Spotify Files Complaint Against Apple With European Regulators Over 'Unfair' App Store Practices

[lazard]

Think about all the products that do not support Apple Music, Tidal or Deezer.

Should there be a legal requirement if you support one service of a certain type, you have to support all?

They don't support Apple Music because Apple doesn't make it available to other platforms.

 

[Stella]

Here , Apple Music Android client:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.android.music&hl=en_CA

They don't support Apple Music because Apple doesn't make it available to other platforms.

 

[Smartass]

Wow cool. I’m happy for you that you like Spotify that much.

It's no that i like it THAT much, its just more natural and easier to use, easier and better search etc... Also one good feature that Apple music STILL odesnt have, is crossfading tracks. Why apple music doesnt have this in 2019 is beyond me.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

It’s def not just about payment processing. It’s about delivering customers, and what that is worth. All businesses set aside money for customer acquisition. Sometimes it’s a sales team, sometimes it’s advertising or marketing, etc. But whatever it is, it costs money to acquire customers. If someone comes to Spotify through Apple, what is that worth? Typically, retailers buy products wholesale and sell them for 20-50% more to make a profit. It is ABSOLUTELY F&%$#@! INSANE that all these people with zero business experience are whining that Apple should be delivering customers to other companies and not get compensated. Or get compensated at a rate they think is appropriate. Apple has created the best app marketplace in the world at great expense and effort, and it delivers tons of high quality customers with money to spend to app makers, and that is worth something. Companies need to figure out whether they think they can deliver as many customers to themselves via a website, sales, advertising, & PR for less than Apple would. If so, they should not use the Apple payment processing option. If not, then enjoy the massive number of customers the App Store is bringing them for only 30/15%.

The most concise and well seasoned response that shows someone who clearly has experience in the matter; and as usual it goes completely ignored because there is nothing to refute and fabricate to keep the Spotify account injectors spinning a yarn about their enslavement to Apple.

 

[Timemaster]

Apple spends an enormous amount making the App Store even possible: datacenters, APIs/Dev Tools, iOS, A chip processors, billing and customer infrastructure, fraud/malware detection, user ratings, customer acquisition and discovery, support for 15+ different languages, world wide distribution

It is stupidity to argue that Apple should only earn enough to cover credit card processing fees

The rate drops to 15% after one year. I assume most customers would be at that level over time for a subscription like Spotify

Last, Spotify DOES offer Apple Watch and iMessage and CarPlay apps. Spotify is enjoying the benefits of Apple expanding its platforms. For God’s sake, Apple has given them entry into the car

This lawsuit is bull ****

I do not think you understand how little money it really cost. The yearly cost of a 100 year developers pay apple covers all those cost and a healthy profit. Much less everything else.
FYI apple 100 a year for a developer is expensive. Those cost are dirt cheap for that entire list. Just when you start scaling it the cost get big but per developer is cost them pennies per year.

 

[erinsarah]

But they're not even that good at this ...

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/06/iphone-apps-screen-recordings-analytics/

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/12/adult-gambling-apps-abuse-apple-enterprise-program/

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/ios-apps-sending-private-data-to-facebook/

If Apple isn't succeeding at one of the primary reasons for having created the app store, what's the point of punishing consumers through all this anticompetitive behavior?

Hey, I said it was one of the REASONS... I didn’t say they succeeded

 

[TallManNY]

Apple doesn't have that many 1st party apps, so I don't think that would be an issue. There's no reason the security standards that currently apply to the App Store wouldn't continue if Apple's own apps were no longer available there and had to be downloaded somewhere else.

Security standards would continue, but some of the privacy aspects are likely always to be stronger in general in Apple Apps than in 3rd party.
[doublepost=1552580603][/doublepost]

Not a monopoly.

Not a monopoly, but I suspect people don't realize how lopsided things are in the U.S. If your target customer is someone upper middle class or more wealthy, I think you pretty much are targeting iOS in the U.S. and Android is an afterthought.
[doublepost=1552580692][/doublepost]

The audacity of them to claim that it's "time to play fair" is astounding. Even "government level," considering that they don't pay artists and are fighting the songwriter revenue thing.
[doublepost=1552483254][/doublepost]

BECAUSE APPLE PAYS DEVELOPERS, JUST LIKE THEY PAY MUSICIANS. JFC.

Yep. One of the reasons why I subscribe to Apple Music over Spotify is that I believe the musicians get a bigger cut from Apple than Spotify. Not sure if that is still true.
[doublepost=1552580873][/doublepost]

Last I checked, Apple is in third place behind Huwaii and Samsung. And the Google app store is a worthy alternative on those other platforms. That doesn't meet any kind of definition of a monopoly.

Not in the U.S., which is all I'm discussing here. Apple outsells both those manufacturers. But the key point is that App developers get more money from typical iOS users than Android users in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere, but in U.S. the iOS users are much higher percentage of smartphone users).

 

[ihackalot]

Of course, the Apple store is rigged. But Tim Apple owns the hardware, the OS, the content and the infrastructure. He calls the shots. If you don't like it go someplace else. Oh right.

It's rare to find opinions this level of stupidity. Unless you Tim Apple.

 

[hans1972]

Duopolies (in this case iOS and Android app stores) certainly are subject to anti-trust laws. Duopolies can very easily exhibit monopolistic behavior.
[doublepost=1552537837][/doublepost]

Well, now, apparently the EU holds even more power than Apple in this relationship.

Even if the Commissioner for Competition agrees with the complaint, it will probably take at least 2 years before anything happens.

When Opera filed a complaint against Microsoft in late 2007, an agreement was not reached until early 2010. And in that case Microsoft worked with the Commission and even proposed a compromise which was accepted.
[doublepost=1552585723][/doublepost]

What you said makes no sense.

Apple develops the first party music app for 3rd party products. I am pretty sure those 3rd parties would embrace Apple Music if Apple wanted to develop or an easy integration point for them.

I am sure Spotify would integrate with HomePod/Siri if allowed, but Apple is fearful of it possibly cannibalizing Apple Music

I am not talking about when both parties are willing, but when one party do not want to work together.

If Sonos makes a loudspeaker and they really want to have Spotify and Apple Music integration, should Spotify and Apple be required to work with Sonos, even if they don't want to?

What if Deezer and Tidal wants integration, but Sonos does not. Should Sonos by law be forced to work with Tidal and Deezer to integrate their music service?
[doublepost=1552586006][/doublepost]

They don't support Apple Music because Apple doesn't make it available to other platforms.

Yes, but should they be forced to support all music streaming services even if they don't want to?

Should a small music service like Deezer be able under law to force manufacturers to include them also?

 

[kyykesko]

The best thing Apple fans can do is response is cancel any Spotify subscriptions. Hopefully though, very few of us are giving money to Spotify anyway. Apple Music is superior in every way IMHO.

Yes, what better way to show you're a true FanBoy(tm). I'm sure they'll give you a badge you can proudly parade around with. Meanwhile the rest of us actually enjoy using our music player. Hint, it's name is not "Apple Music".

 

[Jdshewman]

https://uandthem.com/education/2019...attle-for-higher-royalty-payouts-cult-of-mac/


You obviously don't know many artists or musicians as they much prefer Apple. Spotify pays among the lowest payments to musicians, about half of what Apple pays them, and recently joined Google and Amazon in fighting a proposal to pay the musicians any higher rate. Apple, of course, did not and the groups representing musicians thanked Apple.

LOL, so you are saying Napster and Tidal are better than Apple or Spotify? What an artist gets paid for their discography and what app people use to listen to streaming music are completely separate. As I stated before, I love Apple products but their streaming service is convoluted and music is corporate driven.

 

[ipponrg]

I am not talking about when both parties are willing, but when one party do not want to work together.

If Sonos makes a loudspeaker and they really want to have Spotify and Apple Music integration, should Spotify and Apple be required to work with Sonos, even if they don't want to?

What if Deezer and Tidal wants integration, but Sonos does not. Should Sonos by law be forced to work with Tidal and Deezer to integrate their music service?

You still don't make any sense.

Sonos is a speaker. Tidal/Deezer are music services. Your comparisons aren't even addressing the main issue here.

Now going back to Apple. Apple has Apple Music and also has a platform for other 3rd party apps to work in their platform. There are laws around allowing and handicapping competitors in your sandbox. It's very similar to the Microsoft Windows / Internet Explorer court case in the 2000s.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I don't know. I don't add my offline music too spotify. I see them as two separate products. If I want to listen to my offline music, I choose iTunes (or other mp3 player). Radio? Spotify...

My Apple Music account takes all my old iTunes music (much of which are original recordings that aren’t available anywhere else) and seamlessly integrates it with their huge streaming catalogue via one streamlined interface. I love it.

Spotify has some great features but their lack of integration with existing libraries is a non-starter.
[doublepost=1552607121][/doublepost]

The most concise and well seasoned response that shows someone who clearly has experience in the matter; and as usual it goes completely ignored because there is nothing to refute and fabricate to keep the Spotify account injectors spinning a yarn about their enslavement to Apple.

Thanks for noticing. I try. And you are totally right about well reasoned posts being ignored while incendiary sound bites and hot takes made for short attention spans tend to get all the attention!

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

It’s def not just about payment processing. It’s about delivering customers, and what that is worth. All businesses set aside money for customer acquisition. Sometimes it’s a sales team, sometimes it’s advertising or marketing, etc. But whatever it is, it costs money to acquire customers. If someone comes to Spotify through Apple, what is that worth? Typically, retailers buy products wholesale and sell them for 20-50% more to make a profit. It is ABSOLUTELY F&%$#@! INSANE that all these people with zero business experience are whining that Apple should be delivering customers to other companies and not get compensated. Or get compensated at a rate they think is appropriate. Apple has created the best app marketplace in the world at great expense and effort, and it delivers tons of high quality customers with money to spend to app makers, and that is worth something. Companies need to figure out whether they think they can deliver as many customers to themselves via a website, sales, advertising, & PR for less than Apple would. If so, they should not use the Apple payment processing option. If not, then enjoy the massive number of customers the App Store is bringing them for only 30/15%.

I'll look over your post more when I have time to appropriately reply with my thoughts. Briefly, in my opinion, Apple doesn't own the customer nor the choices they make on the platform. The App Store is a marketplace that is regulated to not be used for anti-competitive or anti-trust measures by the primary controlling interest of that platform. There have been fines and investigations against other software/hardware companies who were the primary developer of that platform and owned all rights to the use of it. However, there are regulations in place which would prohibit exclusionary practices if it's deemed to inhibit or limit customer choice on that platform. So, my belief isn't so much about the high percentage, which I do disagree with, but that Apple prohibits some developers from collecting and/or being able to offer an alternative payment method through the app. It could be argued for privacy, security, etc. measures but there's no conducive proof that it is any more secure since the ability to subscribe through apps are offered on other platforms. I'm an AM subscriber but I've had Spotify, as well. A consideration I made to subscribe to AM instead of Spotify was partially influenced by the ability for me to have purchased a subscription through the app. If it affects my choice, then I'm sure it affects many, many others.

 

[MacDanF]

I have Spotify, as nothing to do with who as the best service, don’t know, never tried AM. But no way I would go with them, the first thing Aplle will do the day they Kill Spotify is raise prices by 50%.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I'll look over your post more when I have time to appropriately reply with my thoughts. Briefly, in my opinion, Apple doesn't own the customer nor the choices they make on the platform. The App Store is a marketplace that is regulated to not be used for anti-competitive or anti-trust measures by the primary controlling interest of that platform. There have been fines and investigations against other software/hardware companies who were the primary developer of that platform and owned all rights to the use of it. However, there are regulations in place which would prohibit exclusionary practices if it's deemed to inhibit or limit customer choice on that platform. So, my belief isn't so much about the high percentage, which I do disagree with, but that Apple prohibits some developers from collecting and/or being able to offer an alternative payment method through the app. It could be argued for privacy, security, etc. measures but there's no conducive proof that it is any more secure since the ability to subscribe through apps are offered on other platforms. I'm an AM subscriber but I've had Spotify, as well. A consideration I made to subscribe to AM instead of Spotify was partially influenced by the ability for me to have purchased a subscription through the app. If it affects my choice, then I'm sure it affects many, many others.

You don’t seem to be grasping the idea of the tremendous value Apple provides by delivering customers to app makers. It’s not Apple’s job to allow other companies to use their media space (the AppStore) to promote ways for people to pay so that Apple gets nothing.

In your way of thinking: Apple creates the world’s richest app marketplace, that delivers multitudes of customers to app makers, but they should get nothing in return and instead offer up free space within that AppStore so that these companies can instruct new customers on the easiest possible way to pay that avoids giving Apple a dime for the customer they just prospected and delivered? This makes no sense.

If someone discovers an app via the AppStore, Apple should be compensated for that. Period. Apple giving people a way to pay outside the AppStore is basically Apple doing free advertising, marketing, and prospecting for the app makers.

If these app makers want to spend reams of dough and time prospecting customers and driving them to sign up elsewhere, that is readily available for them to do.

This isn’t a difficult equation. If someone comes to an app via the AppStore and is ready to sign up and pay $, then Apple deserves a fee. If they come to the app via the web, or a TV or billboard ad, then Apple should receive nothing except for the maintenance fees they pay to be part of the store.

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

You don’t seem to be grasping the idea of the tremendous value Apple provides by delivering customers to app makers. It’s not Apple’s job to allow other companies to use their media space (the AppStore) to promote ways for people to pay so that Apple gets nothing.

In your way of thinking: Apple creates the world’s richest app marketplace, that delivers multitudes of customers to app makers, but they should get nothing in return and instead offer up free space within that AppStore so that these companies can instruct new customers on the easiest possible way to pay that avoids giving Apple a dime for the customer they just prospected and delivered? This makes no sense.

If someone discovers an app via the AppStore, Apple should be compensated for that. Period. Apple giving people a way to pay outside the AppStore is basically Apple doing free advertising, marketing, and prospecting for the app makers.

If these app makers want to spend reams of dough and time prospecting customers and driving them to sign up elsewhere, that is readily available for them to do.

This isn’t a difficult equation. If someone comes to an app via the AppStore and is ready to sign up and pay $, then Apple deserves a fee. If they come to the app via the web, or a TV or billboard ad, then Apple should receive nothing except for the maintenance fees they pay to be part of the store.

I understand that monies are to be made for using a platform. I am fairly certain that you don’t understand what it means to be so controlling over a platform that it tiptoes or crosses the line of being anti-competitive or making an anti-trust marketplace. There’s not a reason that a developer shouldn’t be allowed to provide in-app subscriptions to another payment processor and there coexist a means for Apple to also receive fair fees for the per-use. If it was fair originally, then Apple would have never changed the fee policy to include a reduction to 15%. This never existed for the better part of the App Store being offered. I enjoy Apple products and have many of them. However, most of your wording in your arguments are blindsided by a ridiculous faith in a tech company. Don’t be so foolish to exalt a company to some sort of religious status that they are infallible. No company owns the totality of the customer’s choices, even on their hardware/software platform nor has the full rights to obscure their fair decision making when considering their competitors.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

My Apple Music account takes all my old iTunes music (much of which are original recordings that aren’t available anywhere else) and seamlessly integrates it with their huge streaming catalogue via one streamlined interface. I love it.

Spotify has some great features but their lack of integration with existing libraries is a non-starter.
[doublepost=1552607121][/doublepost]
Thanks for noticing. I try. And you are totally right about well reasoned posts being ignored while incendiary sound bites and hot takes made for short attention spans tend to get all the attention!

Man, your luck with integrating libraries was WAAAAAAAAAY better than mine. However, I also am pulling back from the Apple ecosystem, so I didn't really try to solve the problem either.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I understand that monies are to be made for using a platform. I am fairly certain that you don’t understand what it means to be so controlling over a platform that it tiptoes or crosses the line of being anti-competitive or making an anti-trust marketplace. There’s not a reason that a developer shouldn’t be allowed to provide in-app subscriptions to another payment processor and there coexist a means for Apple to also receive fair fees for the per-use. If it was fair originally, then Apple would have never changed the fee policy to include a reduction to 15%. This never existed for the better part of the App Store being offered. I enjoy Apple products and have many of them. However, most of your wording in your arguments are blindsided by a ridiculous faith in a tech company. Don’t be so foolish to exalt a company to some sort of religious status that they are infallible. No company owns the totality of the customer’s choices, even on their hardware/software platform nor has the full rights to obscure their fair decision making when considering their competitors.

“Fairly certain I don’t understand”? That a huge assumption. The depth of my answers shows a deep and thorough understanding of this issue.

“Blindsided by a ridiculous faith”? Pure projection on your part. No specifics from you, only broad generalities and petty judgements.

It’s one thing to be ignorant of common business practices, it’s another to accuse the messenger who shares those fundamental practices with you of zealotry because you misinterpret their meaning and have an axe to grind, whether it needs grinding or not. Uncool.

So long.
[doublepost=1552674828][/doublepost]

Man, your luck with integrating libraries was WAAAAAAAAAY better than mine. However, I also am pulling back from the Apple ecosystem, so I didn't really try to solve the problem either.

My original library was pretty huge, and I never really had to do much. Just kinda worked. Sorry you had a tough time.

 

[mi7chy]

Apple "applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions"... Over time, this has also included "locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch."

Smart consumers side with Spotify on this. Not only is it anti-competition but also anti-consumer. Apple also does this with browsers by restricting Safari updates through iOS updates only and not allowing Safari to be updated through app store while gimping 3rd party browsers like Firefox and Chrome so they're merely wrappers around Safari's web engine. Apple does this to control the obsolescence of your device since you won't be able browse secure sites without browser updates. No other mainstream OS (Android, ChromeOS, Linux, BSD, MacOS) has that engineered for obsolescence restriction.

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

“Fairly certain I don’t understand”? That a huge assumption. The depth of my answers shows a deep and thorough understanding of this issue.

“Blindsided by a ridiculous faith”? Pure projection on your part. No specifics from you, only broad generalities and petty judgements.

It’s one thing to be ignorant of common business practices, it’s another to accuse the messenger who shares those fundamental practices with you of zealotry because you misinterpret their meaning and have an axe to grind, whether it needs grinding or not. Uncool.

So long.

Once Apple created a marketplace which allowed third-parties to engage in offering services or products, then they are bound to the same fair, trading rules imposed on everyone within that platform. Obviously, these are my opinions. But, my opinion is more accurately aligned with the truer meaning of a fair marketplace than yours.

 

[rhett7660]

Apple Music sucks IMHO, spotify is way better. The simple fact you're cheering for getting ripped off... You paid for the phone, but you're fine with Apple stifling competition that would give you cheaper services.

Should your ISP get 30% off Apples revenue? If Apple doesn't like it, they can launch their own network right?

MS got fined for pushing Internet Explorer over others and in their case you could install the competition, in Apple's case you can't even do that.

Last I heard, re: Microsoft, it was because at that point in time Micosoft had a monopoly on computers, 90%+ had MS Windows or was running Windows, and pushed their services only. Big difference when it comes apples to oranges comparison. Apple does not have a monopoly on any of it's products.

Also, you can install Spotify on your iOS device, no?

 

[TheDauterive]

Apple wants commission for sales. Seems fair. I give my existing clients discounts of up to 20% for a year if they refer new clients to me, because for me to go out and get new clients costs about that if not more.

But your existing clients have the option to go elsewhere, don't they? The main problem I have with the Apple tax is that Apple locks my device so that I can only install programs through the App Store. Allow me to install apps directly from the software publisher (like they 'allow' me to do on my Mac) and then the Apple tax will truly reflect the value Apple adds to the transaction for publishers who choose to distribute their software through the App Store.

 

[inkswamp]

Yes, they could go the web app route, but if they want a native app - it's a walled garden, period.

Web apps have their limitations vs Native apps and may not provide good enough user experience. Spotify may or may not have already explored this option.

The fact that they can go as a web app is proof that iOS isn't a walled garden. You're moving the goal posts. Again, my favorite weather app is the link I provided. They are fantastic and deliver their app without touching the App Store or Apple in any way.

Web apps do have limitations, but Apple provides a rich API for producing web apps that go beyond what can normally be done with HTML/JS/CSS.

https://medium.com/@firt/progressive-web-apps-on-ios-are-here-d00430dee3a7

There is absolutely no reason Spotify can't deliver their services this way. Again, they want all the benefits of the platform Apple has designed and built without paying for it. That's not how software works and it never will work that way.

Spotify is absolutely in the wrong on this. They need to develop their own delivery system or play by the rules of the systems they adopt. They have a choice. Whining will not change that.

 

[Stella]

Nope not moving the goal posts. Can’t imagine why you think I am. Native apps vs web apps. Sure - webapps is an alternative for some apps but not all.


I love that comparison of the weather app - LOL. Yes, it’s sad. Try like for like.

Absolutely no reason for a Spotify web app you say? Don’t you think Spotify have considered this option of web app? Probably can’t provide good enough experience.

Spotify can create a complaint against Apple - let’s see how it goes. Hopefully the EU will hand Apple its ass like it did last time in the tax dispute. Apple are absolutely in the wrong - yes IMO.

Spotify should be given the option of using apples in app payments or opting out, and allowing subscription links in their app.

Stating that webapps is proof of iOS not being a walled garden is a ****ing stretch - mental gymnastics at its best!

The fact that they can go as a web app is proof that iOS isn't a walled garden. You're moving the goal posts. Again, my favorite weather app is the link I provided. They are fantastic and deliver their app without touching the App Store or Apple in any way.

Web apps do have limitations, but Apple provides a rich API for producing web apps that go beyond what can normally be done with HTML/JS/CSS.

https://medium.com/@firt/progressive-web-apps-on-ios-are-here-d00430dee3a7

There is absolutely no reason Spotify can't deliver their services this way. Again, they want all the benefits of the platform Apple has designed and built without paying for it. That's not how software works and it never will work that way.

Spotify is absolutely in the wrong on this. They need to develop their own delivery system or play by the rules of the systems they adopt. They have a choice. Whining will not change that.