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

[recoil80]

Current model is ok for an indie developer or for a small company, as you give away 30% of the profit but don't have the hassle related to payments.
Companies like Netflix, Amazon and even Spotify should be able to get a private deal with Apple. Once the volume of purchases goes above a certain limit it would be reasonable to ask for a smaller fee instead of 30%. It isn't a good user experience to be forced to make the purchase outside the app to save money

 

[whoisyourdaddy]

Apple charging the same percentage for one-time purchase and continual subscription based software models is unfair. If it can be proven that Apple created an advantage over competitor subscription pricing by the Apple payment collection system in the App Store, then I would believe it helps out many others and not just Spotify. I would believe that if sales of the subscription were limited or eliminated because of Apple's choice to only allow them through the App Store and not via the app, then this is a great argument. Especially, if it can be proven that this created an anti-competitive software model on the platform. I believe Apple has an argument about Qualcomm creating an anti-competitive pricing model for licensing and/or purchasing their technology. /s

 

[ersan191]

If Apple allowed 3rd party app stores I feel like 99% of users would just continue to use the official one. The majority of people who use them on Android are doing it for piracy reasons or to circumvent Play Store restrictions anyway.

 

[FreshBoy]

There is an easy fix for Spotify. Make their app available in their own App Store that they run and develop.

Haha and then you can download the Spotify App Store app on the App Store on your iPhone.

 

[Madmic23]

Why do people not understand, what the 30% is for? Apps like Amazon that are free and allow you to purchase items do not require the 30%, because you are not required to purchase something. With Spotify you have to pay the monthly subscription in order for the app to work. Apple has to process that payment every month. It's like AMEX charging the store a fee when you use your card. Apple just chose a higher fee. If you don't like it, have people sign up on your website. MANY, MANY companies do this. Work Smart, Not Hard.

But Apple doesn’t have to be the one processing the payment. If you buy something from the Amazon app, Apple doesn’t process that. Why should they force users to pay for Spotify with an in app purchase? Sure, it makes sense to just sign-up through the Spotify website, but Apple doesn’t allow them to put a link to their website in the app.

Same goes for Kindle books. If you have the Kindle app, you should be able to make purchases through the app with your Amazon account, but that is totally banned due to this anti-competitive practice.

I’m almost surprised I can buy things using the Chrome browser on random websites on my iPhone without giving Apple 30%

 

[cycomiko]

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.

Will never purchase apple music. Spotify is far better.

 

[linuxcooldude]

It reminds me when Google maps didn't allow for turn by turn directions on the iPhone, but worked perfectly fine on Android. Instead of running to regulators, Apple replaced the default Google maps with Apple maps and then Google finally added that feature. Start innovating and competing rather than running to regulators.

 

[ggibson913]

Apple has nearly a monopoly on U.S. smartphone revenue (including actual purchases on Apps made by U.S. folks). Is there really anywhere for U.S. smartphone app developers to go other than iOS? I do think this is a real issue and I suspect it is getting worse as U.S. becomes even more entrenched in the iOS ecosystem.

What?!? Android is at least as strong in the US as iOS and more popular world wide. Honestly I agree, Apple is under no obligation to host Spotify for free. Spotify could lower the subscription costs to the same 9.99 as their website charges and pay apple the 30%. Plus Apple doesn't force consumers to purchase a subscription on their platform, you are perfectly free to subscribe on the Spotify web site.

 

[icanhazmac]

Apple Music is great unless you actually have an offline itunes library with thousands and thousands of songs. Then it becomes a cluster**** of confusion. Spotify for the win.

Can you elaborate on this? Is the local library only a problem for AM? Does spotify ignore your library? I currently use both spotify and pandora free versions and have found no reason to pay for any service. How I might differ is that I do not have my itunes library on my phone.

 

[apocalyarts]

Spotify has a point here. And I bet they are not targeting the App Store guidelines in general. They clearly have Apple Music in mind, a direct competitor where the 30% fee on subscriptions is not applied.

I remember the 30% thing being an issue for Netflix as well and they removed the subscription option from their iOS app. As Apple does not have a competitor product for Netflix they did not interfere. With Spotify however they deliberately make it harder for them to offer a great user experience and ignore complaints, because they probably could move many iOS-Spotify-Users to Apple Music if they locked out Spotify.

Oh, and this one is for the fanboys:
- Spotify was there first, duh.
- Apple Music sucked when it came out (the UI!)
- Spotify is more diverse with a lot of K-Pop, Video Game Soundtracks and Indie Artists
- I have my playlists there that took hours of work and I am not going to do this again on Apple Music.

So please let's just not get down the "Apple Music is better anyways, lol"-road here, shall we?

 

[ugahairydawgs]

Yes but their problem isn't that they can simply charge membership outside the app, the problem is that by having to do that, they are saying Apple is therefore punishing them by not allowing Spotify to play through the watch and Homepod, and otherwise minimizing their existence in the Apple ecosystem.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with Spotify here though. Understanding that streaming Spotify through a Homepod requires some sort of agreement with Apple, I would think (perhaps naively) that Spotify and Apple could craft a homepod-streaming agreement that has nothing to do with signing up through the app, without having to sue in order to get there.

Apple is not obliged to build hardware for Spotify’s software. Spotify can get to the HomePod and Watch the same way everyone else does...through AirPlay and (in the case of the watch) it’s own app.

 

[dona83]

Apple Music has a superior playlist of new music from abroad, like Vietnamese and Japanese pop. I wouldn’t consider Spotify or any others for this reason

 

[cycomiko]

Why do people not understand, what the 30% is for? Apps like Amazon that are free and allow you to purchase items do not require the 30%, because you are not required to purchase something. With Spotify you have to pay the monthly subscription in order for the app to work. Apple has to process that payment every month. It's like AMEX charging the store a fee when you use your card. Apple just chose a higher fee. If you don't like it, have people sign up on your website. MANY, MANY companies do this. Work Smart, Not Hard.

On spotify I can use the app with zero dollars invested.

On Uber, I cannot make use of it without spending money.

Why doesnt uber have to front up 30%

 

[sblemmy]

This looks a lot like the anti-trust suit against Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows back in the 90s. If I recall, Microsoft lost that case, and I think they had to give users the option to install IE or competitor browsers when setting up Windows. It seems that this case could follow similar precedence.

 

[Enlightened Doggo]

I'm not a lawyer, but Apple's arrangement definitely appears to be a violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws here in the US. However, I'm even less familiar with EU law.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Just ban them all together. Whiny punks wanting to make money from Apple's App Store for free.

 

[realtuner]

I was thinking the other day that we haven’t heard from Ek in awhile. That entitled whiner was always complaining about The App Store.

He will lose this case. Look at Netflix, who only sells subscriptions outside the store. Why doesn’t he do that?

We know why - because it’s super easy for iOS users to subscribe through the App. This increases the number of paying Spotify users who buy subscriptions who might not otherwise buy one if they have to do it “the long way” (sign up outside the App).

This little baby wants his cake and to eat it too (access to the most valuable user base AND not have to pay for it).

 

[Wrong Turn]

Why do people bash either choice?
Competition is good for us customers, if you ask me, i'd like to see more music streaming services to ensure that they constantly work on quality, quantity, diversity and to lower prices.
I have no problem using any of the two, but Today i am leaning towards Spotify since their integration in the app to connect on my Sonos speakers makes it preferable.
Eho knows what i'll use in a couple of months, no Idea, i might move back to AM or Tidal.

 

[itr81]

“As an alternative, if Spotify chooses not to collect payments via the App Store, Ek notes that Apple "applies a series of technical and experience-limiting restrictions" on the company. Over time, this has also included "locking Spotify and other competitors out of Apple services such as Siri, HomePod, and Apple Watch."”

So the whole reason you can’t play Spotify through Siri, HomePod and the Apple Watch is because they didn’t want to pay the extra fees. You have to pay to play and play by set rules of store regardless who owns it. Spotify is complaining about things being unfair, that it has to charge more to make a profit and at the same time is asking Apple to take less profit..lol

Apple could easily say one day let’s stream everything for $1. If Apple wanted to play hard ball it could easily do that for next 5 yrs to kill competition because their is no regulation that keeps someone from under selling a service as long as the customer value is high or better than before.

 

[decafjava]

The whole 'data mining' capabilities of Spotify are great. I can't tell you how many new artists I've fallen in love with (many of them little-known) thanks to the feature that allows users to find artists similar to ones I already know.

AM has done the same for me, in spite of what another poster said about Apple Music being "95% Hip Hop/Rap" not true in my experience.

 

[cocky jeremy]

I'm not a lawyer, but Apple's arrangement definitely appears to be a violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws here in the US. However, I'm even less familiar with EU law.

Apple is far from the only company making phones or using an App Store. Spotify can go elsewhere. Nothing requires Apple to even let them on their App Store.

 

[realtuner]

Will never purchase apple music. Spotify is far better.

Both are good with each having a slight advantage in certain areas. To claim one is “far better” than the other is to lack objectivity.

 

[TwoBytes]

Hey, McDonalds.... I want a BK whopper sandwhich MY way.

 

[alex2792]

The 30% subscription cut is completely absurd and really should be investigated. It’s very obviously anticompetitive. Sure you can have the users sign up outside of the app thereby degrading the experience compared to Apple’s product, which is the whole point of this policy. I can MAYBE see an argument for the 30% app purchase cut since Apple can say that it’s there to cover hosting costs, but an in-app purchase costs Apple nothing.

 

[rjohnstone]

Sorry Spotify, Apple has no obligation to host your app on their store for free

None of the apps are hosted “for free” as you put it.
Part of the developer agreement is a fee paid to Apple that includes hosting the app for download.
Apple doesn’t host the services that run the app.
Without third party developers, the App Store would be pretty much useless.