Addressing Spotify’s Claims - Apple

[Pargon]

I'm not really sure what anyone is expecting the outcome of this to be. The App Store's 30% cut is the cost of doing business. If you want on the platform, you have to pay the fee for it.
At most, what I could see would be the removal of iOS' Music app as a preinstalled app, or making Apple Music its own app which is not installed by default.
Splitting off Apple Music into its own entity that also has to pay app store fees for its subscriptions doesn't seem like it would achieve much.

EDIT: I also think that not being able to advertise sign-ups for the service outside iOS is scummy. They might not allow to offer the option in the app to use a third party service but not even a link? That is definitely not fair since Apple can use the IAP and not pay the 30 (or 15) per cent.

Click to shrink...

That trivializes the process to signing up and bypassing Apple's cut.
If anything, Apple are being generous for even allowing external subscriptions that bypass the app store on the service at all.

 

[Infinity Times Two]

Yeah, they are side-stepping the whole point of Spotify's claim. Yes, they are on the same playing field as the other apps on the store. But not on the same playing field as Apple Music. That's the whole thing.

Click to shrink...

That IS the issue, but Spotify is being disingenuous by bringing up Uber and Deliveroo as examples of this.

 

[Deleted member 9330]

Alright, so this is a legitimate question coming from wanting to understand: Apple Music does not have to pay the 30% while Spotify would, that's correct. What's the difference between this situation and that of a store brand vs name brand at a supermarket? The store brand is usually right next to the name brand, a lower price and they of course don't have to pay any retailing fees.

 

[kiguel182]

I'm not really sure what anyone is expecting the outcome of this to be. The App Store's 30% cut is the cost of doing business. If you want on the platform, you have to pay the fee for it.
At most, what I could see would be the removal of iOS' Music app as a preinstalled app, or making Apple Music its own app which is not installed by default.
Splitting off Apple Music into its own entity that also has to pay app store fees for its subscriptions doesn't seem like it would achieve much.


That trivializes the process to signing up and bypassing Apple's cut.
If anything, Apple are being generous for even allowing external subscriptions that bypass the app store on the service at all.

Click to shrink...

Apple is being generous? They are directly competing with them and making Apple Music have extra functions (like easy payments) that Spotify has to pay 30 per cent to have. So how is that "everyone plays by the same rules"?

If they want to force that then it's one thing. But they have their own app that directly competes without having to do any of that. That's unfair competitions since they don't play by the same rules.

Spotify isn't complaining against competing with Google Music or Pandora on IOS since they are in an even playing field while Apple Music isn't.

That IS the issue, but Spotify is being disingenuous by bringing up Uber and Deliveroo as examples of this.

Click to shrink...

That's part of the problem with Spotify's framing. Apple made it clear that if you buy something that is used in the device you have to pay them a cut. That doesn't apply to Uber and others. The problem is, Apple doesn't have to pay this while directly competing with them and that's what Spotify needs to focus on. They can offer the same service 30 per cent cheaper because they own the platform and the App Store.

Amazon has the same problem with Kindle but they are too big to care I guess. Same with Google. Spotify on the other hand can't afford not to care.

 

[kiguel182]

Alright, so this is a legitimate question coming from wanting to understand: Apple Music does not have to pay the 30% while Spotify would, that's correct. What's the difference between this situation and that of a store brand vs name brand at a supermarket? The store brand is usually right next to the name brand, a lower price and they of course don't have to pay any retailing fees.

Click to shrink...

Boxed products don't pay to be on the supermarket as far as I know. Supermarkets order the products to sell so when they are on the shelves the products already received money.

Unless I'm mistaken that's the difference.

 

[ascagnel]

That letter is a classic. And Apple still hosts it!

https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

I remember being upset set about that letter when it first came out because I thought it was Apple being stubborn and not supporting Flash and it would significantly harm the iPad long-term.

Nah, they were right.

Click to shrink...

The iPhone Flash situation, as someone who had bought my first Apple device a few months prior, was dumbfuoundingly obvious to me at the time. The Mac version of Flash was absolute shit:

• It lacked hardware acceleration for video playback, the main use of Flash at that time
• It had its own cookie store that could be auto-populated by JavaScript, allowing a zombie cookie vector
• It ran substantially slower on non-Windows OSes, even on the same hardware

Apple was right to look at how Flash ran on their other non-dominant platform and decide to not allow any plug-ins.

 

[ascagnel]

Apple is being generous? They are directly competing with them and making Apple Music have extra functions (like easy payments) that Spotify has to pay 30 per cent to have. So how is that "everyone plays by the same rules"?

If they want to force that then it's one thing. But they have their own app that directly competes without having to do any of that. That's unfair competitions since they don't play by the same rules.

Spotify isn't complaining against competing with Google Music or Pandora on IOS since they are in an even playing field while Apple Music isn't.




That's part of the problem with Spotify's framing. Apple made it clear that if you buy something that is used in the device you have to pay them a cut. That doesn't apply to Uber and others. The problem is, Apple doesn't have to pay this while directly competing with them and that's what Spotify needs to focus on. They can offer the same service 30 per cent cheaper because they own the platform and the App Store.

Amazon has the same problem with Kindle but they are too big to care I guess. Same with Google. Spotify on the other hand can't afford not to care.

Click to shrink...

Amazon cares — you cannot buy Kindle books from the iOS app (unlike the Android app), and must go through the website. Same with Comixology and Netflix.

 

[kiguel182]

Amazon cares — you cannot buy Kindle books from the iOS app (unlike the Android app), and must go through the website. Same with Comixology and Netflix.

Click to shrink...

I know. I'm saying they don't care enough for a lawsuit. They had one for price fixing of ebooks on the Apple app but no antitrust one that I'm aware.

Apple isn't competing with Netflix (yet) so no antitrust for them. Altought that will change soon so it would be interesting to see if they do anything.

 

[808s & Villainy]

On the other hand, Spotifys gripe with the 30% tax isn't necessarily the number, and they didn't even mention the drop to 15%. Any tax will put Spotify at a disadvantage, so in that way, Apple is right. They want all the benefits of the App Store, while not making any sacrifices.

Click to shrink...

Not necessarily. One thing to note is that Apple doesn't even allow apps to display alternate payment options. It'd be one thing for Apple to take a cut when using in-app purchase, but allow the Spotify app to mention people can sign up elsewherre, but they don't allow that. Not to mention Google does allow that so Apple has less of an argument

 

[Pargon]

Apple is being generous? They are directly competing with them and making Apple Music have extra functions (like easy payments) that Spotify has to pay 30 per cent to have. So how is that "everyone plays by the same rules"?

If they want to force that then it's one thing. But they have their own app that directly competes without having to do any of that. That's unfair competitions since they don't play by the same rules.

Spotify isn't complaining against competing with Google Music or Pandora on IOS since they are in an even playing field while Apple Music isn't.

Click to shrink...

Like I asked: what outcome are people expecting from this?
How does Apple pay a 30% fee to itself? They aren't going to abolish App Store fees.
If they split off Apple Music into its own company that has to pay those fees, it's still Apple paying Apple and doesn't really change the situation much, except on a technicality.
That's why I suggested that the most likely outcome is that the Music app will stop being pre-installed, or Apple Music will be split off to a separate app.

Spotify has now removed the option to pay for a subscription via the App Store, yet Apple is still allowing their service to run on it, despite Spotify benefiting from Apple's infrastructure (app delivery and updates) and market-share.
I'd say that is generous, considering that Spotify's existence is costing Apple money now, while running a competing service.
They're not entitled to be on the platform.

 

[RDreamer]

Boxed products don't pay to be on the supermarket as far as I know. Supermarkets order the products to sell so when they are on the shelves the products already received money.

Unless I'm mistaken that's the difference.

Click to shrink...

There are slotting fees and pay-to-stay fees in supermarkets that push smaller companies and products out in s similar way.

 

[Deleted member 8860]

I'm not really sure what anyone is expecting the outcome of this to be. The App Store's 30% cut is the cost of doing business. If you want on the platform, you have to pay the fee for it.
At most, what I could see would be the removal of iOS' Music app as a preinstalled app, or making Apple Music its own app which is not installed by default.
Splitting off Apple Music into its own entity that also has to pay app store fees for its subscriptions doesn't seem like it would achieve much.


That trivializes the process to signing up and bypassing Apple's cut.
If anything, Apple are being generous for even allowing external subscriptions that bypass the app store on the service at all.

Click to shrink...

Maybe Apple, like Google and Amazon and Facebook (and Microsoft?), should be broken up into independent companies. But the EU has neither the will nor the means to make that happen.

I think the most likely outcome is for Spotify and other media services to be able to explain, in-app, how to pay on the website (even if not providing a clickable link).

 

[phonicjoy]

Thats not correct. Overcast does it at the very least.

Click to shrink...

Can it stream directly from the watch? I installed it (normally use pocket casts) specifically because it can *download* podcasts to the watch for listening without a phone but I didn't think it can stream them.

If it can that would be good (assuming it can access my subscriptions) because bloody hell the downloads are so slow i've Usually listened to a podcast before it's synced across. Any my phone.watch both sit on chargers overnight within 6 inches of each other.

Click to shrink...

Ahhh I think you are correct. If I remember it correctly though, its not a limitation on apples part, but because of processing for voice boost and smart speed that cant be done on the watch yet.

 

[Deleted member 9330]

Not necessarily. One thing to note is that Apple doesn't even allow apps to display alternate payment options. It'd be one thing for Apple to take a cut when using in-app purchase, but allow the Spotify app to mention people can sign up elsewherre, but they don't allow that. Not to mention Google does allow that so Apple has less of an argument

Click to shrink...

I would also like to throw out there that Apple Music on Android doesn't use Google's payment system, because they don't have to. So Apple doing on Google Play what they're complaining Spotify wants to do (be in an ecosystem without contributing)

 

[Kthulhu]

I really hope the EU does something about Apple. They very clearly aren't competing fairly with all the other music apps.

 

[kiguel182]

Like I asked: what outcome are people expecting from this?
How does Apple pay a 30% fee to itself? They aren't going to abolish App Store fees.
If they split off Apple Music into its own company that has to pay those fees, it's still Apple paying Apple and doesn't really change the situation much, except on a technicality.
That's why I suggested that the most likely outcome is that the Music app will stop being pre-installed, or Apple Music will be split off to a separate app.

Spotify has now removed the option to pay for a subscription via the App Store, yet Apple is still allowing their service to run on it, despite Spotify benefiting from Apple's infrastructure (app delivery and updates) and market-share.
I'd say that is generous, considering that Spotify's existence is costing Apple money now, while running a competing service.
They're not entitled to be on the platform.

Click to shrink...

I don't know what the most likely outcome is. I think following Google's way of doing it makes sense (if the content isn't exclusive to the app you can link to external services).

Apple also benefits from Spotify being there. Spotify is the most popular music streaming app. Do you think them leaving the App Store would be good for Apple?iOS needs apps as much as apps need iOS. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Uber also doesn't pay anything to apple. Neither does Netflix. Or Facebook etc etc. Do you think Apple is being generous with them as well? The cost of having them in the App Store is minimal and they bring people to the platform.

The difference is Apple is competing with Spotify. Directly. And circumventing the rules of their own store. Therefore, there's no evening playing field and that is unfair competition and it's not good for consumers. Which is what I care about in the end.

Apple can apply whatever rules they want to their App Store. But then introducing their own apps that compete with them and don't have to follow any of those rules is bad. And doesn't benefit anyone but Apple.

 

[phonicjoy]

Like I asked: what outcome are people expecting from this?
How does Apple pay a 30% fee to itself? They aren't going to abolish App Store fees.
If they split off Apple Music into its own company that has to pay those fees, it's still Apple paying Apple and doesn't really change the situation much, except on a technicality.
That's why I suggested that the most likely outcome is that the Music app will stop being pre-installed, or Apple Music will be split off to a separate app.

Spotify has now removed the option to pay for a subscription via the App Store, yet Apple is still allowing their service to run on it, despite Spotify benefiting from Apple's infrastructure (app delivery and updates) and market-share.
I'd say that is generous, considering that Spotify's existence is costing Apple money now, while running a competing service.
They're not entitled to be on the platform.

Click to shrink...

If they split Apple up they are different entities that need to play by the rules and the problem is gone.

 

[JCizzle]

I would also like to throw out there that Apple Music on Android doesn't use Google's payment system, because they don't have to. So Apple doing on Google Play what they're complaining Spotify wants to do (be in an ecosystem without contributing)

Click to shrink...

That doesn't seem very generous of them.

 

[kiguel182]

There are slotting fees and pay-to-stay fees in supermarkets that push smaller companies and products out in s similar way.

Click to shrink...

I knew about paying for better placement but I don't think that's the issue here. Even pay-to-stay fees are more about big brands fucking over small ones and not in-store products.

Spotify isn't complaining that Apple Music is pre-installed or that it appears first of search results.

But, regardless, scummy behaviour is still scummy. Lot's of anti-competitive shit happens in every field.

 

[Mindwipe]

Like I asked: what outcome are people expecting from this?
How does Apple pay a 30% fee to itself? They aren't going to abolish App Store fees.

Click to shrink...

I expect the EU to force Apple to let people use other payment mechanisms in apps if they chose to, and to link out to external sites.

Probably to also say that Apple can let everyone do promotional notifications or they cannot do them for Apple Music.

I'm not sure they'll do so much on the devices simply because incompetence seems like a valid explanation for the state of the watch/Homepod APIs.

 

[Kthulhu]

Like I asked: what outcome are people expecting from this?
How does Apple pay a 30% fee to itself? They aren't going to abolish App Store fees.
If they split off Apple Music into its own company that has to pay those fees, it's still Apple paying Apple and doesn't really change the situation much, except on a technicality.

Click to shrink...

That actually would change quite a bit. Apple Music would be force to pay the 30%, which will require them to adjust their pricing in order to remain profitable (assuming it even is, I honestly don't know) similar to Spotify. This would result in Apple Music being forced to compete on an even playing field with Spotify and the other music apps.

 

[Deleted member 41520]

"Spotify seeks to keep all the benefits of the App Store ecosystem — including the substantial revenue that they draw from the App Store's customers — without making any contributions to that marketplace. At the same time, they distribute the music you love while making ever-smaller contributions to the artists, musicians and songwriters who create it — even going so far as to take these creators to court."

Shots fired, amazing lines from Apple here

 

[Pargon]

If they split Apple up they are different entities that need to play by the rules and the problem is gone.

Click to shrink...

That is probably going to be the most likely outcome then, even it really only seems like a technicality.

I think the most likely outcome is for Spotify and other media services to be able to explain, in-app, how to pay on the website (even if not providing a clickable link).

Click to shrink...

But why should Apple let them on the App Store at that point if all they're doing is bypassing their payment systems?
Spotify probably burns through the $99 annual developer fee in a day of operational costs, and at that point they are costing Apple money if they aren't getting a cut of the subscription.

I don't know what the most likely outcome is. I think following Google's way of doing it makes sense (if the content isn't exclusive to the app you can link to external services).

Apple also benefits from Spotify being there. Spotify is the most popular music streaming app. Do you think them leaving the App Store would be good for Apple?iOS needs apps as much as apps need iOS. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Uber also doesn't pay anything to apple. Neither does Netflix. Or Facebook etc etc. Do you think Apple is being generous with them as well? The cost of having them in the App Store is minimal and they bring people to the platform.

The difference is Apple is competing with Spotify. Directly. And circumventing the rules of their own store. Therefore, there's no evening playing field and that is unfair competition and it's not good for consumers. Which is what I care about in the end.

Apple can apply whatever rules they want to their App Store. But then introducing their own apps that compete with them and don't have to follow any of those rules is bad. And doesn't benefit anyone but Apple.

Click to shrink...

I mean, you're not wrong that it is a symbiotic relationship, and it would hurt Apple if all the companies doing this were to pull their services from the App Store.
But how is Apple supposed to operate as a business if they were ordered to open up payment services that they don't get a cut from, and allow apps to bypass their payment systems by clicking a link on the purchase page?
That's obviously going to affect them very little in the short-term, but running a service to distribute apps that they no longer make any money from, other than indirectly making their hardware more attractive, would probably hurt them a lot long-term.

I expect the EU to force Apple to let people use other payment mechanisms in apps if they chose to, and to link out to external sites.
Probably to also say that Apple can let everyone do promotional notifications or they cannot do them for Apple Music.
I'm not sure they'll do so much on the devices simply because incompetence seems like a valid explanation for the state of the watch/Homepod APIs.

Click to shrink...

I would expect Apple to set up Apple Music as a separate entity before they allowed that to happen.

 

[Deleted member 50374]

I can't wait for the European Union to rain down justice on walled gardens of any kind.

 

[kiguel182]

That is probably going to be the most likely outcome then, even it really only seems like a technicality.


But why should Apple let them on the App Store at that point if all they're doing is bypassing their payment systems?
Spotify probably burns through the $99 annual developer fee in a day of operational costs, and at that point they are costing Apple money if they aren't getting a cut of the subscription.


I mean, you're not wrong that it is a symbiotic relationship, and it would hurt Apple if all the companies doing this were to pull their services from the App Store.
But how is Apple supposed to operate as a business if they were ordered to open up payment services that they don't get a cut from, and allow apps to bypass their payment systems by clicking a link on the purchase page?
That's obviously going to affect them very little in the short-term, but running a service to distribute apps that they no longer make any money from, other than indirectly making their hardware more attractive, would probably hurt them a lot long-term.


I would expect Apple to set up Apple Music as a separate entity before they allowed that to happen.

Click to shrink...

I agree that they need to take revenue for these apps. Of course I do.

But Google makes a distinctions between in app purchases that are consumed in-app and external ones where these types of services are considered external (since you can use them in a website or another platform). That's an okay distinction for me.

The problem is they are using this rule to make their apps more attractive. Not by making them better but by either making their competitors have less features or make them less money with no in-between.

I don't think this is an easy issue but right now I'm inclined for the antitrust case. I don't think Spotify made the best case but Apple's response didn't help. Especially the deflecting. Spotify is scummy with artists but that has nothing to do with any of this.

I also don't like how Apple positions the whole "everyone plays by the same rules" but then does promotional notifications that are totally against their rules. It's scummy.

 

[makingmusic476]

Why should music be free?


If you want lower-cost music though, Apple Music is the solution. 5 bucks student, 10 bucks single 15 bucks family.

It's the Apple Music catalog PLUS all the music you already own (including personally dumped discs that will never be on sale digitally, and personally projects) streamed anywhere and everywhere. No other competing music service quite matches that. Not sponsored by Apple, Cupertino, or any of that, and was a day 1 Spotify Premium person as well, just use Apple Music because it's the cheapest, but most complete option all things considered.

Click to shrink...

Google Play Music has been doing all of this since 2013.

 

[Mitchman1411]

https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ is Spotify's timeline for this.

 

[808s & Villainy]

Alright, so this is a legitimate question coming from wanting to understand: Apple Music does not have to pay the 30% while Spotify would, that's correct. What's the difference between this situation and that of a store brand vs name brand at a supermarket? The store brand is usually right next to the name brand, a lower price and they of course don't have to pay any retailing fees.

Click to shrink...

You can't really apply a physical analogy. It doesn't work that way. There is no centralized physical store where everyone shops at. The overwhelming majority of iOS users get apps through the App Store.

 

[Batatina]

I don't like the impact that the 30% charge on digital purchases had on the customer experience, because it usually means you'll be directed to a website and forced to purchase things through there. I understand the business case from Apple's perspective, but it's a terrible user experience and therefore I can't support it. This is a good answer to Spotify's claims though.

 

[Deleted member 8860]

.

But Google makes a distinctions between in app purchases that are consumed in-app and external ones where these types of services are considered external (since you can use them in a website or another platform). That's an okay distinction for me.

Click to shrink...

Google makes a distinction between media IAP and game IAP, regardless of the game otherwise being available as a webapp or on another platform.

Why is media special?

 

[Infinity Times Two]

I don't like the impact that the 30% charge on digital purchases had on the customer experience, because it usually means you'll be directed to a website and forced to purchase things through there. I understand the business case from Apple's perspective, but it's a terrible user experience and therefore I can't support it. This is a good answer to Spotify's claims though.

Click to shrink...

You don't get directed to a site with a different payment solution, because that's against the App Store rules.

The way Netflix did it was to remove the IAP hooks and just not mention how you're supposed to give them money. Which in itself is bad UX, but that was Netflixs bet.

 

[Vuze]

Good response from Apple. As somebody who followed the whole Snowy on Apple Watch situation back in the day, it was obvious from the get-go that Spotify was lying in regards to the integration of at least the Watch functionality. Them dragging their feet for like two years and submitting the app only in September last year just tops it off. There is no point in Apple rejecting or blocking them from using services and protocols that are exclusive to their ecosystem as it would sell their hardware which certainly is more profitable than Apple Music.

 

[House_Of_Lightning]

Just read it, reminds me of the letter about Flash that Steve Jobs wrote.

Like that letter, Apple is absolutely in the right here.

Click to shrink...

Right?

This is a good way to fight spurious claims. Not boastful, just lays everything out there for anyone.

 

[Batatina]

You don't get directed to a site with a different payment solution, because that's against the App Store rules.

The way Netflix did it was to remove the IAP hooks and just not mention how you're supposed to give them money. Which in itself is bad UX, but that was Netflixs bet.

Click to shrink...

I meant you have to go there to make the purchase. Not getting directed makes it even worse for usability as you said. Amazon lets you add the movies to a watchlist for example, but it's super confusing.

 

[kiguel182]

.


Google makes a distinction between media IAP and game IAP, regardless of the game otherwise being available as a webapp or on another platform.

Why is media special?

Click to shrink...

I don't know why and I'm not claiming their system is flawless.

My guess is that media works more like platforms that sell products that are directly competing with each other. Amazon Videos sells the exact same movies as Google Videos.

Games are unique. People don't choose games by the price of their micro transactions while price is a much bigger consideration for buying an ebook for example.

 

[phonicjoy]

Alright, so this is a legitimate question coming from wanting to understand: Apple Music does not have to pay the 30% while Spotify would, that's correct. What's the difference between this situation and that of a store brand vs name brand at a supermarket? The store brand is usually right next to the name brand, a lower price and they of course don't have to pay any retailing fees.

Click to shrink...

Welkome to the wunderfull world of retail. Most store brands are produced by A-labels at least in Europe. There are all kinds of lawsuits and shady deals in that world. Supermarkets have a lot of power to pressure a-labels to produce for them or deny them premium shelf space. Its really interesting actually.

 

[Deleted member 8860]

I don't know why and I'm not claiming their system is flawless.

My guess is that media works more like platforms that sell products that are directly competing with each other. Amazon Videos sells the exact same movies as Google Videos.

Games are unique. People don't choose games by the price of their micro transactions while price is a much bigger consideration for buying an ebook for example.

Click to shrink...

FWIW, my take is that Apple should allow work-arounds for media service subscriptions now that they're offering their own product as competition.

So news, streaming audio, ebook downloads, video downloads, audio downloads, etc., should all have payment work-arounds to better level the playing field.

Alright, so this is a legitimate question coming from wanting to understand: Apple Music does not have to pay the 30% while Spotify would, that's correct. What's the difference between this situation and that of a store brand vs name brand at a supermarket? The store brand is usually right next to the name brand, a lower price and they of course don't have to pay any retailing fees.

Click to shrink...

This is indeed a major concern with Amazon and maybe Walmart (less so with smaller retailers, for which there's less lock-in and monopoly power).

 

[Carolina Reaper]

Surprise, Apples full of shit.

 

[Deleted member 6582]

This is such a bullshit response. You didn't do shit to help Spotify, you were just already part of the mobile duopoly at that point. Why not explain your favored nations causes? Why not explain how installing a default app on a huge percentage of phones by virtue of owning the platform doesn't represent a privileged and unfair advantage, especially when you demand the competition pay you to compete with them? Also, pointing out the number of updates is also bullshit because you are notorious for being slow and arbitrary and doing a bad job at that. Common web businesses release multiple times per day, so explain how you aren't running a racket in the middle.

 

[Aurongel]

"Spotify seeks to keep all the benefits of the App Store ecosystem — including the substantial revenue that they draw from the App Store's customers — without making any contributions to that marketplace. At the same time, they distribute the music you love while making ever-smaller contributions to the artists, musicians and songwriters who create it — even going so far as to take these creators to court."

Shots fired, amazing lines from Apple here

Click to shrink...

And a complete deflection of the key point Spotify is attempting to coax them into addressing. Apple has one foot on the moral soapbox and another on a banana peel. They're in danger of getting Microsoft'ed by the EU with regards to how they prioritize their own apps/services on their platform.

 

[Deleted member 41520]

And a complete deflection of the key point Spotify is attempting to coax them into addressing. Apple has one foot on the moral soapbox and another on a banana peel. They're in danger of getting Microsoft'ed by the EU with regards to how they prioritize their own apps/services on their platform.

Click to shrink...

Aha. I clearly don't have enough context on this. Pardon me while I do some more background reading.

 

[Border]

How is this that different than any other walled garden? Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all compete with 3rd parties who must pay a cut that 1st parties don't. This goes for both games and on-platform media sales.

 

[FeliciaFelix]

Haven't read Spotify's entire complaint, but some of Apple's responses here are telling, especially the ones under the "Spotify claims we're blocking their access to products and updates to their app." heading. They sidestep the claims by stating Spotify's treatment is no different to other apps, but Spotify's main complaint is treatment in comparison to Apple's own services and apps - that Apple has one rule for themselves and other for everyone else (something Apple can't really dispute given their public api's and private api's).

I'm not sure how far they'll get given Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone industry (they just monopolise the profits...), but as a primarily iOS user and Spotify subscriber, I've noticed Apple really does push their own Music app and subscription even thought I've deleted the app itself.

Click to shrink...

I dislike Apple but uh... their house, their rules. Of course they are going to pimp out the store brand over 3rd parties. I'd expect the same from Google and any random supermarket. Unless they make their own device, that's Apple house rules.

I have vague memories of Pandora throwing a fit and forcing me to sign up through the website instead of the iPod Touch I had at the time.

 

[kiguel182]

I dislike Apple but uh... their house, their rules. Of course they are going to pimp out the store brand over 3rd parties. I'd expect the same from Google and any random supermarket. Unless they make their own device, that's Apple house rules.

I have vague memories of Pandora throwing a fit and forcing me to sign up through the website instead of the iPod Touch I had at the time.

Click to shrink...

This is not true. That's why competition rules and anti-trust cases exist.

 

[RoninChaos]

Why should music be free?


If you want lower-cost music though, Apple Music is the solution. 5 bucks student, 10 bucks single 15 bucks family.

It's the Apple Music catalog PLUS all the music you already own (including personally dumped discs that will never be on sale digitally, and personally projects) streamed anywhere and everywhere. No other competing music service quite matches that. Not sponsored by Apple, Cupertino, or any of that, and was a day 1 Spotify Premium person as well, just use Apple Music because it's the cheapest, but most complete option all things considered.

Click to shrink...

Apple Music will let you stream your own music?

 

[Ωλ7XL9]

Like that Apple is taking this problem head on with Spotify. Clear and direct statement and nothing ambiguous in their response, your turn next Spotify!

 

[Aurongel]

Aha. I clearly don't have enough context on this. Pardon me while I do some more background reading.

Click to shrink...

To be fair, both Apple and Spotify's statements are talking past each other quite a bit and are highly selective in how much of the full picture they choose to address.

This is not true. That's why competition rules and anti-trust cases exist.

Click to shrink...

But Apple charging a percentage fee for every transaction on their platform is:

A: Not unique to Apple and has a history across many areas of e-Commerce.
B: Not really in the same discussion as anti-trust legislation.

I think what they should be (and likely will be) guilty of is how they segment the private and public portions of their internal API and also how they market and prioritize their own competing services. Literal cases have been made against other tech giants for the exact same thing, the legal groundwork has been laid for this. Spotify is being willfully selective in which words they use to describe Apple's 30% cut.

 

[ascagnel]

I know. I'm saying they don't care enough for a lawsuit. They had one for price fixing of ebooks on the Apple app but no antitrust one that I'm aware.

Apple isn't competing with Netflix (yet) so no antitrust for them. Altought that will change soon so it would be interesting to see if they do anything.

Click to shrink...

The eBook thing is a whole different mess -- Apple (rightly) got in trouble with regulators for colluding with publishers to set prices, but Amazon got away with abusing its market-leading position (80%+ market share as of 2017) to undercut any possible competitors.

 

[Aureon]

"Like every other app developer"
Except Apple itself, obviously.
Warren is right on this. Platform holders should be designated as utilities and should not be able to compete on said platform.

 

[MajesticSoup]

Can you download the watch app without going through the app store and bypassing the 30% cut? If not then apple has an issue on their hands.