It appears that Spotify is trying to have the case settled in the court of public opinion. I think the facts will show differently.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spotify Legal Chief: 'Apple's Ability to Strangle its Competitors is Unprecedented'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So you are also advocating that Amazon allows external links inside its application? That would be great. I could search for something, find what I like and then use the external link to find it cheaper at the vendors website. But what I don’t get is would Amazon have to deliver it for free too?
man what a great idea that’s genius.
So if you open a store and I have a product you sell in your store. You make a profit on every on of those sales. You even help me build my business and your heavy marketing and customer loyalty is why I’m there.
Now even though you are much small than your competitors you are more profitable. Would you allow me to come into your store and put stickers on my product telling them to buy online directly from me instead of buying at your store. Even better if you have a online store, would you allow me to redirect the customers to buy cheaper from me in the product description? No. That would be foolish.
Bad analogy.
Should Best Buy be able to stop free or paid items from being sold by other stores, even if the product manufacturer does not have a relationship with Best Buy, would be a much better analogy.
Anyone who downvoted this statement permits their agenda to overlook an uncounterable argument. This is pure truth.
what will happen if Spotify is removed from the App store, or it they withdraw from the App Store?
How many iOS users will switch to Android?
And how many iOS users will switch to another music streaming service? Spotify seems to have a strong following.
Just curious.
How many iOS users will switch to Android?
And how many iOS users will switch to another music streaming service? Spotify seems to have a strong following.
Just curious.
While I generally think it’s fair for Apple to charge some commission I do think in markets it directly competes in it should waive that fee otherwise it’s an amazon situation with its Amazon basics brand. I don’t think it’s fair to own the platform, and also compete with apps on that platform in a way that directly disadvantages your competitors. At the very least in cases like music streaming the developers like Spotify should be able to direct people to sign up online without the 30% cut to Apple.
That is exactly what they want but Apple won’t let them. Apple has a stranglehold on the sale and distribution of iOS apps. You can’t buy them anywhere else. That is the whole problem. Imagine if you could only buy milk from one store and nowhere else and when you complain someone says drink orange juice instead. It’s ludicrous.
my comment was not about spotify, but it also wasn't anti-apple. it was more about pro-consumer
So you are also advocating that Amazon allows external links inside its application? That would be great. I could search for something, find what I like and then use the external link to find it cheaper at the vendors website. But what I don’t get is would Amazon have to deliver it for free too?
man what a great idea that’s genius.
how many ways can you call BS? You can choose to sell your app in the App Store or offer it as a free download/install with external activation and payment bypassing any commission to Apple. You really don’t get this, or just not thinking about it?
And?
As Apple have found out with Apple TV+, it’s not that easy to run a video streaming service.
Microsoft failed not because they tried but because the market didn’t like what they offered.
Bit hypocritical coming from Spotify given how many horrid changes they’ve forced onto modern music with their payment policies
Did you even read the comment I replied to? Your argument is not a compatible rebuttal. It’s simply another argument which I did not address, nor will address.
In which case the wise business decision would be not to compete on iPhone and focus on other platforms instead. At which point either customers complain enough/abandon iPhone or the company decides “hey the 30/15% cut is worth it for easy access to all those customers”.
Of course Apple has an advantage y being the platform owner, that’s a big reason why you want to create a platform to begin with. And it would be a problem if Apple was the only game in town but it’s not. Spotify DOES want special treatment, it wants to benefit from the platform Apple creates and grows without contributing. No thanks.
Nope. or Store. When in doubt: go through the courts or congress. The 'new' American way. Funny how Tesla 'just did it..(Nike)' rather than sue and complain and complain and sue.
You mean not allowing you to advertise your website on MY website? Or your products in MY store? Unheard of!!!!
This is most assuredly not true. Percentage leases are quite common in retail. Let's take your suggestion.
Apple can institute a "fixed lease" to distribute on the App Store. That fixed lease may consist of:
- $250,000 per year developer program fee
- $25,000 per month "store rent"
Alternatively, you can sign up for the "percentage lease." That lease may consist of:
- $99 per year developer program fee
- 30% commission on all sales (initial and IAP)
In both leases Apple provides software delivery, store reviews up to x-number per year, and access to all developer tools and support programs.
Now it is up to you as the seller to determine the best option. Oh, and don't forget that the fixed lease option is generally tiered with gross sales maximum. That means if the plan above is limited to $10 million in gross sales then when you hit the $10,000,001 in sales your store rent can go up to the next documented tier (say $50,000 per month).
More that I think on it - I like your idea. Let Apple set this program up and it would most likely be endorsed by all the governmental bodies. Then Epic with their $1 billion is gross revenues could be in the $2,500,000 per month fixed rent plan. The rest of the developers not-so-vocal majority that are fine with the current policies are not affected. Yes, this will likely cause Apple to take a bit of a hit in services revenue, but that what everyone here seems to want anyway.
Last edited:
THANK YOU!
These busybodies just don't get it, and they don't want to. They will jump through mental hurdles to avoid the obvious: Apple is one platform in a market, they are not a monopoly, and they have every right to set the terms of entry to their specific platform. There are other MORE AFFORDABLE AND VERY ROBUST options for consumers. This is stretching the idea of monopoly beyond any legitimacy, and of course courts and politicians are happy to play along because they love calling the shots.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Google or Microsoft buy Spotify before the year’s out.
We’ve got to a point where it’s nearly impossible for start-ups to grow beyond medium sized companies without having to be acquired by one of the top 5-10 tech mega companies.
If they don’t they’ll go out of business, as usually they can’t compete at scale and/or the bundling that these bigger companies offer, if they decide to compete.
Is see Teams vs Slack. As soon as Teams was released it was basically game over for Slack.
Should we concerned about this? I think that we should.
We’ve got to a point where it’s nearly impossible for start-ups to grow beyond medium sized companies without having to be acquired by one of the top 5-10 tech mega companies.
If they don’t they’ll go out of business, as usually they can’t compete at scale and/or the bundling that these bigger companies offer, if they decide to compete.
Is see Teams vs Slack. As soon as Teams was released it was basically game over for Slack.
Should we concerned about this? I think that we should.
Amid the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, Spotify's chief legal officer and head of global affairs Horacio Gutierrez penned an anti-App Store op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, where he summarizes Spotify's issues Apple.
Gutierrez says that Spotify is one of the few companies that insists Apple is a "ruthless bully that uses its dominance to hobble competitors."
Spotify has long been upset with Apple's App Store fees, as the 15 to 30 percent cut that Apple takes from subscriptions means that Spotify has to either raise its prices for those who sign up via the App Store or decline to offer subscriptions on iOS at all, which is what Spotify has opted for.
Apple's "antisteering" rules prevent Spotify from directing iPhone and iPad customers to the Spotify website to sign up, which Spotify argues gives Apple Music some major advantages.
Gutierrez points out the many regulatory issues that Apple is facing in Europe and the United States. The European Commission in April found that Apple breached EU competition law with Apple Music, and in April, the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee questioned Apple's App Store policies. Spotify, Tile, and others attended the latter hearing and said that if Apple's App Store rules aren't changed, Apple will take over the internet, "limiting innovation, squashing small businesses, and all but eliminating customer choice."
Spotify is asking the U.S. to speed up its regulatory initiatives against Apple with "urgent, narrowly tailored updates" to antitrust law to "end such egregious abuses."
Gutierrez says that Spotify isn't asking for special treatment, but wants "fair treatment," and he sums up his piece by stating that Apple's "ability to strangle its competitors is unprecedented." He says that those in a position "to do something" have now "seen past Apple's facade" and are now acting on the behalf of "innovators and consumers around the world."
Article Link: Spotify Legal Chief: 'Apple's Ability to Strangle its Competitors is Unprecedented'
