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

[jole]

Now it’s time for Spotify to step up and create an open 3rd party App Store for the EU and leave the iOS App Store FOREVER.

It will only cost them .50 per install per year.

And the loss of easy downloads from the actual App Store.

Oh, and they’d need some balls, so forget I said anything 😂😂😂

It is an awesome deal:

• Pay .50 more per app per year (compared to 0 that Spotify is paying at the moment)
• Being forced to host all other music apps in Spotify store (yes, that is the rule)
• Pay 0.50 per app per year even for the not-Spotify apps installed from their store
• Pay .50 per user per year for the app store app itself
• Only being able to serve EU with this
• Handle all the complaints from users who travel for longer than an unspecified "short" term - as their apps downloaded from Spotify store will stop updating

Apple devilishly made the alternative app stores very non-compelling. Kudos to Apple for pretty going around DMA. Lets see if EU is amused

 

[wbeasley]

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

whenever i contracted i would also inform the employer what i'd learned from previous work that worked and didnt.
in the end it is their decision but at least they made an informed one.

to just go with what's asked even when knowing it is wrong devalues the industry.
it's a whisker away from prostituting their skills for bucks. Or being a gun for hire.
wonder if professional indemnity would cover anyone acting like this if a claim was made against them?

 

[jimbobb24]

The comments are going to be full of praise for Spotify. A proud day for Europe and for the good people of Sweden. 🇸🇪 🎉

Yes it’s always good when countries and nations protect their businesses instead of their consumers or something…. Every nation does it.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

whenever i contracted i would also inform the employer what i'd learned from previous work that worked and didnt.
in the end it is their decision but at least they made an informed one.

to just go with what's asked even when knowing it is wrong devalues the industry.
it's a whisker away from prostituting their skills for bucks. Or being a gun for hire.
wonder if professional indemnity would cover anyone acting like this if a claim was made against them?

Naw, these guys are just “suckers” for contracting with this “developer” in the first place 😉

Family Sharing ruined the guy’s business 😂

 

[wbeasley]

Naw, these guys are just “suckers” for contracting with this “developer” in the first place 😉

Family Sharing ruined the guy’s business 😂

His ethics ruined his business. met his kind before when I contracted. they would always "fix things" but never showed you how they did it. knowledge is power. and if caught out and forced to leave, they knew they'd leave them high and dry. fortunately there are very few like that.

 

[developer13245]

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

Macs are an open system. iOS devices are a closed system. If Apple ever "closes" the Mac it will die.. period.

Your App Store history is not correct. The App Store "opened" in 2008 with a release of iOS2, which was backward compatible with the very first version of the iPhone. In fact, iOS 2 with the App Store released slightly before the 2nd iPhone (iPhone 3g), so the original iPhone had the App Store before any subsequent model.

You're the perfect example of ignorance that Apple creates by their emotional marketing brain rot. You believe the iPhone was some super successful platform that existed before developers were lured into some sort of gold mine to make money. You spew pure delusion. Apps made the iPhone and Apple knew it. Historical sales numbers prove this point. Once the platform was successful Apple through developers under the bus.

Apple also kissed up to developers when Apps came to the Apple TV. Free ($1) hardware, multiple developer seminars where you could access dev managers, marketing, etc.... Funny now that Apple can't give away Apple TV.

The Android platform sucked in the beginning so no one developed Apps and the platform suffered until Google improved it. I know two developers who had successful iOS apps that received direct funding from Google to port their apps to Android. They got red carpet treatment and were flown first class to Google headquarters regularly for meetings to give feedback to Google's Android SDK dev teams. Google even flew their entire their family down (wife, kids) for a longer trip. The wife took the kids on a holiday with a dedicated limo + driver and everything was expensed to Google. No Sheet.

Yes, the Apple App Store is trusted, which is a good thing. No one is saying it should be shut down. We only want alternatives so Apple has to compete.

 

[developer13245]

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

I've been an Apple developer since OS X was released (yay Unix) so I've seen a lot of Apple's garbage. Unfortunately some of it is hostile, especially toward small developers. Apple is very two faced and does NOT treat all developers fairly.

I've also worked as a contractor for large corporations (software). One of the most egregious things I saw Apple do is approve apps that normally would have been rejected due to app review policy violations.
A large company will have a direct contact at Apple. I witnessed a dev manager call their Apple contact to let them know an App was submitted for review and it was using a restricted API . The App was approved and in the store in 30 minutes. Contrast this to all the times I've seen apps from small developers rejected due to an App Review mistakes. It usually takes weeks to resolve the issue. Try submitting a paid app that implements StoreKit receipt validation and it will get rejected. The App Review testing "sandbox" does not issue valid store receipts so they cannot test paid apps - this is another example of how Apple shafts paid app monetization.

Apple somehow believes all developers exist in some "static" universe. The think once you're a small POS you'll always be a small POS and never see the "rarefied air" of large company or VC well funded privilege. It's beyond their capability to realize how a single developer will have visibility into their inconsistent treatment of different "classes" of developer. Yet they constantly lie through their crap eating grin about how they treat all developers equally. BS.

 

[developer13245]

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

No one is saying an App Store shouldn't make a commission. Developers are fully aware there are costs associated with App distribution.
We only want the choice to either bear those costs directly via direct distribution, or have the ability to distribute through a competing App Store, or stay with the Apple App Store. We iOS devices to be the same as the Mac, that is all. There is no technical reason for why this is not possible.

The existence of competition will also yield improvements in Apple's App Stores, which is a good thing.

 

[wbeasley]

No one is saying an App Store shouldn't make a commission. Developers are fully aware there are costs associated with App distribution.
We only want the choice to either bear those costs directly via direct distribution, or have the ability to distribute through a competing App Store, or stay with the Apple App Store. We iOS devices to be the same as the Mac, that is all. There is no technical reason for why this is not possible.

The existence of competition will also yield improvements in Apple's App Stores, which is a good thing.

But competition does exist and is good.

Android add features and Apple often adds them their way.
Same with Android: Android BEFORE the iPhone was very different. Once the app Store kicked in they no longer included Google aps as part of the OS.

This is the competition that has existed for 15 years. It works for consumers as neither OS wants to be left behind.

What you and other want is another OPEN OS. To do what you want. Not what consumers want. Consumers will buy Android devices and apps if they need that function.

 

[truthsteve]

Yes, for individual albums that were released when Apple began their music service and everyone was using their free trial at the same time, that may have been true. But years later, the trials will be more randomly distributed. Apple is paying the same average amount per customer that they would have been under the original terms.

signing up for Apple Music trial to listen to an album is a popular use case.

Again, do you believe Apple is voluntarily paying the rights holders more than they are required to?

there could be many reasons. what does my guess have to do with the fact that apple pays more royalties?

 

[truthsteve]

Even Adam Smith says that perfect free market has to be regulated ;-)

And?

you incorrectly asserted that I suggested oligopoly is not a free market. I didn't say that. I said there's an alternative that people can flock over to that has what they are particularly looking for.

you somehow think that something you believe to be the "dumbest policy" (your words) should suddenly be regulated despite the fact that you could easily buy into a non-Apple platform. 🤣

 

[truthsteve]

I have to respectfully disagree here.

1. you have no idea and no inside information thta Apple did NOT use anti-discovery and sterring practices against the Music streaming competition of Apple Music. This is critical before ANYONE makes any opinion on the matter.

2. Apple ALSO does NOT want to go Web Only
^ pretty assinine statement as nobody yet has proven proper Music playlist and songs to remain local on device, especially when cookies cache and local site data is cleared from a browser.

Where do you get the assumption regarding apple not deserving $ for front page or building developer tools? Clearly they've made an app and they can choose whatever dev tools they want and STILL submit to the App Store.

1. Apple featured Spotify on front page many times. Don't see any evidence of anti-discovery of the app itself. Do you? Spotify is only arguing that it can't tell the user where to buy a cheaper subscription. That's not anti-discovery of the app. The user knows Spotify exists at that point.
2. Never said Apple wanted to go web only with Apple Music. asinine assertion.

"Where do you get the assumption regarding apple not deserving $ for front page or building developer tools?"

No. The assertion people are making is that $99/year is enough to cover that. It's not.

 

[truthsteve]

Apple has made a lot of "business decisions" since the iOS App Store opened in 2008. Many of those decisions were harmful to developers and thus customers.

Then stop developing/buying from Apple. Clearly the market disagrees.

The most damaging decision was forcing developers into the "Family Share" revenue model in 2014, which forced developers to provide up to 5 copies of an App for one purchase price.

Haven't seen any large data points showing this has destroyed companies.

Also developers are required to agree to new terms every time Apple updates it. If Apple made "a lot of business decisions" clearly, developers would have left for a larger platform (Android). They did not.

The iPhone & iOS was much better so it gained traction.

Because of Apple's business decisions, at least in part.

So it was reasonable to develop mobile apps because the development costs were less than the costs of developing more complicated desktop applications. But development costs are never zero so there is a minimum amount of revenue needed for each device install. This was working well for many developers with viable apps up until 2014.

Don't need a lecture on this. I'm a developer that went through this.

The common response to this criticism was no one was forcing developers to publish on Apple's app store, but this neglected to consider the number of apps already in the store that were developed with viable business cases which relied on the "few bucks" per pocket revenue model.

Clearly Apple's business decisions that lead up to this is working.

When companies take actions that harm markets, government ends up getting involved. My basic beliefs are this is not initially a good thing because governments are incompetent and just screw things up more. I've also come to accept this ultimately motivates companies to "let go" of their idiotic desire to control everything. The EU has begun to define market concepts such as "Gatekeepers", and regulations to limit their conduct. At some point we may see them define "General purpose computing platform" and regulations for them. This will end up costing everyone, including Apple more and more revenue until Apple realizes the only way to resolve the issue is "let go" and allow iOS apps to be distributed just like Mac Apps.

This went off the rails

NO government or court jurisdiction is pursuing Apple for how Mac Apps are sold.

off topic. Mac started open, and Apple can't close it without destroying large corporations that rely on Mac's open platform. iOS started closed.

All of this will continue to get worse until someone at Apple realizes this and decides to "make all the BS go away" and just treat all their platforms like the Mac.

But Apple has let their "control freak" personality take over their rational brain, and now all the new EU app store features / agreements / polices are just another crap salad developers will have to sort through - this pushes them towards how Microsoft screwed up the mobile market from their beginning. It will be a long time before Apple remembers they make money selling hardware so that rational brain will be absent for a while.

This is just a rant. Disagreed.

Edit: imagine being a new mobile developer with a new idea looking at how to monetize your App in the EU. How many will look at all the new regulations and Apple's contorted polices to deal with them and just say screw it?

What? Go Android if it's too complex.

 

[Jensend]

signing up for Apple Music trial to listen to an album is a popular use case.

Yes, but each person can only do that once.
Yes, there may be a way to get around that by making an extra account or whatever, but people can also just do that by downloading music illegally.

there could be many reasons. what does my guess have to do with the fact that apple pays more royalties?

They only pay more per user because they only have premium memberships where subscribers can pick individual songs to play. Other services pay the same amount per premium membership.

Spotify and some other streaming services also have an ad-supported radio play option where users can't pick individual songs to listen to. Representatives of the music industry have decided that they will accept lower payment for that kind of service.

 

[truthsteve]

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?

I'm not. You're asking for a particular law to exist which obviously does not and because of that, somehow that seems to suggest what Apple is doing is illegal. That is not true. A law doesn't have to exist before a company can sell a particular product with a particular function.

By your logic, the Face ID hardware is illegal because developers don't have access to the raw Face data
By your logic, the Touch ID hardware is illegal because developers don't have access to the raw fingerprint data.
By your logic, the Secure Enclave is illegal because developers can't access the keys inside.

It wouldn't make sense to open access up because a shady third party would easily steal this data and sell it for millions on the black market. But you're somehow suggesting that it's illegal because there's no law currently saying this is permissible. Non-sense.

 

[truthsteve]

Yes, but each person can only do that once.

Actually I did it many times. Apple Music trial can be redeemed several times on the same account. Same is true for Apple News+

They only pay more per user because they only have premium memberships where subscribers can pick individual songs to play. Other services pay the same amount per premium membership.

No. Compare the premium Spotify and Apple Music. Apple pays more per listen.

Spotify *PREMIUM* listen: $0.007291155
Apple Music: $0.009150359

SPOTIFY VS. YOUTUBE VS. APPLE MUSIC

About six months ago I did a comparison of Spotify and YouTube royalty rates. At that time Spotify's per stream royalty rates were much better.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Beautyspin]

I'm not. You're asking for a particular law to exist which obviously does not and because of that, somehow that seems to suggest what Apple is doing is illegal. That is not true. A law doesn't have to exist before a company can sell a particular product with a particular function.

By your logic, the Face ID hardware is illegal because developers don't have access to the raw Face data
By your logic, the Touch ID hardware is illegal because developers don't have access to the raw fingerprint data.
By your logic, the Secure Enclave is illegal because developers can't access the keys inside.

It wouldn't make sense to open access up because a shady third party would easily steal this data and sell it for millions on the black market. But you're somehow suggesting that it's illegal because there's no law currently saying this is permissible. Non-sense.

Hardware itself is not illegal. Limiting it to Apple and launching services that are denied to its competitors and benefiting from it is illegal. Face/Touch ID and Secure enclave are not limited to Apple. Payments through NFC is limited to Apple Pay while it is denied to others is illegal because Apple competes with them. That is why Apple did not argue much and immediately opened it to others. The fact that Apple even thought along the lines of limiting this feature to Apple Pay goes to show Apple's anticompetitive nature. Now let us see how dominant Apple Pay will be.

 

[truthsteve]

Face/Touch ID and Secure enclave are not limited to Apple.

it literally is. I cannot, as a developer, access the raw fingerprint/face data. apple is denying developers this data. for faceID, only apple allows developer to access a low resolution version of the face data. only apple can access the raw data.

even on the Vision Pro, only Apple can create a persona on the device. developers cannot access the raw sensor data needed to recreate a high resolution persona. same logic goes for Optic ID. same goes for eye tracking. developers on Vision Pro can access eye gaze only when the user taps with the hand. does that make the device illegal? I don't think so. that's apple protecting the user's information, rightfully so.

 

[Jensend]

No. Compare the premium Spotify and Apple Music. Apple pays more per listen.

Spotify *PREMIUM* listen: $0.007291155
Apple Music: $0.009150359

SPOTIFY VS. YOUTUBE VS. APPLE MUSIC

About six months ago I did a comparison of Spotify and YouTube royalty rates. At that time Spotify's per stream royalty rates were much better.

www.linkedin.com

Ok, that is about 25% more.
But there are other factors as well:

• Subscription price and royalties vary by country. People who have Apple devices are more likely to use Apple Music, and they live in countries where subscriptions are more expensive.
• Spotify claims that they average more streams per user.

I doubt it's the case the an individual moving from one paid service to another with similar features has an impact on how much of their money goes to rights holders.

 

[truthsteve]

Ok, that is about 25% more.
But there are other factors as well:

• Subscription price and royalties vary by country. People who have Apple devices are more likely to use Apple Music, and they live in countries where subscriptions are more expensive.
• Spotify claims that they average more streams per user.

I doubt it's the case the an individual moving from one paid service to another with similar features has an impact on how much of their money goes to rights holders.

"First, the average subscriber to Spotify listens to more music per month than on other services"

"other services" isn't defined. who knows if Apple Music is part of that "other services" or did they just mean Tidal/Youtube Music/Amazon Music?

 

[Abazigal]

Hardware itself is not illegal. Limiting it to Apple and launching services that are denied to its competitors and benefiting from it is illegal. Face/Touch ID and Secure enclave are not limited to Apple. Payments through NFC is limited to Apple Pay while it is denied to others is illegal because Apple competes with them. That is why Apple did not argue much and immediately opened it to others. The fact that Apple even thought along the lines of limiting this feature to Apple Pay goes to show Apple's anticompetitive nature. Now let us see how dominant Apple Pay will be.

This is one of those areas where I am divided.

On one hand, I get the argument that third parties should have access to features like NFC. On the other hand, I do really like Apple Pay (especially the ability to pay for public transit via my watch), and the key reason why it has been able to take off is precisely because banks don't have access to NFC and are thus not able to integrate contactless payments into their own apps. And the concern is that if they don't support Apple Pay, their users might wind up switching to another bank which does. So many end up doing so, which has been to my benefit as an end user, even though it may not necessarily be in the banks' vested interests.

Is everyone here okay with the possibility that if NFC opening up, banks may end up not supporting Apple Pay anymore because they want users to use their own banking apps, which may not be as convenient or as integrated?

How does one square the contradiction that the interests of a business and the customer are not always perfectly aligned? Or is it just another one of those downsides that I am supposed to just "suck up" in the name of "fair play"?

 

[wbeasley]

This is one of those areas where I am divided.

On one hand, I get the argument that third parties should have access to features like NFC. On the other hand, I do really like Apple Pay (especially the ability to pay for public transit via my watch), and the key reason why it has been able to take off is precisely because banks don't have access to NFC and are thus not able to integrate contactless payments into their own apps. And the concern is that if they don't support Apple Pay, their users might wind up switching to another bank which does. So many end up doing so, which has been to my benefit as an end user, even though it may not necessarily be in the banks' vested interests.

Is everyone here okay with the possibility that if NFC opening up, banks may end up not supporting Apple Pay anymore because they want users to use their own banking apps, which may not be as convenient or as integrated?

How does one square the contradiction that the interests of a business and the customer are not always perfectly aligned? Or is it just another one of those downsides that I am supposed to just "suck up" in the name of "fair play"?

In Australia we have four Big Banks.
When Apple Pay was touted only one bank was happy to sign up. The others wanted to forced access to NFC so they could do it their way and avoid commissions. Banks who love charging merchants and customers fees

Eventually the other three had to get on board.

I like Apple Pay because it is way more secure than passing card details around. Been scammed before a petrol station where they used card twice. Once after I left the store. This way, they don’t get anything but an acknowledgement the funds were ok and paid.

 

[Jensend]

"First, the average subscriber to Spotify listens to more music per month than on other services"

"other services" isn't defined. who knows if Apple Music is part of that "other services" or did they just mean Tidal/Youtube Music/Amazon Music?

This is the original post I replied to in this discussion thread:

At least Apple Music pays more royalties on average to artists.

Why do we care?
As a listener I would ask "Which service will pass along the highest percentage of my money to the artist?" because I want the artists who I listen to get some of my money.

And the musician would ask, "Which music service should I recommend to my fans so their subscription fees go towards me when they listen to my music?"

Just showing the average payment per stream across the whole music service in not enough to answer those questions.

I am pointing out why that is.

You have not shown that the answer to either of the questions is "Apple Music". I have not shown definitively that the answer isn't "Apple Music", but I have given reasons that it may not be Apple Music.

Both Apple and Spotify say that music services pay about 70% to the rights holders.

 

[Beautyspin]

it literally is. I cannot, as a developer, access the raw fingerprint/face data. apple is denying developers this data. for faceID, only apple allows developer to access a low resolution version of the face data. only apple can access the raw data.

even on the Vision Pro, only Apple can create a persona on the device. developers cannot access the raw sensor data needed to recreate a high resolution persona. same logic goes for Optic ID. same goes for eye tracking. developers on Vision Pro can access eye gaze only when the user taps with the hand. does that make the device illegal? I don't think so. that's apple protecting the user's information, rightfully so.

Does Apple have an app that uses this data while denying it to its competitors thereby being anticompetitive? NFC is available only for Apple Pay, which is an Apple App and all the financial apps have to pay a commission to Apple Pay to use the NFC app. Is something similar happening with the examples you have given? Btw, the AppStore on VisionOS and iPadOS are still not considered Gatekeepers, unfortunately.

 

[Beautyspin]

This is one of those areas where I am divided.

On one hand, I get the argument that third parties should have access to features like NFC. On the other hand, I do really like Apple Pay (especially the ability to pay for public transit via my watch), and the key reason why it has been able to take off is precisely because banks don't have access to NFC and are thus not able to integrate contactless payments into their own apps. And the concern is that if they don't support Apple Pay, their users might wind up switching to another bank which does. So many end up doing so, which has been to my benefit as an end user, even though it may not necessarily be in the banks' vested interests.

Is everyone here okay with the possibility that if NFC opening up, banks may end up not supporting Apple Pay anymore because they want users to use their own banking apps, which may not be as convenient or as integrated?

How does one square the contradiction that the interests of a business and the customer are not always perfectly aligned? Or is it just another one of those downsides that I am supposed to just "suck up" in the name of "fair play"?

What Apple is doing currently is limiting NFC access to Apple Pay and using that to charge Banks. If Apple had opened up NFC or demanded no charges from banks, maybe this would not have happened. Google has opened up NFC but has deals with several banks for Google Pay and it is doing fine. Maybe Apple should learn from Google?