Apple is notorious for punishing others. Ask any iOS developer. The even go so far as publicly stating they will punish you if your app gets rejected and you complain to the press.
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 Punishing Artists Who Offer Apple Music Exclusives [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The exclusives are far less. You can basically use Apple Music and then buy the music on iTunes if it's missing and you really want it. Kind of like how people might use Netflix and buy DVDs for films that are missing. Although, there are far more films missing from Netflix than there is music missing from Apple Music.
That would drive Spotify out of business. They are not profitable. Apple doesn't typically do loss leaders, so I don't see them going that route.
A pox on all their houses! Any service that signs up "exclusives" doesn't deserve my business.
Music services should compete on the basis of the depth and breadth of their selection, their sound quality, the creativity of their curation, the reliability of their streaming, their pricing options, etc. Requiring me to sign up for your service just to get something that no one else is allowed to offer is just an admission that you can only get customers by coercion. To hell with them all.
Music services should compete on the basis of the depth and breadth of their selection, their sound quality, the creativity of their curation, the reliability of their streaming, their pricing options, etc. Requiring me to sign up for your service just to get something that no one else is allowed to offer is just an admission that you can only get customers by coercion. To hell with them all.
So the article has been updated with Spotify denying it, Macrumors articles these days have just become click bait haha
So someone isn't being fully truthful or is being outright deceitful here. Of you'd expect Spotify to publicly deny the story, because to admit it would probably be fraught with legal issues for them.
When all of us were complaining about digital and steaming music with regards to being anti-consumer, this is what we were talking about.
I really hate this kind of exclusivity. If a product is sold exclusively at one shop, it's okay because I only need to buy that product and not everything in that shop. But it's totally different with subscription services. It sucks for consumers.
Apple has so much cash on hand they might as well buy out Spotify and own almost the entire paid streaming market.
That's a civil, not a criminal matter. As such, no jail. Fines, yes. Jail, no.
Fail to pay the fine? ... maybe go to jail for failure to pay a fine, but that largely depends on the jurisdiction and the judge dealing with the matter.
As far as I know, RIAA/MPIAA these days only directly go after ISPs of small repeat offenders (to get them to cut your internet access), and organizations (ie: business entities that they view to be "criminal") that facilitate the means to copy and distribute in an unauthorized fashion (ie: Napster in the past from RIAA, Slysoft in recent times from the MPIAA, etc.)
... and Spotify has also "buried" their songs in its search rankings.
Wow.
That's more than just evil.
It's Google-evil.
Jail? Where did you read that? Downloading music is not illegal. Its the same thing as borrowing your friends CD. Selling music without permission is. Even then, you would get fined. Not jail time.
Well whatever, it used to be cheaper so it can go cheaper again. Price war please!