Spotify Complains That Apple Hasn't Approved Update With Subscription Pricing and Links in EU

[wbeasley]

Game emulators aren't illegal (unless they contain proprietary code from others), neither is vaping.

In-app subscriptions for global brands like Spotify don't tarnish Apple's brand.

The U.S. (so far) agrees that Apple's anti-steering provision is illegal.
So does the E.U., where Apple have been fined for it.

How so?
You can make in-app purchases/bookings in tons of apps - with your credit card and without Apple's involvement?
Prohibiting Spotify from doing it doesn't protect users any more than in any other app.


What does Apple have then, with Apple Music?
They charge the same as Spotify but (supposedly) pay more to artists.

How is that not flawed?

game emulators enable piracy.

Apple doesnt ban emulated games. IF THE RIGHTS OWNER IS INVOLVED.

Pacman is there. Many others.
Apple is supporting the IP owner to get paid.

Vaping is legal BUT only over certain age.
And health advice is dont do it.
So Apple risks future class action for allowing app.

In both cases, you will survive without these apps. Not essential.
And if you REALLY need them, go Android.
No one is stopping you.

Why continually argue against a company they sets the rules of what they allow when you have a clear choice that better fits your requirements?

If a tv has a beautiful minimalist designer remote, I dont whinge that it should support my tv too.
Just because it COULD support my TV doesnt mean it HAS TO.

Have we really become so self centred and entitled to force companies to bend to whims?
If companies didnt make what you wanted in the past consumers bought something else.
It really was that simple. Your wallet drove product offerings.

How is it Apple's fault that consumers moved to streaming rather than buying music?
I bought a lot of iTunes music.
Eventually even I moved to streaming for convenience.
I still buy the odd CD when I want a physical copy that sounds better and isnt removed from the service for some reason. What price Apple charges is what the market will bear. If they wanted to they could undercut Spotify and others. They make no money from the Spotify app currently.

 

[AppliedMicro]

game emulators enable piracy.

So did the iPod for music.

Why continually argue against a company they sets the rules of what they allow when you have a clear choice that better fits your requirements?

Why are you (among others) continually advocating for a totalitarian computing future - in which a two or three megacorporations are Big Brothers that control every allowed software, content and business transactions that take place (outside today’s two-dimensional and limited internet browsers)?

Have we really become so self centred and entitled to force companies to bend to whims?

It’s time to curb Apple’s entitled self-centrism and bring about more open and interoperable computing through laws and regulations from governments that are answerable to their citizens, not profit maximisation (though the irony of saying this below a thread title that mentions the EU isn’t lost one me).

How is it Apple's fault that consumers moved to streaming rather than buying music?

It isn’t Apple’s fault. If anything, it’s Spotify’s - who popularised the concept.

What price Apple charges is what the market will bear. If they wanted to they could undercut Spotify and others

It is - and they don’t pay a 30% tax to their biggest competitor, just to avoid being unable to market their service and plans at customers’ preferred point of contact (the app).

 

[wbeasley]

So did the iPod for music.

Why are you (among others) continually advocating for a totalitarian computing future - in which a two or three megacorporations are Big Brothers that control every allowed software, content and business transactions that take place (outside today’s two-dimensional and limited internet browsers)?

It’s time to curb Apple’s entitled self-centrism and bring about more open and interoperable computing through laws and regulations from governments that are answerable to their citizens, not profit maximisation (though the irony of saying this below a thread title that mentions the EU isn’t lost one me).


It isn’t Apple’s fault. If anything, it’s Spotify’s - who popularised the concept.


It is - and they don’t pay a 30% tax to their biggest competitor, just to avoid being unable to market their service and plans at customers’ preferred point of contact (the app).

the iPod didnt enable piracy.
Napster and co did.

Apple created the market for digital sales with DRM.
Eventually the convinced the industry to remove the DRM.

I'm not advocating for any mega future company.
I'm happy for someone to come along and disrupt what we have.
I do hope they have deep pockets though. Microsoft couldnt make a viable 3rd OS...

why is it time to curb Apple at all? it provides an system 30%+ of people like for 15 years.
you have a choice if you dont like it.

I can buy a TV or bluetooth speaker from Samsungs website. Same price as a retailer.
They make more profit from a direct sale. But dont compete against a physical store.
Apple could undercut Spotify and co as they dont have to keep physical stores happy.
But they do sell iTunes/Apple gift cards in retailers so they do have margins they could option.

I think you like to argue... simple answer from now on is BUY AN ANDROID.
I'm surprised given the tech nature of this page how few seem to support opening it up.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If companies didnt make what you wanted in the past consumers bought something else.
It really was that simple. Your wallet drove product offerings.

Exactly.

👉 And Apple has been erecting barriers to prevent consumers from voting with their wallet freely.

Their business model against Spotify (a competitor) has been making it as hard as possible for Spotify to tell customers what they might like. And making it as inconvenient for consumers to subscribe and manage their subscription where they they preferably want to (the app).

It's good that regulators and governments are beginning to stop them.

I'm surprised given the tech nature of this page how few seem to support opening it up.

Doesn't matter.
Government will open it up.
It has in the EU, and other developed nations will follow suit.

We are winning the cause - slowly but surely.

 

[GBstoic]

Exactly.

👉 And Apple has been erecting barriers to prevent consumers from voting with their wallet freely.

Their business model against Spotify (a competitor) has been making it as hard as possible for Spotify to tell customers what they might like. And making it as inconvenient for consumers to subscribe and manage their subscription where they they preferably want to (the app).

It's good that regulators and governments are beginning to stop them.


Doesn't matter.
Government will open it up.
It has in the EU, and other developed nations will follow suit.

We are winning the cause - slowly but surely.

Nonsense. Type the word Spotify into Safari and all the customer info you need to know appears.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nonsense. Type the word Spotify into Safari and all the customer info you need to know appears.

You know that this is a far inferior user experience than offering it in-app.

It's like a store where they have to* tell you:
"You can't pay our products in this building. We know, it's not ideal".

Store clerks can't point you towards the cashier either.
But you're saying "Yeah, but you can google it" - that's ridiculous.

* Unless the store pays an anticompetitive 30% "commission" to its biggest competitor.

 

[wbeasley]

Exactly.

👉 And Apple has been erecting barriers to prevent consumers from voting with their wallet freely.

Their business model against Spotify (a competitor) has been making it as hard as possible for Spotify to tell customers what they might like. And making it as inconvenient for consumers to subscribe and manage their subscription where they they preferably want to (the app).

It's good that regulators and governments are beginning to stop them.


Doesn't matter.
Government will open it up.
It has in the EU, and other developed nations will follow suit.

We are winning the cause - slowly but surely.

BS.

Apple set the rules from day one on the iPhone and later the App Store.
Youve known the rules for over a decade.

Consumers are NOT prevented from voting with their wallet.
They can buy an Android phone anytime they want.

Your Spotify argument has been called out many times.
Since Spotify pulled the last in app sub, they have been free to download from App Store, paying Apple nothing per install, and users have signed in with their account details. not hard. they still have double the accounts Apple Music have. It's no more inconvenient than signing up once on a webpage for Netflix or paying for Office 365. You sign in the same way on a tv for Spotify.

It's not good that governments "stop them". they are lawyers not tech people.

"We are winning" is about as Trumpian as you can get.
The rest of us, happy with the walled garden status quo, are getting tired of you pushing your little agenda to open up a small group of apps Apple wont allow which you can easily install on an Android phone.

 

[GBstoic]

You know that this is a far inferior user experience than offering it in-app.

It's like a store where they have to* tell you:
"You can't pay our products in this building. We know, it's not ideal".

Store clerks can't point you towards the cashier either.
But you're saying "Yeah, but you can google it" - that's ridiculous.

* Unless the store pays an anticompetitive 30% "commission" to its biggest competitor.

I subscribe to Tidal, Daily Telegraph, Now TV, OSMaps and occasionally to Qobuz, Amazon Music and Discovery+. All directly through each of their websites. Why would I want to tie any of these to my Apple ID or restrict which platforms I can use?

 

[wbeasley]

I subscribe to Tidal, Daily Telegraph, Now TV, OSMaps and occasionally to Qobuz, Amazon Music and Discovery+. All directly through each of their websites. Why would I want to tie any of these to my Apple ID or restrict which platforms I can use?

you're ruining the argument

AppliedMicro has obviously not been to IKEA and paid for an item in the showroom and had to pick up down the road an another warehouse with a receipt. That probably isnt idea either but people still shop there.

I have NEVER found subscribing outside the store to be a drama either.
Spotify user base numbers would show millions are doing it successfully.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I subscribe to Tidal, Daily Telegraph, Now TV, OSMaps and occasionally to Qobuz, Amazon Music and Discovery+. All directly through each of their websites. Why would I want to tie any of these to my Apple ID or restrict which platforms I can use?

You wouldn't. All of those services should be allowed to freely include links in their mobile app to their site so customers can sign up there.

It's a shame Apples business practices are so foul that a regulator had to force them into allowing this.

 

[AppliedMicro]

AppliedMicro has obviously not been to IKEA and paid for an item in the showroom and had to pick up down the road an another warehouse with a receipt. That probably isnt idea either but people still shop there.

My main daily payment card is an IKEA credit card. Rest assured I‘ve been to IKEA often enough. 😄

They always pull tell me the prices in their showroom though - and also where to pick stuff up from.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I’m an independent developer and am happy with how the App Store works.

I find the feature set and billing easily worth the 15%.

So now you’ve heard from two!

At least yours sounds real.

It does sound like the changes they made for smaller developers do work for most people. That is good. Still not crazy about the principle of total control of all software. You might find an even better billing set for even less of a cut if Apple had to actually compete.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

At least yours sounds real.

It does sound like the changes they made for smaller developers do work for most people. That is good. Still not crazy about the principle of total control of all software. You might find an even better billing set for even less of a cut if Apple had to actually compete.

If I went to an alt App Store, I lose the following:

1. Trust of the App Store
2. Zero friction installing my app
3. Family Sharing of subscriptions (something even the Play Store doesn’t offer)
4. Easy to use management of in app purchase options and price changes

So whatever % I might gain on an individual sale would be more than offset by all the lost sales due to friction and no family sharing.

Distribution from a website would also imply I’m using my own billing (like through Stripe).

Been there and done that — not worth the hassle for me.

 

[wbeasley]

My main daily payment card is an IKEA credit card. Rest assured I‘ve been to IKEA often enough. 😄

They always pull tell me the prices in their showroom though - and also where to pick stuff up from.

Well then you understand EXACTLY how IKEA work... they tell you the prices of goods in their showroom. They dont steer you to other electrical retailers that might sell kitchen appliances cheaper. And sometimes Aldi do sell similar items cheaper.

And you seem to be able to cope with picking up IKEA items elsewhere... geez, a bit like buying a software subscription from a website and using your account sign in everywhere else

Perhaps Apple should put up signs for you: "You can buy an Android phone if you want an open OS phone".
Sorted.

 

[mpkossen]

If I went to an alt App Store, I lose the following:

1. Trust of the App Store
2. Zero friction installing my app
3. Family Sharing of subscriptions (something even the Play Store doesn’t offer)
4. Easy to use management of in app purchase options and price changes

So whatever % I might gain on an individual sale would be more than offset by all the lost sales due to friction and no family sharing.

Distribution from a website would also imply I’m using my own billing (like through Stripe).

Been there and done that — not worth the hassle for me.

It's not about having people save money. It's about people wanting a piece of Apple's pie. This whole Robin Hood act by Tim Sweeney is fooling way too many people. He's not doing it for anyone but himself. He's lost hundreds of millions on his Epic Games Store, which has yet to generate a profit.

 

[wbeasley]

It's not about having people save money. It's about people wanting a piece of Apple's pie. This whole Robin Hood act by Tim Sweeney is fooling way too many people. He's not doing it for anyone but himself. He's lost hundreds of millions on his Epic Games Store, which has yet to generate a profit.

All the supporters on here wanting to pull down Apples walled garden keep pushing apps will be cheaper. they wont be for exactly the reason you stated: they want 100% of price and give Apple nothing.

this has zero to do with customers.

cant wait to see the massive fail alt app stores are.
not been a rush to get them up yet.
"we cant make enough on 3% less fees to Apple".

well decide do you want people installing your app your way or not?

there are two issues at play:
they want to install any app they like (they dont care if it's dodgy legally or has bad agent code in it).
and those who dont like paying Apple for anything the app store provides.

the issues get muddied all the time.
Spotify complain about lots of things. it's not hard and has worked very well for them so far signing people up outside the app store. a lot of their other complaints even the EU closed off as not worth pursuing.

If I was Apple, I would have allowed them a pop up saying "you can sign up for a subscription on our web page".
Hardly ideal if your app store allows in app purchases. but given Spotify dont want to use IAP now, Apple are making nothing currently either. Perhaps a referral fee would be worth adding? Charge the user even and they can decide if they want to pay for the convenience or not

I know what I would be doing...

I have yet to see one concrete example of an essential app anyone needs to load on an iPhone.
they might LIKE to load, and they can on an Android phone.

it seems very self centred and entitled to demand Apple let them install any code.
Especially when an option to load any code exists on another OS.
they argue they own the hardware, they do, but that hardware didnt come with an expectation to load anything the like. some used to Jailbrake their phones. it's just too hard for them to bother much now. they want it easier. boo hoo.

I dont want iOS becoming like Android.
I've supported a phone app and know the problems users reported with Android phones we didnt get with Apple phones. The walled garden works. most people are happy enough using it. millions of vetted apps to load and buy. devs making billions for their work.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Well then you understand EXACTLY how IKEA work... they tell you the prices of goods in their showroom. They dont steer you to other electrical retailers that might sell kitchen appliances cheaper

Exactly. They tell me the prices and allow me pay on their premises.
Unlike Spotify, who could not tell me their prices or where to pay in their showroom (unless… you know what).

Spotify’s app is the equivalent of their premises - not Apple’s.
Spotify created/developed their app as much as IKEA did their showroom.

 

[AppliedMicro]

All the supporters on here wanting to pull down Apples walled garden keep pushing apps will be cheaper. they wont be for exactly the reason you stated: they want 100% of price and give Apple nothing.

Conjecture.

And often disproven by economic fact.
Lower rents and costs often lead to lower prices for consumers. Happens often.

cant wait to see the massive fail alt app stores are.
not been a rush to get them up yet.

So why are you supposed to them then - if you’re convinced they’ll be a massive fail, you can just relax and watch it. So can Apple.

and those who dont like paying Apple for anything the app store provides.

Apple and their App Store do not provide anything.
Once I’ve downloaded and installed the Spotify app on my mobile, Apple does nothing.
They license the music, they don’t provide bandwidth - nothing. It’s between me and Spotify.

Hardly ideal if your app store allows in app purchases. but given Spotify dont want to use IAP now, Apple are making nothing currently either.

Apple sure do: they’re selling iPhones that run Spotify.

I dont want iOS becoming like Android.

iOS isn’t defined by being unable to sideload or install from other stores.

I've supported a phone app and know the problems users reported with Android phones we didnt get with Apple phones. The walled garden works. most people are happy enough using it

No problem then. Stay within your walled garden of choice - just don’t force everyone else to do so.

millions of vetted apps to load and buy.

…and a large part of them are stupid, crap - and sometimes outright scams.

A third-party app store can provide an even better walled garden - by having a curated selection of apps.

The average app on SetApp is of higher quality than the ones on Apple’s App Store.

 

[CarAnalogy]

If I went to an alt App Store, I lose the following:

1. Trust of the App Store
2. Zero friction installing my app
3. Family Sharing of subscriptions (something even the Play Store doesn’t offer)
4. Easy to use management of in app purchase options and price changes

So whatever % I might gain on an individual sale would be more than offset by all the lost sales due to friction and no family sharing.

Distribution from a website would also imply I’m using my own billing (like through Stripe).

Been there and done that — not worth the hassle for me.

And this is why if the App Store was actually what Apple says it is, it would be great. The only problem is that they force this to be the only way, and this is not the experience for everyone.

It doesn't work out that well for all developers or users. I just don't understand why Apple is so dead set on fighting this so hard. If they wanted to they could make something that would work well for everyone. But that isn't their intent.

 

[wbeasley]

Exactly. They tell me the prices and allow me pay on their premises.
Unlike Spotify, who could not tell me their prices or where to pay in their showroom (unless… you know what).

Spotify’s app is the equivalent of their premises - not Apple’s.
Spotify created/developed their app as much as IKEA did their showroom.

AND Spotify CAN do exactly that BUT they CHOOSE not to because they dont want to pay Apple a commission.

Argue all you want.
It is Spotify that is removing payment choice as the option exists.

Like every other app dev.
But most dont get the EU to do their complaint work... and the EU didnt even pursue most of their complaints.

Stop rewriting history to suit your agenda.

 

[AppliedMicro]

AND Spotify CAN do exactly that BUT they CHOOSE not to because they dont want to pay Apple a commission.

It's anticompetitive - particularly since Apple doesn't have to pay/absorbs it with their own service.

This didn't even require a new DMA for the EU to agree that Apple's prohibition from even linking outside was illegal.

Stop rewriting history to suit your agenda.

How so?

Apple was found to have acted illegally and been fined for it.

 

[wbeasley]

It's anticompetitive - particularly since Apple doesn't have to pay/absorbs it with their own service.

This didn't even require a new DMA for the EU to agree that Apple's prohibition from even linking outside was illegal.


How so?

Apple was found to have acted illegally and been fined for it.

Go back and read what you wrote about the IKEA comparison.

The way Spotify refuse to allow IAP means there is no payment information.
It's Spotify's choice. If they allowed IAP they would have prices and payment link.
You are rewriting history claiming Spotify have no choice when they do. And choose not to use IAP.

The App Store is Apple's showroom, not Spotifys.
Spotify is the supplier (of an app) not the IKEA store in this instance.
You are trying to twist the analogy.

You have no idea how Apple implement payments for their own apps.
Apple isn't one huge monolithic company.
Their teams get budgets to do separate things.
Part of the app costs would go back to teams to develop apps.

Sometimes they wear the cost as part of doing business for sure.
It's nice to say "we include Pages and Number to let you do productive work for free".
Other times you pay for access to apps like Apple Music or Final Cut Pro.

Or should Apple give you free access to everything they brand as Apple apps?

 

[AppliedMicro]

It's Spotify's choice. If they allowed IAP they would have prices and payment link.
You are rewriting history claiming Spotify have no choice when they do. And choose not to use IAP.

Paying 30% to your biggest competitors isn't an economically viable choice.

It's a pseudo-choice.

The App Store is Apple's showroom, not Spotifys

Indeed. And once they've delivered (the app to the consumers's device), it's between the supplier and the consumer.

 

[wbeasley]

Paying 30% to your biggest competitors isn't an economically viable choice.

It's a pseudo-choice.


Indeed. And once they've delivered (the app to the consumers's device), it's between the supplier and the consumer.

if it's not viable then you havent done your profitability sums right.
Spotify would be better to just leave things as they are and let people sign up outside store AS THEY HAVE BEEN.

And even when Spotify get 100% of the fees that way, they STILL cant make a profit...

Let's face it, Spotify is a badly run business model.

 

[AppliedMicro]

if it's not viable then you havent done your profitability sums right.

Don't be silly. The difference between 30% transaction costs or 10% makes or breaks many business models.

And even when Spotify get 100% of the fees that way, they STILL cant make a profit...

They may be just ramping up.

Do we know whether Apple Music is making profit - or are Apple just dumping their "Music" services to consumers, in order to gain market share from Spotify?

How can Apple make a profit on "Music" for the same subscription price - when they're supposedly paying more to artists?

Let's face it, Spotify is a badly run business model.

Not your, my or Apple's issue.