Spotify has 155 million paid subscribers out of their total of 345 million subscribers.
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
Unprecedented ability to strangle competition?
The East India Company controlled its own army, which by 1800 comprised some 200,000 soldiers, more than twice the membership of the British Army at that time.
The East India Company controlled its own army, which by 1800 comprised some 200,000 soldiers, more than twice the membership of the British Army at that time.
Sorry, but I meant on Android, meaning if Spotify went Android exclusive, would it affect their pairing subscriber percentage. I don’t know the numbers so I’m sure I can be wrong, but looking at various OTT services on Android, free tiers are the majority.
Lots of interesting stats on Spotify and the other services can be found at businessofapps website.
One, that’s not how it works. Two, who says Spotify wants to sell? No matter how rich Apple is, they can’t force other companies to sell their company to them.
Even more, from what I’ve heard, devs/companies who refuse to sell their business to Apple is like earning a Badge of Honor. And — I know I’m just going to be called a liar for saying this, but whatever — In the eyes of more developers than ever, Apple is the Bad Guy. Devs will work with them, grudgingly, but they don’t trust them.
I have no clue if any of this is fixable.
I think we can all agree that Spotify should have to pay something to Apple for using the platform. So that means directing users to their own website and not paying Apple anything is not “fair” either. What’s the right solution? A pay per user option? Spotify only has a small number of paying users. So Spotify might end up paying more if they have to move to that model.
Curious, will my AirPods Pro do lossless music?
Or do I have to have the more expensive AirPods Pro Max?
Ohh, wow! Hello, Whataboutism!
It’s been a while, my third favorite logical fallacy! What have you been up to since most people stopped using you three or so years ago?
Spotify can pull as hard as they want on your heartstrings, but the fact of competition has always been that a Business is duty-bound to do everything within its power to kill off its competitors. That is and has always been the cut-throat world of free-market capitalism. Companies born and die almost daily, with less ruthless companies driven into bankruptcy or going out of business. Companies that wants all the upsides of the game, but none of the downsides deserve nothing. That isn’t how the game is played, and if you want the riches, you got to be willing to take it on the chin every now and then too. Spotify is fine with competition, as long as it knows it can win. In the case with Apple, it knows it can’t win because Apple simply has the will and resources to simply do everything better and then some, so incomes the whining and bitching about “anticompetitive” behavior.
Get the pattern? If you can’t win fair and square, you accuse the other side of “anticompetitive” behavior.
Get the pattern? If you can’t win fair and square, you accuse the other side of “anticompetitive” behavior.
And Amazon bundles a tier of Amazon Music in with All Prime subscriptions. That should be a fun one to watch. Assuming Spotify wants to fight a three-front war.
And I say developers should do exactly what you suggested if they felt so strongly about Apple being the 'monopolistic tyrant'. This is after all a free world.
IMHO tho., these are the vocal minorities of companies that are seeing their revenue shrinking with increasing costs and trying ways to cut costs instead of innovating.
My guess is that the majority of developers with apps in the iOS App Store are perfectly happy with the existing rules put in place for them to put up their apps for sale.
It will simply show that Spotify’s excuses are not genuine. They, like Epic, simply wants a free ride on the iOS platform.
He also probably wouldn’t own a store where roughly 70% of the products were given away for free.
Are you simply unable to understand that a physical brick and mortar store is NOT easily comparable to an online, digital storefront that sells software?
Come on, try a little harder here. Don’t just spout off the same, outdated ”what if you owned a store…” argument. You’re better than this.
Spotify’s not currently in the middle of a trial. They’re fully within their rights to offer an opinion on the matter.
Unless you don’t believe in the right to free speech. If that’s the case, well, carry on.
Would never happen. And I am not sure "pissed off developers" means what you think it does.
- Netflix is not unhappy with the arrangement. They are on record stating they really did not like using IAP in the long run. It got people in a little quicker but the ease of stopping a subscription was causing them churn problems. Using their own platform as the sole mechanism to pay has made it harder for people to cancel.
- Facebook, Instagram (hell, lump in all the socials) will never leave. They recognize that iOS users are typically more likely to spend money (read: better ad targets) and they live and breathe by ad sales and data consumption.
- Amazon probably doesn't care. They get traffic from iOS via Safari as much if not more than via their app. (HEY AMAZON - can you allow font size customization in your damn app? Maybe I'd use it instead of Safari.). You can use Audible credits in the Audible app, too. And after, what? eight years?, people can figure out to go to Amazon.com to spend hardcover prices on 15KB of ebook.
Last edited:
It isn't shady, it was the deal when Spotify signed on. Apple provided the ability/opportunity for Spotify to work on their phones. Apple didn't force them to make an app. As a former customer of Spotify, what's shady is pretending that this is some secret, or some thing that was a surprise. They knew they were supposed to pay Apple their cut, and now are objecting and working to circumvent it.
It’s either first grader level taunts like, “Aw, Spotify is mad,” and “Look at Spotify whining,” or bizarre suggestions like Spotify should make their own smartphone.
I hate to say it, buddy, but we might be two of the few sane people in this crazy house.
For me the icloud library is a gamechanger.
It allows me to have my massive collection of high quality and rare music uploaded to the cloud and streamed via apple music. Basically a big library with both my local and streamed music.
Apple music also has slightly higher standard quality and there are more obscure and rare albums, given the 20 years in the music business the company has.
I checked myself when testing spotify.
Now, with the free lossless tier and dolby atmos/spatial audio features, Apple music is even more compelling.
That said the average experience (listening to lossy music on the go and browsing playlists) is pretty much the same between the two services but Apple Music is more convenient, being part of your apple id ecosystem, without having to create yet an other account.
On a last note I'm positive (not sure though, I'd have to check) apple music pays artists slightly more money per play than spotify.
Last edited: