Spotify Lauds $2 Billion EU Fine, Says Apple Has 'Muzzled' Streaming Music Services

[wbeasley]

I think you are deflecting. I would like to see any law that states that it is a legal requirement that a particular feature such as NFC that is available on the phone that is sold to customers be available to only one party and not to any other parties. It looked like that was what you were arguing. Was that not what you wanted?

you must hate AirDrop making it super easy for Apple device users being able to swap files then...

have a look at all the Bluetooth speakers and media players. Sony were the only ones using LDAC for a long time.
it was a selling point to use their media players and headphones/speakers. Apple still dont use it. Probably because Sony licence it and would want payment? How dare Sony LOL...

 

[Beautyspin]

you must hate AirDrop making it super easy for Apple device users being able to swap files then...

have a look at all the Bluetooth speakers and media players. Sony were the only ones using LDAC for a long time.
it was a selling point to use their media players and headphones/speakers. Apple still dont use it. Probably because Sony licence it and would want payment? How dare Sony LOL...

LDAC is free to use and is part of the Android open-source project. The reason why Apple is not using LDAC is not because it has to pay license but because it has some drawbacks.

The ultimate guide to Bluetooth headphones: LDAC isn't Hi-res

Sony’s LDAC has risen to popularity as the audiophile-grade Bluetooth codec. Can LDAC match the quality of wired 24-bit/96kHz Hi-Res audio?

www.soundguys.com

 

[wbeasley]

LDAC is free to use and is part of the Android open-source project. The reason why Apple is not using LDAC is not because it has to pay license but because it has some drawbacks.

The ultimate guide to Bluetooth headphones: LDAC isn't Hi-res

Sony’s LDAC has risen to popularity as the audiophile-grade Bluetooth codec. Can LDAC match the quality of wired 24-bit/96kHz Hi-Res audio?

www.soundguys.com

LDAC isnt hires (although Sony markets it that way) but it does use 3 times data when it works allowing better sound under ideal conditions. You can hear it.

so if it's open licence, Apple could just compile what they need to use it

 

[Jensend]

How Taylor Swift Saved Apple Music

She was seeing red, now the bad blood's gone

time.com

it was a while back so maybe some of you forgot how one artist changed Apple's paying for music...

From your linked article:

Apple announced it would indeed be paying artists for their music during the free period, if at a reduced rate (other streaming services have similar practices).

The New York Times, quoting Taylor Swift:

Mr. Cue said the company’s original plan was to pay a slightly higher royalty rate — at least 71.5 percent of the money it collects from sales, as opposed to the industry standard of about 70 percent — in exchange for the free trial.

All Apple did was sleight of hand, by renegotiating their contract so they'd pay less for paying subscribers and more for free trial subscriptions.

It's the equivalent of paying 10 + 40 instead of 0 + 50.
And you fell for for the trick.

 

[developer13245]

So your claim is that Family Sharing of purchased apps has harmed developers in some meaningful way?

You realize that for purchased apps there was no way to offer paid upgrades short of creating a whole new app, which is where subscriptions come in.

With subscriptions, users who *actively use* the app pay for ongoing development and maintenance.

And guess what — Family Sharing of a subscription is *optional* 🙀

In fact, a developer can have different subscription options, with only some supporting Family Sharing!

Amazing!

As for a new EU mobile dev, they’ll use their brain and use the iOS App Store 😂

Yes, Apple harmed paid apps with family sharing. My mistake was not realizing Apple never liked the paid app revenue model and targeted it for destruction from the very beginning. But they needed it to get started building the platform - once they were successful they sacrificed all apps that relied on the Paid App revenue model. Apple also harmed developers of purchased apps by never adding the option to offer paid upgrades like software had been sold since the beginning of the industry. [Again, speaking specifically about anti-trust issues: Apple is a hardware company and has never made a profit from selling software, yet they used their hardware revenue to harm software developers.] Lack of paid upgrades wasn't a huge issue during the first 5+ ish years of the app store because the platform was evolving and new customers were entering the market which drove new sales. As soon as that started to level off it wouldn't have been a problem because most established apps had "solidified" and didn't need much upgrades or maintenance. This was ok because experienced developers like me were working on new apps to bring to the platform and could survive on existing new app sales but Family sharing cut my revenue to almost exactly 3/5ths (-40%). The other issue was Apple began 100% curation which disadvantaged existing Paid apps that were functionally complete and didn't need as much continual updating as they did while the platform evolved. The App Store's agnostic "New Releases" / "Recently updated" list was gone, and so was any chance of being found by the App Store user.

The fact that Apple allows subscription options for family sharing, but forces it on Paid apps is just more proof Apple abuses their power as a "Gatekeeper" via their hardware revenue to harm the software industry. If not they would let developers opt out of Family Share for paid apps.

I shelved all my new app ideas almost 10 years ago. I make a living as a contract developer working on apps for other companies, under non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. My business model is to get paid regardless of whether or not a customer's app I develop makes any money. And the vast majority don't. It's hilarious how many times customers thought they were getting a "steal" because I only ever asked for cash and not any sort of equity stake for my work, because in most of those cases they went broke but I got paid!

I have a small set of my own apps in the store that I maintain mainly for my "street cred". Suckers come to be all the time with their stupid app ideas I know will not make them a penny. But I develop them anyway because I will make money doing it. I always deliver exactly what they want, no more, no less. The less I know about their business, the better, which works great because they always keep contractors at an arms length which is fine.

 

[wbeasley]

From your linked article:


The New York Times, quoting Taylor Swift:


All Apple did was sleight of hand, by renegotiating their contract so they'd pay less for paying subscribers and more for free trial subscriptions.

It's the equivalent of paying 10 + 40 instead of 0 + 50.
And you fell for for the trick.

i'd think Taylor Swift is more astute at business and deals than you are.

Apple also pay higher per stream rates than Spotify.
And dont have a free tier they rip rights holders off more with

And you fell for SPotify's tricks it seems...

 

[developer13245]

How Taylor Swift Saved Apple Music

She was seeing red, now the bad blood's gone

time.com

it was a while back so maybe some of you forgot how one artist changed Apple's paying for music...

I remember that quite well. Tim Cook kissed his first girl, right on her butt. Apple caved to her demands.

I didn't (and still don't) know anything about Swift's music but I understood she was a superstar in her industry and I'll always admire her has a person for how she stuck up for the "little people", while not being directly affected by Apple's bad behavior at the time.

This event IS an example of how Apple can make decisions to hurt markets. While Swift stood up for her entire industry, it was a unique effort. No one would expect other Software industry giants like Microsoft, Adobe, etc.. to challenge Apple on App Store diktats that harm small software developers because harming smaller companies works to the advantage of larger companies. Apple ends up crushing small companies so Microsoft, et al. doesn't have to.
Apple's hostile malfeasance is a win-win for the software industry giants.

 

[Patroclus]

I don’t understand what Spotify is complaining about.
Everyone knows about Spotify, especially the youth. They all use Spotify on their Iphone.
It’s not like Apple is preventing them to install Spotify.
Music is part of IOS. ok and?
Isn’t MS word, excel part of Windows?
Are there any Excel competitor out there?
What about Internet Explorer that Windows baked in their OS.
Did EU sue Windows for that?
I used to listen to Music. I think Spotify has better songs. Maybe I’ll go back to Music later.

 

[Jensend]

i'd think Taylor Swift is more astute at business and deals than you are.

Yes, that’s why I quoted her.

Apple also pay higher per stream rates than Spotify.

The rights holders get the same amount from a paid Spotify subscription as a paid Apple Music subscription.

And dont have a free tier they rip rights holders off more with

if the rights holders feel like they are being ripped off by the lower royalties of shuffle/radio play, the rights holders should change their royalties.

Apple has full control over App Store fees. They have no direct control over what the pay for music. The final decision is up to the record labels and the music licensing organizations they are members of.

And you fell for SPotify's tricks it seems...

I’m not a fan of Spotify. I don’t like that they pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Joe Rogan. Can you tell me how I’ve been fooled by Spotify?

 

[wbeasley]

I remember that quite well. Tim Cook kissed his first girl, right on her butt. Apple caved to her demands.

I didn't (and still don't) know anything about Swift's music but I understood she was a superstar in her industry and I'll always admire her has a person for how she stuck up for the "little people", while not being directly affected by Apple's bad behavior at the time.

This event IS an example of how Apple can make decisions to hurt markets. While Swift stood up for her entire industry, it was a unique effort. No one would expect other Software industry giants like Microsoft, Adobe, etc.. to challenge Apple on App Store diktats that harm small software developers because harming smaller companies works to the advantage of larger companies. Apple ends up crushing small companies so Microsoft, et al. doesn't have to.
Apple's hostile malfeasance is a win-win for the software industry giants.

There are plenty of comments on here for sole coders writing apps who are very happy paying 30% or 15% for the work.

 

[treacher]

That's a lot of developers.

 

[Abazigal]

This lawsuit is going to drag out for years at least.

 

[wbeasley]

So some comments on a pro-Apple site = ALL developers? 🤣🤣🤣

that stretch of what i wrote is even a long one for you.

you were funnier when you wrote untagged sarcastic posts

 

[Beautyspin]

LDAC isnt hires (although Sony markets it that way) but it does use 3 times data when it works allowing better sound under ideal conditions. You can hear it.

so if it's open licence, Apple could just compile what they need to use it

They do not want to use LDAC because it is not good enough. Even OnePlus seems to be not using it.

 

[wbeasley]

They do not want to use LDAC because it is not good enough. Even OnePlus seems to be not using it.

but its better than SBC which is an awful fallback standard

 

[I7guy]

Spotify may have been first, but imo they have an inferior product to Apple Music.

 

[webkit]

If I were a retailer that product would never make it onto my shelves. Why would I sell something that directs my customers to leave and buy elsewhere?

The shop displaying the ink with that packaging should know they are doing themselves a long term disservice and pushing retail customers away.

We had a distribution company and distributors in each state,
Some were reluctant to handout our quarterly newsletters because it had our Head Office contact details on them fearing their customers would buy direct from us.

We had a policy to steer customers to their local distributor unless they had issues and wouldnt buy from them.

My basic point was that it's not unheard of for companies to advertise alternative ways to buy or subscribe to their products on/in the packaging found at retail stores. It's not quite as outrageous of a request as some seem to think. Content providers like newspapers and magazines have long routinely included ads or inserts in their products at stores that promote ways to subscribe instead of having to buy from the store then or going forward.

 

[Mother Nature]

Developers would gladly distribute their apps from their own servers -or- would welcome distribution via other app stores, which is true competition. Innovative competition could also motivate improvements in Apple's own app stores.

Apple curates all App Store content so if it wasn't in Apple's best interest to put Spotify on the front page then it wouldn't be there.

Apple is a hardware platform company and has never made a profit on selling software, yet they believe they can dictate how the entire software industry makes money. $99 per year is overcharging, the cost should be zero. Apple's job is to constantly build/update a platform that developers want to write apps for. This drives hardware sales which is how Apple makes money.

Also, the EU is just getting started. They've been reaching out to small U.S. developers to get information on how the App Store is harming both developers and their customers. I've had apps in the store since 2008 and have now been contacted twice. It's mainly just survey type information and they're clear the EU won't pursue any direct action for specific developers (take it to your own court system). Seems they're looking for general themes to pursue. Call it a fishing expedition if you want but the EU is a bureaucratic machine, might as well help them keep the teeth in Apple's behind.

Apple is able to dictate what software can be executed on their devices, what can be developed (frameworks, APIs, etc), distributed or banned because it's their hardware, their OS and their brand.

People think that Apps made iPhone what it is but actually the first generations of iPhone didn't even have the App Store (and the ecosystem) as a selling point, yet, it was a product that drove interest from people. So you shouldn't assume that Apple just needs to develop more frameworks for developers for free as developers work for Apple platforms because their users are more willing to spend money, when I used Android I never started any suscription, since I've been using Apple I have at least 5 subscriptions.

The App Store and Apple are trusted, some people and some developers don't even trust Android because Apps can be easily pirated, still in 2024.

The E.U. seems to be biased regarding Spotify

 

[AlmightyKang]

Been following this for a bit. Disclaimer: one of the three day jobs is working on analytical investment models.

If you look at Spotify's P&L for the last few quarters, they haven't actually managed to make any money. In fact they are driving the business down the toilet pretty hard. At best they have reduced losses. This is obviously not sustainable. So the last time they reduced losses were because they increased prices, which caused further losses as people cancelled subscriptions. They drove up subscription revenue via spending on advertising. This doesn't even close the gap. Here's the plot from Statista

So what are their options on the floor here. Well they pulled ALL of them in 2023 and managed to actually not make a loss for one entire quarter in 2023. Here's what they did:

• Increase subscription costs. They already did that which was very unpopular.
• Drive advertising. They have reached saturation there.
• Cut costs. They already blew 1500 people out.

It's a crawling rotting corpse of a business. That leaves only one outcome:

• Make a big poo poo about their competitors to drive customers towards them.

And here we are today. While some of what they are saying is accurate, if anyone thinks this is anything more than a corporation trying to break a market because they are utterly failing as a business then you're clearly deluded.

They literally have no options left.

Ultimately they will die because the streaming business is a complete bubble. Only companies with other capital to leverage can enter this market.

 

[Analog Kid]

Been following this for a bit. Disclaimer: one of the three day jobs is working on analytical investment models.

If you look at Spotify's P&L for the last few quarters, they haven't actually managed to make any money. In fact they are driving the business down the toilet pretty hard. At best they have reduced losses. This is obviously not sustainable. So the last time they reduced losses were because they increased prices, which caused further losses as people cancelled subscriptions. They drove up subscription revenue via spending on advertising. This doesn't even close the gap. Here's the plot from Statista

View attachment 2356154

So what are their options on the floor here. Well they pulled ALL of them in 2023 and managed to actually not make a loss for one entire quarter in 2023. Here's what they did:

• Increase subscription costs. They already did that which was very unpopular.
• Drive advertising. They have reached saturation there.
• Cut costs. They already blew 1500 people out.

It's a crawling rotting corpse of a business. That leaves only one outcome:

• Make a big poo poo about their competitors to drive customers towards them.

And here we are today. While some of what they are saying is accurate, if anyone thinks this is anything more than a corporation trying to break a market because they are utterly failing as a business then you're clearly deluded.

They literally have no options left.

Ultimately they will die because the streaming business is a complete bubble. Only companies with other capital to leverage can enter this market.

Nothing they're arguing against Apple helps them in any way. They've got access to non-Apple app stores in the EU, I doubt that will make a difference. People know what Spotify is and how to get it already-- being able to say "go to our website to subscribe" is simply redundant.

I don't think their behavior here is going to drive anyone toward them, though I probably underestimate how many people like to do things simply to spite a perceived enemy. Spite probably isn't a long term business plan though...

To me, this looks like a management team playing victim to hide their own failures. "It's not fair!" Would love to see their revenue and subscriber breakdown by platform. I couldn't find anything.

So the last time they reduced losses were because they increased prices, which caused further losses as people cancelled subscriptions.

I don't see the subscription loss in the data you show. Rate of growth seems to have slowed in late Q4 2020 though.

 

[AlmightyKang]

Nothing they're arguing against Apple helps them in any way. They've got access to non-Apple app stores in the EU, I doubt that will make a difference. People know what Spotify is and how to get it already-- being able to say "go to our website to subscribe" is simply redundant.

Actually it does. Discrediting your competitors loudly is a very good way of driving users to other platforms and to stop people transitioning to platforms where they are not the obvious first choice. The buzz is what does it. And this has been used for years one way or another. Watch their Q2 earnings report.

I don't think their behavior here is going to drive anyone toward them, though I probably underestimate how many people like to do things simply to spite a perceived enemy. Spite probably isn't a long term business plan though...

It's terrible. I worked in the manipulation industry (not advertising - this is more nefarious) naively for a couple of years. You can throw money into anything and get the desired outcome if you have enough money to do so. If you think of creating a partisan argument and dividing it into thirds, you have two immovable thirds and one fluid third. The fluid third is prime for marketing to so they move to your third. That is done via direct advertising, paying influencers, news agencies and lobbying.

To me, this looks like a management team playing victim to hide their own failures. "It's not fair!" Would love to see their revenue and subscriber breakdown by platform. I couldn't find anything.

They won't issue that publicly. You can buy it the data.

I don't see the subscription loss in the data you show. Rate of growth seems to have slowed in late Q4 2020 though.

Yeah it's not published there. There's a meta-report we bought which covers it. There is a net growth but this is only if you consider (gain - loss). 2023 had a huge loss due to the general collapse of streaming. The gains were only made up from driving new business in.

User turnover is a bad thing. Also worth noting that their revenue per user is declining over time as well.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

Suckers come to be all the time with their stupid app ideas I know will not make them a penny. But I develop them anyway because I will make money doing it.

I can see why you hate Apple so much — good job “developer13245”, you’re killing it!

 

[Chuckeee]

Been following this for a bit. Disclaimer: one of the three day jobs is working on analytical investment models.

If you look at Spotify's P&L for the last few quarters, they haven't actually managed to make any money. In fact they are driving the business down the toilet pretty hard. At best they have reduced losses. This is obviously not sustainable. So the last time they reduced losses were because they increased prices, which caused further losses as people cancelled subscriptions. They drove up subscription revenue via spending on advertising. This doesn't even close the gap. Here's the plot from Statista

View attachment 2356154

So what are their options on the floor here. Well they pulled ALL of them in 2023 and managed to actually not make a loss for one entire quarter in 2023. Here's what they did:

• Increase subscription costs. They already did that which was very unpopular.
• Drive advertising. They have reached saturation there.
• Cut costs. They already blew 1500 people out.

It's a crawling rotting corpse of a business. That leaves only one outcome:

• Make a big poo poo about their competitors to drive customers towards them.

And here we are today. While some of what they are saying is accurate, if anyone thinks this is anything more than a corporation trying to break a market because they are utterly failing as a business then you're clearly deluded.

They literally have no options left.

Ultimately they will die because the streaming business is a complete bubble. Only companies with other capital to leverage can enter this market.

So is Spotify ultimate strategy is to get bought out by Apple?

 

[Abazigal]

So is Spotify ultimate strategy is to get bought out by Apple?

I don't really know right know what Spotify is planning after their lacklustre pivot into podcasting, but it looks increasingly likely that they will eventually wind up being acquired by some other tech giant. Just not Apple, who already has their own music streaming service, and Spotify's valuation has always struck me as being grossly inflated (for a company not making a profit at any rate).

 

[wbeasley]

My basic point was that it's not unheard of for companies to advertise alternative ways to buy or subscribe to their products on/in the packaging found at retail stores. It's not quite as outrageous of a request as some seem to think. Content providers like newspapers and magazines have long routinely included ads or inserts in their products at stores that promote ways to subscribe instead of having to buy from the store then or going forward.

And it’s not unheard of for retail shops to find it uncompetitive and protest.

Sony and Nintendo would both like games purchasers to download. Retail stores jacked up when it was clear they were being used to sell hardware and not make any cut of software.