Spotify on Apple's Response to App Store Dispute: 'Every Monopolist Will Suggest They Have Done Nothing Wrong'

[Bytor65]

This type of response is exemplary of totally misunderstanding the problem.

The problem isn't the app store, and sweat-of-the-brow has nothing to do with anything here.

The problem is twofold: (1) the App Store is half of a very powerful duopoly that must be used to distribute mobile software, there is no way around it, no choice, and (2) Apple competed on their own App Store with third parties, but Apple bends the rules such that they have a distinct advantage over third parties on the App Store. On their own, (1) or (2) aren't problems. It's only a problem when you get (1) and (2) together at the same time. Thus, Apple uses their platform (App Store) to unfairly advantage their other business (Apple Music).

It's akin to Rockefeller: He bought the railroad companies so that only he would control distribution of oil. At the time, rail was pretty much the only way to distribute oil. His oil was then distributed nearly for free, while he charged competing oil companies a huge premium to distribute. The other companies couldn't compete, because their oil was always more expensive than his due to how much he charged them for distribution. Thus, he used his monopoly platform (railroads) to unfairly advantage his other business (oil).

A lot of flies in your sour tears ointment. Apple only has 20-30% of the market, so it has no control of the wider market.

Rockefeller did not buy up the railroads, he had a monopoly on Oil Refineries (90%) not rail lines. He worked out sweetheart deals with rail lines because he was such a large customer.

If Rockefeller only had 20-30% of Oil refineries he never would have been considered a monopolist, and Standard Oil would never have been broken up.

Nice attempt to tie things together with a bunch of made up alternative "facts".

 

[Bytor65]

I don't care how big of a company Spotify is, if Apple really started messing with them on update approvals and threatening to remove them from the Appstore, that's just... wrong.

As an Apple user and work in Silicon Valley, Apple's actions towards Spotify, if proven true, would make me switch over to Android immediately.

You mean Apple applied the same rules to spotify that apply to everyone. Sometimes Spotify broke the rules and thus some of the 200+ updates were rejected, something that also happens to just about everyone submitting SW to the Apps store, if they do a lot of submissions.

 

[Nemean]

So do people not believe the app store costs apple money to maintain and improve? I feel like while they are not paying a specific 30% or 15% they have costs to maintain a platform. Are we saying apple should pay that cost and then also pay to maintain the platform? At that point should apple complain that they have more costs than Spotify?

At the end of the day Apple are providing Spotify with a service Apple set the price and Spotify decide if its fair. If it is not fair they have the choice not to use it. That's like me saying my Spotify subscription at £10 a month is too high so i'm going to take Spotify to court as i think it should be lower? Can we do that? If we can where do i sign up i have a lot of subscriptions i think should be lower but they are not and market price dictates what i pay.

As far as apple not allowing them to say come to our website and pay why would they allow that it would be used as a loophole and everybody would do this once again making the App Store less viable. I like iOS App Store more than Google Play. Talking about Google play they also charge 30% and 15% so once again we are talking about the current market value.

Now i am annoyed that apple are blocking certain things from coming to Apple Watch, Homepod and Siri however these are made by Apple they pick what is on them. I think its the wrong move business wise and Spotify should make that clear. But crying about it and trying to sue thats not the way to do it. If this was presented as Spotify coming out and saying Apple wont let us put Spotify on Apple Watch, Homepod and Siri then i would have been annoyed with Apple. The way Spotify have does this just makes them seem like they are sore losers.

This discriminatory tax has already been explained as they are not subscriptions apart from Apple Music (see above). Already been over the sharing of the deals that would just cause a loophole (couldn't Spotify change the price of a sub in the IAP?) They do allow you to upgrade with ease its called IAP you know the thing you moaned about the cost of but then want the benefits of... As far as the app enhancements go i have no idea on this however iOS version of Spotify is better than Android version so are Google blocking these too? Finally already covered the multi devices thing.

I don't really get what all the fuss is and the things that spotify did have in their corner they have gone about in the wrong way.

 

[Timemaster]

They are able to offer payments outside the app without any problems, so what you are claiming is highly disingenuous. If they want advertisements, you can advertise anywhere on the internet. Give some money to MacRumors for some ads, what about that?

Umm no they do not. The other ones had to go around the system and it came at a cost of user experience. Find me an app. Netflix for example can not even tell you how to get an account. You are on your own. That is a very poor user experience. Google Movies for example just can have you add it to your wishlist but can not tell you the price. That is honestly really painful and hurts. I want to know how much it cost but I now have to go to my computer/ safari sign into my account there and then find it and find out the cost and pay for it.

Apple is abusing it power.
In this case you are the one trying to spread miss information.

 

[senttoschool]

You mean Apple applied the same rules to spotify that apply to everyone. Sometimes Spotify broke the rules and thus some of the 200+ updates were rejected, something that also happens to just about everyone submitting SW to the Apps store, if they do a lot of submissions.

Spotify claims it's specifically targeting its app and its service. We'll see if it's true when they go to court.
[doublepost=1552929891][/doublepost]

Umm no they do not. The other ones had to go around the system and it came at a cost of user experience. Find me an app. Netflix for example can not even tell you how to get an account. You are on your own. That is a very poor user experience. Google Movies for example just can have you add it to your wishlist but can not tell you the price. That is honestly really painful and hurts. I want to know how much it cost but I now have to go to my computer/ safari sign into my account there and then find it and find out the cost and pay for it.

Apple is abusing it power.
In this case you are the one trying to spread miss information.

I'm with you on this one. I think it's disgusting what Apple is doing and makes me want to switch off of its platforms. I already dislike all their recent products and greedy price bumps.

 

[Bytor65]

Umm no they do not. The other ones had to go around the system and it came at a cost of user experience. Find me an app. Netflix for example can not even tell you how to get an account. You are on your own. That is a very poor user experience. Google Movies for example just can have you add it to your wishlist but can not tell you the price. That is honestly really painful and hurts. I want to know how much it cost but I now have to go to my computer/ safari sign into my account there and then find it and find out the cost and pay for it.

Apple is abusing it power.
In this case you are the one trying to spread miss information.

That's not an abuse of power, it's getting paid for their service. Why should Apple allow Apps that explain how to bypass paying Apple?

Can developers bypass paying Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo when selling their games to customers? If there was a website explaining how to do this, do you think they would allow game/programs on their platform to explain how to bypass paying them?

It's absurd how many people here think that not only is it OK to bypass paying Apple (but just Apple), and not only that but Apple should make it easy and customer friendly to bypass paying Apple?

 

[oneMadRssn]

You are incorrect on several issues.
1. Apple provides access on a discriminatory basis to all developer as as long as they follow the rules. Apple allows competitors access and will host for free as long as they do not offer ion app sales; if the do they take a 30% then 15% cut (after year 1). Spotify is free to only offer subscriptions via the web and not offer in app purchases, such as Netflix does and then Apple gets no cut. if anything, Apple gives Spotify an advantage since they cover the hosting costs for the app and advertise it as a top app; even though it competes with their own product.

2. Your Standard Oil / railroad example is wrong because, where it to have operated as the app store JDR would have allowed anyone to run their trains for free over his railroad as long as they meet his standards or delivered the oil for free if they arranged payment outside of the railroad. He'd only charge if he had to collect for the shipment.

Spotify wants Apple to deliver it for free, collect payments and not charge a cent for so doing. We can disagree over what is a reasonable cut, and I think 30-/15 is pretty good considering what the alternatives are; but it is not unreasonable for Apple to charge for using it's services.

No. You're focused on the details of the app store and totally ignoring the issue: That Apple (a) invites third parties to use their platform, and (b) competed with some of those third parties directly.

The how/what/why of the app store are irrelevant. There was no problem until Apple entered the music streaming space. I'm sure Netflix will have as much of an issue with this later this month when Apple starts competing in their space too.
[doublepost=1552931095][/doublepost]

A lot of flies in your sour tears ointment. Apple only has 20-30% of the market, so it has no control of the wider market.

The problem isn't market share, the problem is lack of choice. If your business requires distributing mobile software, you HAVE TO use Apple AND Google. There is no other choice. There is literally no other practical way to distribute mobile software. You can't play them off each other because they are both necessary to use. Thus, the very powerful duopoly.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Everything that Apple said is true.
But 30%? Are you kidding me, even 15%?
I would think services like this would expect 1-5%. Apple is greedy, pure and simple.

Everyone is greedy not just Apple. Apple is charging what the market would allow them to charge. Spotify more than any other app developer has enjoyed enormous promotions from Apple. They get more promotion from Apple than what Google gives them.

 

[Elyzien]

Spotify does the same thing to PodCasters! I listened to Adam Curry from No Agenda talk about the contract they wanted him to sign. Paraphrasing, the contract basically made it so that their PodCast could not be on any other platform than Spotify's and didn't even pay them add revenue. It just locked their PodCast to Spotify's app with no benefit. In doing so Spotify acts like PodCast creations are Spotify's; Same thing they accuse Apple of.
[doublepost=1552931591][/doublepost]

Everything that Apple said is true.
But 30%? Are you kidding me, even 15%?
I would think services like this would expect 1-5%. Apple is greedy, pure and simple.

Really? You should look in to hosting and delivering content. It is far mare than 5%. These developers get their apps hosted and delivered to their customers 24/7 through a hosted store. It's a deal. You should actually look into costs before making judgements.

 

[PlayUltimate]

It's not that simple.

https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/

I think Spotify has very fair claims. For example, why doesn't Apple take a 30% cut of any Uber payments? Why arbitrarily decide that apps like Uber shouldn't have to fork over 30%?

Apple was quite clear that they make a distinction between physical purchase fulfillment vs. digital purchase fulfillment. My suspicion is that it has to do the challenges Apple would face if a physical product was not delivered and Apple needed to issue a refund. Refunds for digital fulfillment are generally less costly. Regardless, those are the rules that Apple has. (Why do people keep bringing up Uber? It's not like their business is any way similar to Spotify's)

As a Spotify premium user and own Apple products, I think my experience has definitely hampered by Apple's restrictions on Spotify. For example, as a Homepod owner, Spotify is not allowed on it. Siri can't control Spotify. Spotify Watch App can't download music directly onto the watch so they can listen without bringing their iPhone along.

As a HomePod owner, I knew going in that it only directly linked with Apple Music. However, my family has little trouble using Airplay on their phones to stream Pandora et al. to the HomePod. Perhaps a little more work, but, I suspect, Apple does not disallow Spotify to be played on it.

Re: Apple Watch. Based on a cursory examination, neither Fitbit nor Samsung allow streaming music to be downloaded onto their watches; the music needs to be owned to transfer and play it.

Too many people are making it look like Apple has some vendetta against Spotify. Whereas it seems more and more that Spotify is just mad that they can't do what they want.

 

[Bytor65]

The problem isn't market share, the problem is lack of choice. If your business requires distributing mobile software, you HAVE TO use Apple AND Google. There is no other choice. There is literally no other practical way to distribute mobile software. You can't play them off each other because they are both necessary to use. Thus, the very powerful duopoly.

The problem is making up facts when arguing your point, which of course, you totally ignore when called on.

The other problem is when you see every platform regardless of market-share as monopoly/oligopoly in need of regulation, that prevents anyone from being inconvenienced or disadvantaged.

When you want to distribute console games you have to use Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft, and all three compete with third parties with their own first party games. Oh noes!

 

[MEJHarrison]

It's not that simple.

https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/

I think Spotify has very fair claims. For example, why doesn't Apple take a 30% cut of any Uber payments? Why arbitrarily decide that apps like Uber shouldn't have to fork over 30%?

With all due respect, those questions have been answered already. And answered and answered and answered. And then answered some more. There have even been links posted (to information easily found with a web search). I understand not getting caught up on almost 40 pages before jumping in. But maybe take 10 minutes and go back just a little to make sure you're not covering the same ground that has been covered repeatedly? I read nearly 30 pages of this crap before responding. It's not an unreasonable request.

 

[oneMadRssn]

When you want to distribute console games you have to use Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft, and all three compete with third parties with their own first party games. Oh noes!

No you don't. Best Buy sells console games, and isn't owned by Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

 

[MEJHarrison]

The problem isn't market share, the problem is lack of choice. If your business requires distributing mobile software, you HAVE TO use Apple AND Google. There is no other choice. There is literally no other practical way to distribute mobile software. You can't play them off each other because they are both necessary to use. Thus, the very powerful duopoly.

I find that to be one of Apple's strongest selling points. I don't want multiple apps stores. I want one place that has everything. I want one place with some rules to protect me that are actually enforced. I want one place to have my credit card information rather than handing that out to anyone I wish to purchase something from.

The new system has its flaws. Some apps slip through the cracks that shouldn't have. Some really neat apps aren't available due to Apple's rules. But generally speaking, I'd much rather have this system than the old system. I don't understand the push for multiple App Stores. That's one of Apple's largest selling points to me.

 

[zarmanto]

No you don't. Best Buy sells console games, and isn't owned by Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

You mean in the same way that Google Play and Spotify themselves (on their website) can both sell you Spotify subscriptions? Which you can then use on any iOS device, if you so desire?

 

[MEJHarrison]

No you don't. Best Buy sells console games, and isn't owned by Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

Best buy is a reseller, not a distributor. Has Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft not approved those games for sale, they wouldn't have been available for Best Buy to purchase and re-sell.

 

[Timemaster]

A lot of flies in your sour tears ointment. Apple only has 20-30% of the market, so it has no control of the wider market.

Minus the fact that you need to break it up and look at high end market share which apple dominates. If you break down just the mobile app stores yet again Apple dominates.
If you look at tablets oh look yet again Apple dominates.
That may of been fine when Apple was a small player but now they are setting the rules and everyone else follows. Also Apple's App store is the ONLY way to get on the iOS device. That changes the rules a lot. They have a complete monopoly on iOS.

We all knew this was going to come at some point. I called it being in Europe a long time again as they are a lot striker on abuse of power. Just look back at Microsoft abuse back during IE.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Best buy is a reseller, not a distributor. Has Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft not approved those games for sale, they wouldn't have been available for Best Buy to purchase and re-sell.

Reseller / distributor is a distinction without a difference in this case. If anything, that's worse for your analogy to Apple. They're the approver, distributor, and reseller all in one.
[doublepost=1552939353][/doublepost]

You mean in the same way that Google Play and Spotify themselves (on their website) can both sell you Spotify subscriptions? Which you can then use on any iOS device, if you so desire?

How come I can buy a Spotify 1-month gift card in the Amazon iOS app, for nearly immediate email delivery, and nobody pays Apple a fee? But I cannot buy 1-month of Spotify in the Spotify iOS app, without Spotify having to pay Apple a fee?
[doublepost=1552939618][/doublepost]

I find that to be one of Apple's strongest selling points. I don't want multiple apps stores. I want one place that has everything. I want one place with some rules to protect me that are actually enforced. I want one place to have my credit card information rather than handing that out to anyone I wish to purchase something from.

The new system has its flaws. Some apps slip through the cracks that shouldn't have. Some really neat apps aren't available due to Apple's rules. But generally speaking, I'd much rather have this system than the old system. I don't understand the push for multiple App Stores. That's one of Apple's largest selling points to me.

I agree, I like the App Store idea a lot. I don't want multiple App Stores. People just have to realize that having one platform has all sorts of conflict issues. They're becoming apparent now that Apple has decided to enter into businesses that complete with others on their platform.

Basically, one company cannot both control a platform and compete on said platform. It just can't be done fairly. There are only three solutions that I can see: spin off the platform into an independent company, spin off the businesses into an independent company, make the platform totally free to avoid conflicts. I suspect in many years, the result will be the latter choice.

 

[sidewinder3000]

Oh I see, taking over people's "technical success" has made Apple the most profitable company on earth (not being lucky that it turns out everybody wants a phone and Apple sells expensive phones, mmmmm)

Your attempt at sarcasm is a fail. This is not a point that any serious follower of the tech industry has any doubt over. Apple making tech simple and approachable is the main driver of what has made them successful.

And yes, people want smartphones. But it’s largely because Apple made them so simple and easy to use that they became a mass market product.

 

[cknibbs]

I see those comparisons here a lot I wonder if the people making them really do not know how classic retail works?

Classic Retail...

Retailer purchases wholesale from Manufacturer for $x, and sells for $x+y with y covering retailer costs and profit etc.

This is exactly what Apple is doing with the App Store except for where Apple has normally been the manufacturer, they are the retailer, and instead of purchasing and holding product, they are maintaining a storefront for software. They get a piece of the pie for creating the storefront, and for providing the means for Spotify to offer service to Apple’s customers.
[doublepost=1552942920][/doublepost]

I disagree with your analogy.

I would argue that Apple is operating the equivalent of a grocery store here. The goods on the shelves are akin to the apps offered by the various developers. Apple can decide where to place each item and in the process, choose which gets more exposure.

When you buy something in a grocery store, the owner gets to decide how you pay. The owner can even go so far as to promote their own household brands (say herbal tea they brewed at home), because why not? It’s their store, their rules.

That you have access to just one grocery store is besides the point, because you chose to live in that area knowing very well you would be served by just that one store (ie: users knew what they were getting into when they purchased an iPhone and entered the Apple ecosystem).

If you don’t like it, you are free to move somewhere else (ie: switch to android) where you might enjoy more choice.

It’s Spotify here who wants to turn this into a mall. There, spotify would have its own outlet where they are free to sell whatever they want, however they want, and can decide which payment methods to use. The rental would basically be the $99 a year developer fee, but otherwise, the landlord doesn’t get a cut.

Which goes against everything that makes the iOS App Store great in the first place.

Don’t most malls also take a cut of the profits as part of the leasing agreements? It keeps the malls motivated to stay nice to get foot traffic into the stores so that they generate more revenue and the mall profits more.

 

[PlayUltimate]

Classic Retail...

Retailer purchases wholesale from Manufacturer for $x, and sells for $x+y with y covering retailer costs and profit etc.

This is exactly what Apple is doing with the App Store except for where Apple has normally been the manufacturer, they are the retailer, and instead of purchasing and holding product, they are maintaining a storefront for software.

slight disagreement: As I have posted elsewhere here, the App Store is more like a consignment store. Apple approves the items that will be in the store. And nobody gets paid until money is exchanged. Many retailers purchase the products prior to the retailer making the sale.

 

[Elyzien]

[QUOTE=" Apple does not disallow Spotify to be played on it.

Re: Apple Watch. Based on a cursory examination, neither Fitbit nor Samsung allow streaming music to be downloaded onto their watches; the music needs to be owned to transfer and play it.

Too many people are making it look like Apple has some vendetta against Spotify. Whereas it seems more and more that Spotify is just mad that they can't do what they want.[/QUOTE]


Apple Does not block those service on HomePod. To make AirPlay better make sure Bluetooth is on so the devices can create an adhoc connection. (Assuming you have iPhone 5s or newer.)

Apple won't block other services from streaming to any of their products. Airplay is a key feature and AP2 is being added to 3rd part products this year.

 

[theotherphil]

If that's possible then Spotify should prevent subscriptions through the App Store and have them managed through their web service. That's what logic should dictate anyway.

That's exactly what happens here in Australia with Spotify. Their argument is that they should be able to use Apple's in app purchasing (and transaction processing) without paying the fee that everybody else does.

 

[Bytor65]

No you don't. Best Buy sells console games, and isn't owned by Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

The physical retail channel for games, is essentially like a sneaker ware version of App Store distributing games that are approved, and a cut given to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo.

There is no less control, and no less of financial cut than there would be for a Internet App store.

They also all run Exclusive internet App stores to go with their exclusive control over the physical channel.

You can't sell a game for any of these platforms without first getting approval from the platform owner, and paying them their cut. Microsoft even had their own Music Streaming service that competed with Spotify until it didn't live up to expectations and MS folded and transitioned their users to Spotify.

It's a logical equivalent. How SW actually gets on your device (Physical or Internet) is irrelevant to the total control and financial cut they each get, which is the same.

MS is supposed to be releasing a console with no BDROM soon, and I expect the physical channel for console games will soon disappear.

 

[Rob_2811]

That's exactly what happens here in Australia with Spotify. Their argument is that they should be able to use Apple's in app purchasing (and transaction processing) without paying the fee that everybody else does.

Well no because not "everybody else" does.

I think they are also a bit miffed about this kind of anticompetitive bs from Apple

Apple rejects Spotify's app again
This time, we are rejected because of a campaign that makes reference to a Spotify Premium promotion (“get 3 months now for €0.99”), despite only directing users to a landing page with no info on where or how to purchase Premium

Apple rejects Spotify's app yet again
Rejected this time because we showed the word “Free” in Spotify’s app screenshots on the App Store. And apparently that’s prohibited…?!

And the rejections keep on coming!
At this point, it’s hard to know how Apple will interpret anything that we do. This time, the phrase “Get in, Get Premium” is prohibited

Apple Music disregards its own rules
Apple Music sends the very type of promotional push notifications that it forbids its rivals to send