes of Temu is dangerous).

👉 Apple are the evil Big Brother on this.

Is Apple defending its hard won competitive positioning? Of course

No, they are not.
Particularly not in the instance of music streaming - where they're competing with Spotify.

Apple have taken the "easy" way, the anticompetitive way on competing in music streaming. By not paying commissions on in-app subscriptions. And even having the audacity to solicit trial subscriptions in the operating systems Settings app. While at the same time denying Spotify even the most basic means to communicate offers and refer to subscription options in their app (unless they pay an outrageous 30% for what basically amounts to payment processing for them - a huge competitive disadvantage).

👉 Apple's stance (in this particular case) absolutely is malicious on this. They are acting spiteful. They deserve the disparagement and demonisation.

 

[AppliedMicro]

PS:
Does Spotify have very principled and ethical management and leadership?
I honestly don't know.

(Side note: Whereas with Sweeney, I get the impression, he's not only doing this for money. He gives me some "justice warrior vibes and I see him acting at least partly out of personal conviction)

I'm not saying that Spotify are fighting this fight out of the goodness of their heart.
Of course it's about money and market share.

I guess it is also debatable if Spotify are compensating music artists fairly - or devaluing the value of the artists' creations.
And certainly an argument can be made that they have controlling market share in music streaming. That artists are "forced" to be present on Spotify when competing for mind share and making a name for themselves. And in turn make public appearances (concerts) and their art viable as a business - or even just sustainable.
You can also argue whether Spotify themselves should be regulated as a "gatekeeper" in the music business.

👉 But in the end, these are separate discussions.

Spotify are just big enough to publicly challenge Apple on this.
Their product is popular enough to provoke an outcry if Apple were to remove it from its App Store.
And popular enough to be (kind of) be sustainable without offering in-app purchase options.

 

[M3gatron]

But it does impact me. Apple has to spend engineering resources that could be better spent elsewhere supporting additional app stores, dealing with inevitable edge cases and bugs, etc. Those resources would be better spent making new features and improving existing ones, rather than supporting some idiotic bureaucrat’s belief that they can make Apple “open” like android while not impacting the safety and security of the platform.

And who is to say that apps I rely on don’t decide to only be listed in an alternate App Store? Say my bank or medical provider wants to use a feature Apple doesn’t allow. It’s not that far-fetched. Remember current-c? The retailers didn’t want to support Apple Pay. Thank god Apple closed down the NFC chip or else we’d need to use a different payment app at every store.

And what bugs haven't been fixed? or what features were delayed because Apple(a huge company) needed to spend a minuscule faction of their resources to comply with a law? Do you at least have an idea?

And iOS is becoming more and more like Android each year anyway. This year we will see the total shift to advanced AI, just like Android and most important and relevant iOS 18 features will be features that already existed on Android(just like iOS 16 and 17 did, https://www.theverge.com/23319739/apple-iphone-ios-16-android-features-google-apps-comparison, https://smartphones.gadgethacks.com...7-features-apple-copied-from-android-0385386/).


Edit. This is quite comical: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...o-bring-gemini-ai-features-to-iphone.2422190/
Next AI Powered Google features will be integrated into iOS 🤣

 

[bgillander]

PS:
Does Spotify have very principled and ethical management and leadership?
I honestly don't know.

(Side note: Whereas with Sweeney, I get the impression, he's not only doing this for money. He gives me some "justice warrior vibes and I see him acting at least partly out of personal conviction)

I'm not saying that Spotify are fighting this fight out of the goodness of their heart.
Of course it's about money and market share.

I guess it is also debatable if Spotify are compensating music artists fairly - or devaluing the value of the artists' creations.
And certainly an argument can be made that they have controlling market share in music streaming. That artists are "forced" to be present on Spotify when competing for mind share and making a name for themselves. And in turn make public appearances (concerts) and their art viable as a business - or even just sustainable.
You can also argue whether Spotify themselves should be regulated as a "gatekeeper" in the music business.

👉 But in the end, these are separate discussions.

Spotify are just big enough to publicly challenge Apple on this.
Their product is popular enough to provoke an outcry if Apple were to remove it from its App Store.
And popular enough to be (kind of) be sustainable without offering in-app purchase options.

Sorry, but the bolded parts just seem rather contradictory to me. As you said, they are separate discussions, but I didn’t think “justice warriors” were just about justice for themselves. That does sound very 2024, though, so guess I should just accept it. Bah, reality is truly broken these days.

 

[AppliedMicro]

As you said, they are separate discussions, but I didn’t think “justice warriors” were just about justice for themselves.

To be clear, I believe Sweeney is not just doing it for themselves (Epic),

He strikes me as fighting for principles and out of personal conviction (whether you agree with him or not) at least as much.

Spotify on the other hand… yeah, they’re principally doing it out of self-interest IMO.

 

[bgillander]

To be clear, I believe Sweeney is not just themselves (Epic),
He strikes me as fighting for principles and out of personal conviction (whether you agree with him or not) at least as much.

Spotify on the other hand… yeah, they’re doing it out of self-interest IMO.

That wasn't the bolded part I found contradictory to "justice warrior". This was:

I guess it is also debatable if Spotify are compensating music artists fairly - or devaluing the value of the artists' creations.
And certainly an argument can be made that they have controlling market share in music streaming. That artists are "forced" to be present on Spotify when competing for mind share and making a name for themselves. And in turn make public appearances (concerts) and their art viable as a business - or even just sustainable.
You can also argue whether Spotify themselves should be regulated as a "gatekeeper" in the music business.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That wasn't the bolded part I found contradictory to "justice warrior"

To (again) clarify: with “justice warrior“ vibes above, I was referring only to (Epic’s) Tim Sweeney. Not to Spotify.

So I don’t see a contradiction.

 

[wbeasley]

• Did Apple create the platform? Yes.
• Was it innovative and has it been useful for the lives of hundreds of millions? Yes.
• Did and do they deserve to be compensated for that? Absolutely (and they were and are)
• Do they deserve to be compensated for in-app purchases? Surely, if done through their system.
• Is a centralised, single App Store provided bwith review processes beneficial for consumers, consumer trust and protection? Certainly.

But...

• Do Apple deserve to regulate and prohibit the content of applications down to information provided? On a platform that serves millions of people with few alternatives (de facto Android and the Play Store?). Prohibit mere words and links that developers may want put into their apps, or even just email communication with users. 👉 Flipping NO!
• Does that have anything to do with innovation? No.
• Does that have anything to do with protection of users? No.

We're not talking anything dangerous or illegal here. We're about talking about a trusted global brand.they can make in-app purchases using their credit cards just fine in tons of other apps, and I'm sure some of the stuff from the likes of Temu is dangerous).

👉 Apple are the evil Big Brother on this.


No, they are not.
Particularly not in the instance of music streaming - where they're competing with Spotify.

Apple have taken the "easy" way, the anticompetitive way on competing in music streaming. By not paying commissions on in-app subscriptions. And even having the audacity to solicit trial subscriptions in the operating systems Settings app. While at the same time denying Spotify even the most basic means to communicate offers and refer to subscription options in their app (unless they pay an outrageous 30% for what basically amounts to payment processing for them - a huge competitive disadvantage).

👉 Apple's stance (in this particular case) absolutely is malicious on this. They are acting spiteful. They deserve the disparagement and demonisation.

Actually you are wrong.

Apple don’t allow game emulators (that aren’t from rights holders) because it is illegal to run games from pirated ROMs. Full stop.

Vaping apps were removed because of health authority warnings after deaths. Apple could be seen as complicit by allowing apps.

Apple, like Disney, is allowed to allow content that meets their code. Dating apps and porn are a fine line of where they tread a grey line which annoys both sides. Some Disney viewers object to the odd swear word while others are ok. It’s not about moral guardians. It’s about what protects the business name.

 

[bgillander]

To (again) clarify: with “justice warrior“ vibes above, I was referring only to (Epic’s) Tim Sweeney. Not to Spotify.

So I don’t see a contradiction.

Sorry, my mistake. The total incongruity of Sweeney being thought of as a justice warrior just made me still not think of him even when you pointed it out. But it does bring me back to my theory that reality is broken and we are living in the upside down. The justice of "exclusives for me, but not for you!"

 

[jakey rolling]

You clearly have forgotten what installing software was like for normal people before iPhone, or maybe you weren’t alive/old enough for it. Apple’s approach to apps and the App Store ABSOLUTELY created massive values to developers.

On Mac? Installing software was (still is) largely downloading a .DMG file and dragging an icon from the image onto the Applications folder of the drive on to which you wanted to "install" said application. In some cases, there is an installer that runs and installs the application.

I’ll quote Steve Sinofski (who literally ran Windows, so not a die-hard Apple fan), who said it well better than I ever could:

LOL. ".DLL hell" is all anyone who has been around since the 90's needs to read to understand Steve's incredibly dated take on software installation. .DLL conflicts haven't been a significant problem on Windows since the DOS-based Windows era. That take is about as relevant as a Mac user complaining because he has to run Conflict Catcher to deal with misbehaving extensions.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

• But...
• Do Apple deserve to regulate and prohibit the content of applications down to information provided?

Yes. They should be within their rights to ban content that is illegal, immoral or tarnishes the brand.

• On a platform that serves millions of people with few alternatives (de facto Android and the Play Store?). Prohibit mere words and links that developers may want put into their apps, or even just email communication with users. 👉 Flipping NO!

Yes. Vote with your $$$. Obviously even the US agrees with this. However it’s no different than a product sold in a store that says buy it here cheaper.

• Does that have anything to do with innovation? No.

Agree.

• Does that have anything to do with protection of users? No.

Disagree.

We're not talking anything dangerous or illegal here. We're about talking about a trusted global brand.they can make in-app purchases using their credit cards just fine in tons of other apps, and I'm sure some of the stuff from the likes of Temu is dangerous).

👉 Apple are the evil Big Brother on this.

No they aren’t.

No, they are not.
Particularly not in the instance of music streaming - where they're competing with Spotify.

Spotify is a cry baby on this. They have a flawed business model and the EU is forcing apple to make changes and it won’t help Spotify.

Apple have taken the "easy" way, the anticompetitive way on competing in music streaming. By not paying commissions on in-app subscriptions. And even having the audacity to solicit trial subscriptions in the operating systems Settings app. While at the same time denying Spotify even the most basic means to communicate offers and refer to subscription options in their app (unless they pay an outrageous 30% for what basically amounts to payment processing for them - a huge competitive disadvantage).

👉 Apple's stance (in this particular case) absolutely is malicious on this. They are acting spiteful. They deserve the disparagement and demonisation.

Okay.

 

[surferfb]

On Mac? Installing software was (still is) largely downloading a .DMG file and dragging an icon from the image onto the Applications folder of the drive on to which you wanted to "install" said application. In some cases, there is an installer that runs and installs the application.

And every time I visit my father and he asks me to look at his computer he has a bunch of .dmg files mounted on his desktop that he hasn't ejected. Normal users absolutely get confused by installing software that doesn't come from the App Store.

If you can't see that the App Store made it much easier for normal users to install (and, more importantly feel comfortable paying for) software I don't know what to tell you.

 

[jakey rolling]

And every time I visit my father and he asks me to look at his computer he has a bunch of .dmg files mounted on his desktop that he hasn't ejected. Normal users absolutely get confused by installing software that doesn't come from the App Store.

If that's the case, I shudder to think of how many unused apps your father has installed on his iPhone as well then. This doesn't really say anything other than "people who don't know what they're doing install lots of useless stuff on their machines".

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple don’t allow game emulators (that aren’t from rights holders) because it is illegal to run games from pirated ROMs. Full stop.

Vaping apps were removed because of health authority warnings after deaths. Apple could be seen as complicit by allowing apps.

Game emulators aren't illegal (unless they contain proprietary code from others), neither is vaping.

Yes. They should be within their rights to ban content that is illegal, immoral or tarnishes the brand.

In-app subscriptions for global brands like Spotify don't tarnish Apple's brand.

Obviously even the US agrees with this. However it’s no different than a product sold in a store that says buy it here cheaper.

The U.S. (so far) agrees that Apple's anti-steering provision is illegal.
So does the E.U., where Apple have been fined for it.

Disagree

How so?
You can make in-app purchases/bookings in tons of apps - with your credit card and without Apple's involvement?
Prohibiting Spotify from doing it doesn't protect users any more than in any other app.

They have a flawed business model

What does Apple have then, with Apple Music?
They charge the same as Spotify but (supposedly) pay more to artists.

How is that not flawed?

 

[jakey rolling]

Yes. They should be within their rights to ban content that is illegal, immoral or tarnishes the brand.

What other kind of "illegal" or "immoral" content should Apple ban, then?

- Maybe a new ride-share app that helps women find birth control or reproductive care outside of states where such things are illegal?

- Maybe a new app to help people shop the web for weed or sex toys or questionable aftermarket car parts?

- Maybe e-book readers that dare offer up titles like "The Scarlet Letter" or "The Handmaid's Tale" or "50 Shades of Grey" or "The Satanic Verses" or "Shoeless Joe" or even "Mein Kampf" or "The Communist Manifesto?" Maybe only some of those?

- Maybe Apple should ban users from accessing sites like Vetusware or WinworldPC or Emulation.Net or Archive.Org or Napster.com or 2600.com?

- Maybe Apple should ban users from using terminal emulation software to log into old BBS's and download warez or pron?

 

[I7guy]

What other kind of "illegal" or "immoral" content should Apple ban, then?

- Maybe a new ride-share app that helps women find birth control or reproductive care outside of states where such things are illegal?

- Maybe a new app to help people shop the web for weed or sex toys or questionable aftermarket car parts?

- Maybe e-book readers that dare offer up titles like "The Scarlet Letter" or "The Handmaid's Tale" or "50 Shades of Grey" or "The Satanic Verses" or "Shoeless Joe" or even "Mein Kampf" or "The Communist Manifesto?" Maybe only some of those?

Maybe an app that promotes bad things? Bad ideas? Etc. I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out some of those.

- Maybe Apple should ban users from accessing sites like Vetusware or WinworldPC or Emulation.Net or Archive.Org or Napster.com or 2600.com?

Through safari?

- Maybe Apple should ban users from using terminal emulation software to log into old BBS's and download warez or pron?

Possibly that’s a good use case for banning an app.

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

Hmmm .. that’s a lot of machination. Why is it so hard to admit the simple fact that the iPhone was essential to Spotify‘s development and success?

Because it wasn't?

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

Hopefully not good. It would be better if Spotify received an email from Apple stating something like "well, we were about to approve your app update. But since you complained publicly, you will be sent to the back of the queue. Have a nice day."

Yea, act more like a petty child, great reaction 🙄

 

[mcnallym]

Yea, act more like a petty child, great reaction 🙄

pretty standard behaviour.

you goto any IT support person and when they got a list of 20 tickets and 1 of them is for a person who has annoyed them, whose ticket gets looked at last?

same as how the people that phone in get a response quicker then those that log it via portal and wait. Support person will deal with the person that on the phone with them.

is just normal human behaviour

 

[mcnallym]

duplicate pose deleted

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

There’s so much that’s wrong with this statement. Developers choose Apple because of distribution (to a market of 2B+ devices). That’s why Spotify chose them in the first place. Now that they’ve become successful they want to demolish the agreement they signed for their own benefit and to the detriment of the vast majority of users and other developers.

What a ridiculous statement, Apple didn't have 2b+ devices in 2008 and to say that this is the reason, is horsecrap 🙄