Spotify's CEO Expects Apple to Further 'Open Up' After EU Antitrust Complaint

[MacRumors]

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek today told Bloomberg that he expects Apple to further "open up" in long term following the antitrust complaint Spotify filed with the European Union last year.

In the complaint, Spotify said that Apple enforces App Store rules that "purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience," and that Apple acts as "both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers."

Spotify specifically took issue with Apple's 30 percent fee collected on App Store purchases, which has forced Spotify to charge subscribers through the App Store $12.99 per month for its Premium plan instead of the $9.99 per month fee it normally collects.

The European Union subsequently launched an investigation into Apple, even though Apple claimed Spotify's complaint was "misleading rhetoric."

Apple has since made a few changes, launching a feature that allows Siri to work with non-Apple Music services, and Spotify has also introduced new Apple Watch and Apple TV apps. Ek said these moves have been encouraging.

"We're very encouraged about being able to now finally use Siri as a way of building in voice support and also being available to build products for the Apple TV and Apple Watch, something that we haven't been able to do until very recently," Ek said in the interview. It's unclear if Spotify was actually prevented from launching an Apple TV app as the platform has had other music services for multiple years as App Store apps.

Earlier this year, Bloomberg said that Apple is working on a new feature that will allow third-party apps like Spotify to run natively on the HomePod, and there may be an option that will allow users to change the default music app on iOS and iPadOS 14, further leveling the playing field between Apple and its competitors.

Apple, said Ek is "moving in the right direction," but there are "many, many steps" still to go before Spotify will consider Apple an "open and fair platform."

Article Link: Spotify's CEO Expects Apple to Further 'Open Up' After EU Antitrust Complaint

 

[Dormammu]

Boo hoo

 

[calzon65]

I get it, Apple is the "gate keeper" and one might say they have a strangle hold on IOS distribution, but could you imagine someone suing Walmart for refusing to sell their product.

 

[squirrellydw]

Apple should just make Apple Music for free and kill Spotiy, it's not like they can't afford it.

 

[moabal]

I do not agree with Spotify’s case on Apple not being a fair platform. The fact is Apple controls their own App Store. Therefore, they can determine its terms.

With that being said, whatever gets me closer to be able to set Outlook as my default email app, I am happy.

 

[MhzDoesMatter]

There are changes Apple can and perhaps should make. But I have a hard time feeling sorry for Spotify when they don't even take advantage of the apis currently available.

 

[maldahleh]

The Spotify CEO seems to have a massive ego, I don't think any of the changes Apple are making are because of him or Spotify's complaint in specific, but rather to cater to what Apple's users want.

 

[mmikuta]

Still waiting for Spotify to make it so the Apple Watch can use songs offline or stream, why so long Spotify? API is available, guess lawyers are more valuable than paying software devs

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Apple should just make Apple Music for free and kill Spotiy, it's not like they can't afford it.

Because Apple Music is the be-all, end-all, most awesome music service? According to who, you?
[automerge]1588718846[/automerge]

I get it, Apple is the "gate keeper" and one might say they have a strangle hold on IOS distribution, but could you imagine someone suing Walmart for refusing to sell their product.

That's the not point. First, Apple has made it so that the App Store is the only source of apps. Walmart is not the only source of food, clothes, electronics, etc.

Second, imagine buying a TV at Walmart, and then any streaming services you subscribe to, you have to get them through Walmart's TV App Portal, and the services are 30% higher than everyone else. Hardly fair. Not quite equal because Walmart doesn't have a stranglehold on TV's, whereas the App Store has a stranglehold on apps.

Should Apple make something on in-app purchases? Sure. They can't run an App Store for free (although they've made it so people need it), but 30% for something they had nothing to do with whatsoever? Maybe a couple percent, at most, for the convenience.
[automerge]1588719001[/automerge]

astill waiting for Spotify to make it so the Apple Watch can use songs offline or stream, why so long Spotify? API is available, guess lawyers are more valuable than paying software devs

This. (and, why Instagram doesn't have an iPad app yet!)

 

[mariusignorello]

Because Apple Music is the be-all, end-all, most awesome music service? According to who, you?
[automerge]1588718846[/automerge]

That's the not point. First, Apple has made it so that the App Store is the only source of apps. Walmart is not the only source of food, clothes, electronics, etc.

Second, imagine buying a TV at Walmart, and then any streaming services you subscribe to, you have to get them through Walmart's TV App Portal, and the services are 30% higher than everyone else. Hardly fair. Not quite equal because Walmart doesn't have a stranglehold on TV's, whereas the App Store has a stranglehold on apps.

Should Apple make something on in-app purchases? Sure. They can't run an App Store for free (although they've made it so people need it), but 30% for something they had nothing to do with whatsoever? Maybe a couple percent, at most, for the convenience.

So hosting the in-app purchase content, payment processing, APIs to enable in-app purchasing is all nothing?

 

[GeoStructural]

I do not agree with Spotify’s case on Apple not being a fair platform. The fact is Apple controls their own App Store. Therefore, they can determine its terms.

With that being said, whatever gets me closer to be able to set Outlook as my default email app, I am happy.

I would agree with you if there were other App Stores or ways for people to compete, but there aren't. It doesn't matter that Apple created the device or the service, if they are competing it has to be fair because the law says so.

Developers have to pay a yearly fee to be there, then on top of that companies like Spotify have to pay an additional 30% of their income, that is a huge amount of money, I cannot imagine paying 30% of what I charged for a project to anyone.

I hope the EU will do the right thing and support Spotify here.
[automerge]1588719077[/automerge]

So hosting the in-app purchase content, payment processing, APIs to enable in-app purchasing is all nothing?

Yes. I can host my own app, I can deal with payment services, I can do all of that without loosing 30% of my business or overcharging costumers to fill Apple's deep pockets.

 

[coolfactor]

Because Apple Music is the be-all, end-all, most awesome music service? According to who, you?

Apple Music is a very GOOD music service.

Best? Most awesome? Those are subjective opinions.
[automerge]1588719380[/automerge]
I am leaning more towards Spotify's side, even if I think they are being whiney.

Music Service "A" - $9.99
Music Service "B" - $12.99 (after adding the 30% charge on top)

I firmly believe that Apple should lower their fees. Don't make it zero, but lower them to allow fairer competition within their platform.

 

[totom_]

astill waiting for Spotify to make it so the Apple Watch can use songs offline or stream, why so long Spotify? API is available, guess lawyers are more valuable than paying software devs

Exactly, it’s been almost 8 months since iOS 13 and still nothing. This is ridiculous. I’ll get the new Apple Watch in September and if they don’t release offline playback by them I’ll switch to Apple Music. if Spotify didn’t have those great auto generated playlists tho...

 

[Feyl]

I’m an Apple Music user but I would go with Spotify in a heart beat if it sound better. To be honest it’s better in almost every single way.

 

[mi7chy]

Don't Be Evil

 

[ZachHarley]

So hosting the in-app purchase content, payment processing, APIs to enable in-app purchasing is all nothing?

You pay up to $1,000+ for an iPhone and that price subsidises the running of the App Store and the development of the OS. Apple are the biggest beneficiaries of a vibrant third-party developer ecosystem; an iPhone without third-party apps would not be a compelling product.

Apple are engaging in rent seeking behaviour by double-dipping on the premium prices for their products and fees they extract from the monopoly they have over developers.

 

[kenni417]

I’m an Apple Music user but I would go with Spotify in a heart beat if it sound better. To be honest it’s better in almost every single way.

that’s the opposite for me. spotify has way better equalizer controls, where as apple music only has preset settings and all of them sound muffled to me. only a subscriber of apple music because of the student discount and works well with the homepod.
[automerge]1588720566[/automerge]

 

[MEJHarrison]

Developers have to pay a yearly fee to be there, then on top of that companies like Spotify have to pay an additional 30% of their income, that is a huge amount of money, I cannot imagine paying 30% of what I charged for a project to anyone.

30% isn't out of line. In fact, it seems to match the industry standard when it comes to games.

I'm making no judgement on what's fair, just what's common.

Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard - IGN

A breakdown of how much every major retailer takes from the sale of a game.

www.ign.com

 

[mmikuta]

If only Apple Music supported cross-fade on iOS, only reason I am staying on Spotify, stupid sure but makes mixes for the gym just better, maybe an EQ also unless I missed something about the current release.

 

[goobot]

So hosting the in-app purchase content, payment processing, APIs to enable in-app purchasing is all nothing?

You are correct but Apple doesn’t let developers push their own sign up mechanisms in their apps nor advertise them to go to their site otherwise to do it.

 

[jcshas]

What an arrogant SOB.

 

[nt5672]

I will never get locked into Apple Music. Sure it seems nice right now, but I have been fooled in the past with Apple stuff that just magically went away because the it was no longer fashionable. The thing we know from Apple's past is that you cannot trust them to maintain anything into the future.

 

[paul4339]

Google and Apple are both the same 30% first year and 15% there later - if you sign up for the service thru their platform (app stores)

if you sign up for Spotify over a browser, and then grab the app, then Spotify pays Apple or Google nothing (but still get to use their platforms)

But I believe Spotify charged $3 more for the subscription thru Apple’s App Store.

Apple claimed last year, that the first year 30% fee applied only 0.5% of the Spotify members (because Spotify stopped allow subscribers sign up through the app) and 680k members for 15% fee (which a small potatoes compared to their google customer base)

So from a $ perspective, it’s just sour grapes and a waste of money for both companies.

So why complain about Apple, and not Google where the stakes are higher:
Apple’s policy of not letting app developers put a link that re-directs them to a browser to sign-up (hence by-passing the App Store payment service). I believe, this is was original complaint, that it wasn’t level playing field.

 

[Abazigal]

Give em an inch and they ask for a foot.

Ah well, not like this is going to help make Spotify any less unprofitable.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I get it, Apple is the "gate keeper" and one might say they have a strangle hold on IOS distribution, but could you imagine someone suing Walmart for refusing to sell their product.

It's more like Wal*Mart forcing denim manufacturers to sell denim at a 30% markup to Levis and Wrangler, and giving free promotional placement for their house brand.