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 on Apple's Response to App Store Dispute: 'Every Monopolist Will Suggest They Have Done Nothing Wrong'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I never saw the browser selection screen that EU users of Windows saw after Microsoft lost their Internet Explorer antitrust case in the EU.
So tell me again how an EU decision will be enforced globally.
I wonder if that attitude will change once Apple releases their video streaming service...
As for the topic at hand... I'm generally with Spotify on this.
One huge note: you don't have to hold 100% (or anywhere near it) of a market to be a "monopoly". You just need to hold enough of it so that you can leverage that market to get into another market (known as "tying" or "bundling)... precisely what Apple has done with Apple Music. It comes pre-loaded on all phones and is easy to pay for with an AppleID... without any 30% cut.
You definitely can't convince me that Apple _isn't_ leveraging their marketshare in phones to move into music streaming.
This case is almost entirely exactly the same as Microsoft and Netscape back in the day... Microsoft was leveraging their marketshare in operating systems to move into a new area: web-browsing. They did it in just the same way: preloading the OS with their browser. That's ultimately what got them slapped on the hand...
I am not for there being multiple App Stores... but I do think the Federal Government is going to need to get involved in Apple's App Store policies to help ensure an even playing field for apps on the phone ecosystem that currently holds about 50% marketshare in the US (although - nothing like that will happen with the current administration!).
So Apple isn’t distributing apps through the App Store? And in Spotify’s case they are NOT distributing an app which has IAP’s where the consumer is purchasing a subscription based service, to which a service fee is applied. Incorrect.? Ok. Please elaborate, and no need to preface a “quote” with verbatim. That’s called “redundant”.
The EU sometimes blocks company mergers because of antitrust issues for example, like the others do other times.
in all the years that i been reading mac rumors news, i have never read a better comment or response from a company about apple actions, they described apple pefectly, that is a cool comment by spotify, in my opinion i think they are right about everthing but i really like the the part that apple is a monopolist, haha i’ve done nothing wrong, oops that sounds like a bad excuse tim, apple sector 7 extorcionist lol
1) The vast majority of iOS Spotify users are using the free, ad supported tier = Apple gets nothing from Spotify.
2) IAP is switched off therefore all premium subscriptions go through Spotify's website = Apple gets nothing from Spotify. In fact, I just installed Spotify and it asked me to learn more about "premium" and took me directly to their website.
3) As the Spotify app is "free", Apple PAY for the cost of hosting and distribution. Spotify pay Apple nothing.
Pretty sure this legal action is going nowhere.
Perhaps my post was a bit TMI, but the case here is about the conflict between Apple's tight control over applications on its iOS platform as it affects a multi-platform application like Spotify. My point was that only Apple's iOS devices seem to have Spotify's disdain, due to that control. This isn't happening with PC-Windows/PC-Linux/Mac/Android OS platforms.
I didn't have Spotify installed, but I do have an account..
Downloaded it - logged in..
Got the following screens.
None of the boxes that you'd think would be clickable and take you to learn more/subscribe do anything.
It's totally ridiculous that Apple won't allow someone like this to simply have a link to click to subscribe through Safari (either in app in a Safari VC or in normal Safari).
This is perhaps the most outrageous thing they are doing here...that they should change.
Downloaded it - logged in..
Got the following screens.
None of the boxes that you'd think would be clickable and take you to learn more/subscribe do anything.
It's totally ridiculous that Apple won't allow someone like this to simply have a link to click to subscribe through Safari (either in app in a Safari VC or in normal Safari).
This is perhaps the most outrageous thing they are doing here...that they should change.
Not on new subsctriptions.
I think it really comes down to ... how many people are paying through the app store, are actually new users within the last year, and if Apple made that connection for them, are they entitled to 30%?
I don't think most people who ended up paying for Spotify in the last year through word of mouth would be paying for it through the App Store. Some, yes, but not most. -- All things considered, I imagine that of Spotify's total paid users a good portion of them have been paying for over a year (since Spotify doesn't double paid subscriptions every year), of the ones who have been paying for under a year good portion is on Android and other devices. Of the remaining, a good portion aren't paying through the App Store at all considering the various tactics Spotify has used to circumvent the app store over the years (including the newspaper ads they put out, by now it's probably common knowledge users can pay for Spotify outside of the app store, considering that 80% of world's smart phone market is Android and inherently anti-Apple in some capacity (even if it's merely them being anti-Apple's pricing)).
So Spotify is complaining about 30% of a small percentage (in comparison) that Apple directly connects them to, and the small percentage that got there through word of mouth that happen to be paying through the app store.
you guys can continue to side with apple but in a few more years, if this continues apple, mac os, ios will be abandoned ware, nobody will want to make anyhting for them, since apple is a control freak then they can make their own apps to support their costumers, mac os , ios are excellent but without apps they are useless, we need apps to get our jobs done, for entertainment for whatever reason, the only reason why apple wants developers in their app store is so they can rip them off , exactly the same way they ripoff their costumers, i swear tim is a joke, i see throught the lies of the jedi
You're throwing around some assumptions there.
What data you basing any of that off of?
30% is pretty high for "making the connection" - not sure what to even make of that concept.
I'd be more sympathetic if Apple would get rid of the ridiculous requirement to only achieve that 15% after continuous subscription for years. That's silly and very arbitrary and all about them and Services revenue..
It's also highly punitive to get kicked back to 30% for a given user if they happen to un-sub and re-sub - just subjective nonsense there from Apple honestly. Creating hoops for the sake of it.
You can still be guilty of anti-competitive tactics without having a monopoly.
You actually do have to have the lions share of a market to be considered a monopoly. That is what a monopoly is all about.
The two issues really aren't the same at all.
Also having a monopoly isn't inherently illegal. It's just that monopolists face more scrutiny.
Spotify makes their argument BS when they claim Apple is a monopolist.
They should just structure their argument around anti-competitive tactics and they might have a case, but they are going to get nowhere trying to claim the competitor with the minority share of the market is a monopolist.
Few more years then...
[doublepost=1552781939][/doublepost]
Only problem there is no anti-competitive tactics here.
The cases are completely different. I don’t know why Microsoft keeps getting brought up.
The specific language the EU used in regards to Microsoft is “dominant market position”. You can define monopoly any way you want, but the EU is pretty clear. There’s no way anyone could say iOS is in any way dominant in mobile OS, especially in the EU where Android has a higher share than the US (for example).
Google’s EU case is more closely aligned with Microsoft. Even the language is the same accusing Google of abusing their “market dominance”. Again you don’t see them using the term monopoly.
There’s nothing wrong with leveraging one of your products to expand into another market. Companies do this all the time. The problem only arises when you are the dominant player, which iOS is not.
[doublepost=1552782124][/doublepost]
Since when is a company merger the same as an antitrust case?
Apple's Global Smart Phone Market share being less than 20%:
https://www.statista.com/statistics...by-smartphone-vendors-since-4th-quarter-2009/
https://businesstech.co.za/news/mob...artphone-brands-in-the-world-by-market-share/
The fact that you can't even subscribe to Spotify Premium through the app at all, as indicated in your screen shots, also leads me to believe that most Spotify customers paying through the App Store have been subscribers for over a year. So now we are left with only, the people who have been subscribers for over a year, canceled their subscriptions for longer than the expiration period, and reactivated it. That is, a very small percentage of smart phone users.
All I am aware of is that the other competitor is google play store, which is another platform. There are many competitive music streaming services. So I am not sure what “competition” you are referring to.
Does Apple have a provision for developers who talk s*** in public about them? Maybe they can add that in time for a 30 day notice and see how the Spotify business model survives that after so much Apple provided growth.
Anyone who feels the 30% is "fine" - "justified" - etc..
Is there a % cut Apple could get to where you'd have a problem with it?
Would 50% be ok?
What about 70%
Is there a % cut Apple could get to where you'd have a problem with it?
Would 50% be ok?
What about 70%