Spotify Pens Joint Letter Calling Apple 'Harmful' and 'Anti-Competitive,' Claims App Store Ruins Business

[jlc1978]

I think that many people here don't understand that the 15-30% fees that Apple charges to APP developers and platforms cause the products to cost more to end users.

Of course, just like at any retailer where they markup prices to make a profit.

Reality is... if the fees were mandated to come down. or dare I say it... the walled garden is opened by regulators so people who buy phones can install what they want without Apple surcharge or censorship... well iPhone and iPad owners would be able to get lots more things done and cheaper.

I doubt cheaper. Look at the Mac as an example. A quick check of several apps shows teh same price on the App Store and the web. Some may charge less, but since users are already paying the App Store price I suspect many would simply pocket the difference.

As for more things, perhaps, at the potential for more malware and piracy. Look at Android for that model. Many apps use IAP simply becasue piracy forces them to give away the app and use IAP to try to make money; having a pay once app only invites pirates to use it without paying.

As for alternative app stores, will they be able to provide the services Apple does and reach the customer base for less than 30% and stay in business? Cydia, arguably the most successful alternative to Apple, charged (drumroll) 30% for apps sold on its platform.

Strict EU laws may cause trouble for Apple.

I suspect in the end Apple will find a way to make up for any lost revenue to the detriment of developers who currently enjoy a rather good deal overall. Apple could, for example, charge per download or for every time a user searches for the app. They could give developers some free tier so smaller developers are unaffected while the EPICs and Spotifys of the world wind up paying more than they do today.

Apple could take the same sandboxing approach as they do with the Mac, and offer signing services, for a fee, to other app stores or developers to bypass it.

The old saying, be careful what you wish for because you may get it, might be appropriate here.

 

[darngooddesign]

If Apple are forced to allow sideloading and other stores, I hope they make it a one way decision... choose another store and you no longer have access to the regular store. See how tempting it is then. Use security to justify it. If you want access to whatever you like then we will let you BUT you dont get to do whatever you want without a cost and we wont let you install apps that could compromise security of the Apple Store only users.

How do you figure that what one user does on their iPhone is going to compromise the security of an App-Store only user on a different phone?

 

[webkit]

I’ll grant you, big or small isn’t determinative. But I’ll still argue that the “world’s largest streaming service” is being harmed is 1 count against the hyperbole of Spotify.

That was largely my original point so if we agree on this, there’s probably little reason to debate it further. Just because a company may have a large share in a particular market doesn't mean they shouldn't call out another company they feel is being anticompetitive and potentially "harming" the marketplace.

 

[webkit]

In spotifys case it appears the artists are being harmed by their low rates of pay. Maybe Spotify should leave the App Store. They can survive on their own, they are a household brand.

If artists are being "harmed" by Spotify's low pay rates (even though there are numerous other streaming services available for them to market their music including Amazon Music, Apple Music, Deezer, Pandora, Tidal, YouTube Music, etc.) then a similar argument can be made that companies are being "harmed" by Apple's App Store, payment and sideloading restrictions, etc. (even with Android alternative).

If the excuse "there are alternatives" shouldn't fly when in comes to Spotify, it also shouldn't’ fly when it comes to Apple/iOS.

 

[I7guy]

If artists are being "harmed" by Spotify's low pay rates (even though there are numerous other streaming services available for them to market their music including Amazon Music, Apple Music, Deezer, Pandora, Tidal, YouTube Music, etc.) then a similar argument can be made that companies are being "harmed" by Apple's App Store, payment and sideloading restrictions, etc. (even with Android alternative).

If the excuse "there are alternatives" shouldn't fly when in comes to Spotify, it also shouldn't’ fly when it comes to Apple/iOS.

And if the government doesn't step in to stop the "harm" to the artists, they shouldn't step in to stop the "harm" to the competition.

 

[iBluetooth]

Would Spotify allow me, as an independent musician, to use their platform but to charge my listeners independently?

Very good point. Eat your own food

 

[I7guy]

Very good point. Eat your own food

It’s called walking the talk.

 

[notabadname]

The simple fact that they don’t support Homepod, should negate their claim. You either actually believe in an openly competitive market, or you simply want to continually tie up your competition in litigation for 1-sided arguments about an “unfair” market. Their position would be somewhat credible with native HomePod integration.

 

[techfreak23]

“Ruins business…” lol they wouldn’t even have a business to begin with if it wasn’t for the App Store.

 

[subi257]

They can always leave the apple store if they hate it so much.

 

[Chazak]

I will put my hands up and say I was a very happy Spotify user until I got an Apple Watch about 5 years ago, which only really worked with Apple Music. Same with the HomePod I got later.

If Apple allowed me to use Spotify in the way that Apple Music works with these devices, I would still be a loyal Spotify user. I miss all my friends mixes etc. but I need to be able to use Siri with my devices, leave the house with my watch only and known I'll be able to stream…

Perhaps if Spotify had an Apple Watch/HomePod extension you would be able use those devices with Spotify ... You are blaming the wrong people. Apple is not keeping you from that. Spotify refuses to build their apps with full compatibility and have said so out loud.

 

[Abazigal]

The simple fact that they don’t support Homepod, should negate their claim. You either actually believe in an openly competitive market, or you simply want to continually tie up your competition in litigation for 1-sided arguments about an “unfair” market. Their position would be somewhat credible with native HomePod integration.

That's pretty much the nature of complaints these days. People cry "unfair" when they really mean "not to my advantage".

 

[.wojtek]

Good thing Android exists for you then.

LOL, I'm using Android. Simply can't stand iOS It's way to limiting and keyboard is just awful if you are not (mainly) English-speaking (having to deal with 3 languages at the same time, including my native Polish, is simply a clusterfreak on iOS... and SwiftKey is not on par with it's Android counterpart...).

Though, I do love my MBP M1 <3 but I use brew on it and virtually don't use any Apple applications on it

 

[Fred Zed]

Running and crying to the EU 😂 only place that can “enforce” what they want these days I guess .

 

[the7th1]

Yeah, because Spotify are the ones to talk! They are standing in the way of the recovery of the music industry.

 

[Hails09]

To be fair Spotify has a point over the years with various different things for example the price being one 30% cut Apple don’t need to take that for their Apple Music subscription. The other being deliberate rejecting Spotify’s app updates as it competes with apple’s. Then Spotify implemented new features & then apple suddenly puts their version of the features into Apple Music & with it being cheaper hence they can run Apple Music at a loss because they make so much money from their iPhones. That’s the complaint it’s not a fair field they are competing in.

 

[webkit]

And if the government doesn't step in to stop the "harm" to the artists, they shouldn't step in to stop the "harm" to the competition.

So, you feel if the government is going to step in to stop Apple's "harmful" or "anticompetitive" behavior then it should do the same with Spotify? The argument being that if Apple is "harming" app developers and marketers by what they charge in App Store fees, by not allowing alternative app stores, by not allowing sideloading, etc. on their platform then Spotify is similarly "harming" artists by what they pay out for music played on their platform. Does this about sum it up?

 

[I7guy]

So, you feel if the government is going to step in to stop Apple's "harmful" or "anticompetitive" behavior then it should do the same with Spotify? The argument being that if Apple is "harming" app developers and marketers by what they charge in App Store fees, by not allowing alternative app stores, by not allowing sideloading, etc. on their platform then Spotify is similarly "harming" artists by what they pay out for music played on their platform. Does this about sum it up?

I’m piggybacking in your thoughts. Spotify wants apples app stores not controlled by apple and I dont endorse regulations making that happen.

But I do think that if the government is stepping in to remedy “harm” to the businesses it should step in to remedy “harm” to the artists.

After all fair is fair and harm is harm.

 

[jlc1978]

So, you feel if the government is going to step in to stop Apple's "harmful" or "anticompetitive" behavior then it should do the same with Spotify? The argument being that if Apple is "harming" app developers and marketers by what they charge in App Store fees, by not allowing alternative app stores, by not allowing sideloading, etc. on their platform then Spotify is similarly "harming" artists by what they pay out for music played on their platform. Does this about sum it up?

Yes. Spotify should be required, as the main music gatekeeper, to allow artists to charge separately from Spotify to stream their songs, all without requiring a Spotify subscription. Major artists could get together and create catalogs that they then price and get paid outside of Spotify while using Spotify's infrastructure to stream.

 

[_Spinn_]

This is pretty rich coming from a company that buys up podcasts and locks them behind their app. Podcast should be accessible from any podcasting app.

 

[CapitalIdea]

I wonder why Spotify insists on paying artists less than other services, even for subscribers outside of the App Store.

 

[jlc1978]

I wonder why Spotify insists on paying artists less than other services, even for subscribers outside of the App Store.

Because they can. They are big enough to dictate terms, and until the EU slaps them down they will continue to use their market share to harm musicians.

The problem they have is if they pay more they will either have to raise prices and probably lose subscribers, or take a hit on margin.

 

[wbeasley]

All of these people need to get over themselves. You try to run a business and provide the credit card service costs, the sales tax collection, the marketing costs, the advertising costs, and the website costs, along with the cost of downloading the app. Oh and you provide over a billion customers for the service. And after you do all that, let’s look at what it costs you. I guarantee that it is more than 30 percent of the cost.

The same hardcore group disagreeing on all posts seem to only even click No without any text justifying their responses. Hahaha...

 

[wbeasley]

Steve Jobs said 1983: "What we want to do is we want to put an incredibly great computer in a book that you can carry around with you and learn how to use in 20 minutes ... and we really want to do it with a radio link in it so you don't have to hook up to anything and you're in communication with all of these larger databases and other computers"

In 1993, Apple launched its first attempt at a mobile device; Newton Message Pad.

In 2007 Apple launched the iPhone, and in 2008 the iPhone SDK and AppStore.

We can safely agree that Apple invented both the modern smartphone and the app economy as we know them today.

What exactly is the problem? All retailers put a margin on the products they sell.
What would it look like if, for example, Nike were to complain to Walmart that they would not be allowed to put a margin on their shoes, but Nike would get 100% of what consumers pay...?

Stop whining.

Instead, be happy for the app economy that Apple has created for you.

one person Thumbs Down. Hahahah.
and no explanation of how they see app stores should work.

if you don't like the current model, tell us your proposal... we'll wait

 

[webkit]

I’m piggybacking in your thoughts. Spotify wants apples app stores not controlled by apple and I dont endorse regulations making that happen.

But I do think that if the government is stepping in to remedy “harm” to the businesses it should step in to remedy “harm” to the artists.

After all fair is fair and harm is harm.

So, does that mean you feel Apple is indeed being "harmful" to app developers and marketers by its restrictions on alternative app stores, payment systems, sideloading, etc.?