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

[AppliedMicro]

Apple could in theory win by pitting one carrier against the other. That's how Apple Pay won, no?

That's not dissimilar to how they're doing it with their developers.

It is funny that no one cared about this the first few years of the iPhones existence. Only now that they have a huge install base and apple’s financials lean more and more on services does anyone care.

Obviously - the "tax burden" has increased, and now corporations are caring.
And so are lawmakers and regulators, due to rising costs to societies and economies.

When something is a niche that's irrelevant to companies' bottom lines, they don't care much.
15 years ago, operating a music streaming service was viable without supporting smartphones - today it isn't.

 

[bcortens]

Let’s eliminate the abstractions so we can better see what’s real. Those legacy platforms (Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Symbian, and BlackBerry) don’t exist anymore because the iPhone was superior and buyers chose the iPhone. This created an iPhone market that was attractive to both developers and service providers like Spotify. The combined movement of buyers, developers and service providers from the legacy platforms to the iPhone killed the legacy platforms and benefitted iPhone users, developers and service providers like Spotify.

Spotify didn't even exist on iPhone until almost a year after the App Store launched (in 2009) and that was just in the UK. Aside from this, Spotify DID launch apps for Symbian and BBOS! The idea that Spotify could not have succeeded if one of these other platforms won the war is just ignoring the history of Spotify and the early smartphone platform wars.
yes the iPhone was a better product, but this doesn't mean that Spotify's success depended upon the iPhone. Spotify offered the best streaming platform which is why they are so successful today (regardless of what platform they are on).

 

[bcortens]

Apple creates an integrated product made possible by their control over hardware and software. They price their product according to what they believe it's worth, and the implication is that you buy into their ecosystem knowing fully well what you are getting yourself into.

I don't walk into a Japanese restaurant and complain that it doesn't serve French cuisine. If you want what Apple won't give you, then maybe you are the problem, not Apple.

This is not related at all to anything... the software-hardware integration doesn't depend on Apple being able to extract fees from every transaction that occurs on their platform.

 

[bcortens]

The premise is simple. If I build a city that has the basic infrastructure to where people choose to live there and you want to open a store to sell to them; you owe rent and have to pay tax. That’s how it works.

I love how people always reach for these iOS is a city, iOS is a store, analogies which often fail to adequately capture what iOS is while there is a nice little comparable product that Apple already makes. I think it's called the "Mac" did I spell that right?

All kidding aside, iOS has more in common with the Mac than it does a city, or a store, or any other bizarre attempt at an analogy that you can come up with.

Apple makes money on iOS through iPhone sales, they make money on iOS through selling iCloud, Music, Fitness, TV+, News+ etc... they make money on iOS for devs using the Apple payment processing system. The idea that Apple isn't making enough money from it's iOS IP and needs to monetize every single transaction is hilarious to me (certain digital transactions only of course because heaven forbid we scare away amazon or Walmart from releasing native apps).

The CTF is fairer but it's per download nature makes me think it will get revised at some point. I don't know why people on here could possibly defend the CTF (in its current form) after the shellacking that Unity got for trying to do the same thing with their IP. Greedy and unethical (though possibly legal) monetization schemes are still greedy and unethical when Apple does them.


Just imagine Apple monetized the Mac this way, do we really think that devs would actually put up with it? Sure the diehard Mac fans would but would MS or Adobe bother to keep building their Apps for Mac if they had to give away 15/30% of their revenue? Would any game dev bother bringing their game to macOS?

The only reason Apple gets away with it on iOS is because they have dominant market position which they can exploit. Dominance does not require them to have a large market percentage but merely that they have enough power to influence developer choices (developers can't reasonably succeed developing exclusively for Android). This power keeps devs tied to iOS as that is where 80% of the money in smartphone app sales is.

If devs could, as a collective, all stand up and say, enough, and simultaneously all leave iOS they would likely be able to drive most of the revenue that happens on iPhones to Android instead. This is a collective action problem that will never come to pass and so is of course just a thought exercise but I think that iPhone sales would crater if that were ever to happen.

 

[bcortens]

That hardly covers all of the bandwidth and storage needed by Apple for the App Store.

Then Apple should charge fees based on download and hosting costs.

 

[bcortens]

Right so if developers don’t like the terms and conditions then don’t develop on iPhone.

if the apps are no longer there then iPhone sales will tank and apple will offer better terms. If users buy your app on android then the dev still win as still make a sale and presumably with better margin then on iOS.

expecting a response about small developers don’t have the power - in which case your app isn’t a driver for iPhone growth
users would just use another app - in which case surely there is competition within the App Store as there are alternatives to your app
requires all developers to withdraw - in which case those developers that don’t feel need to withdraw can’t be that unhappy.
would require group action and is that legal. - whilst there are rules and regs around companies colluding to fix prices ie ebook publishing case then there is no law that says apple can compel developers to develop on their platforms if devs choose to withdraw their apps.

Collective action problem. iPhones are premium which is where most of the money is, if ALL developers could simultaneously leave the platform then this might have merit but since they can't most of what you're saying is irrelevant.

 

[dmylrea]

Well said. I’m baffled at the casual disregard and lack of appreciation of the benefits that users, iOS app developers and service providers get from Apple’s investment of money and life energy in creating and maintaining the app ecosystem. 🫤

Yeah, Apple's a real philanthropic organization, aren't they? Such big hearts! Or is it they keep the App Store going because without it, Apple's iPhone and iPad would whither on the vine and die? And then Apple's profit center goes away as does Apple. The App Store is existential to Apple's existence.

 

[bcortens]

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.

Spotify's iOS app is not Apple's store and thus can tell people where they can get it cheaper if they want to. Apple already sold me iOS on my phone, they no longer get to tell me how I use it.

 

[heretiq]

Spotify didn't even exist on iPhone until almost a year after the App Store launched (in 2009) and that was just in the UK. Aside from this, Spotify DID launch apps for Symbian and BBOS! The idea that Spotify could not have succeeded if one of these other platforms won the war is just ignoring the history of Spotify and the early smartphone platform wars.
yes the iPhone was a better product, but this doesn't mean that Spotify's success depended upon the iPhone. Spotify offered the best streaming platform which is why they are so successful today (regardless of what platform they are on).

The suggestion/implication that Spotify didn’t need the iPhone to be successful is incredible. The facts are (1) those other platforms failed, (2) the iPhone succeeded, and (3) it was Spotify on the iPhone that drove Spotify growth. Let’s put this debate to rest by answering one simple question: Do you actually believe that Spotify would have succeeded without an iPhone app?

 

[heretiq]

Yeah, Apple's a real philanthropic organization, aren't they? Such big hearts! Or is it they keep the App Store going because without it, Apple's iPhone and iPad would whither on the vine and die? And then Apple's profit center goes away as does Apple. The App Store is existential to Apple's existence.

I’m confused. Of course Apple is not a philanthropic organization and the App Store is vital to the iPhone and Apple. Those facts can coexist with the fact that the Apple ecosystem provides benefits to users, developers and service providers. So can you explain which part of “appreciation of the benefits that users, iOS app developers and service providers get from Apple’s investment of money and life energy in creating and maintaining the app ecosystem” you are objecting to?

 

[one more]

Do you actually believe that Spotify would have succeeded without an iPhone app?

I do, as back in 2006 we started using Spotify on our computers first. Back then Spotify offered a great alternative to iTunes. iPhone and iPad did not exist back then, so Spotify was a de facto music market novelty.

I agree that with time, as iPhone gathered in popularity, it might have helped Spotify to grow further, but so would any other successful mobile OS, IMO. Basically, Apple cannot claim all the credit for Spotify success.

 

[bcortens]

The suggestion/implication that Spotify didn’t need the iPhone to be successful is incredible. The facts are (1) those other platforms failed, (2) the iPhone succeeded, and (3) it was Spotify on the iPhone that drove Spotify growth. Let’s put this debate to rest by answering one simple question: Do you actually believe that Spotify would have succeeded without an iPhone app?

The problem is that 3 does not follow from 2 because you are conflating several things.

The growth of Spotify was dependent upon the growth of a high value smartphone platform on which sophistcated applications could be developed with enough high bandwidth data to ensure that the streaming was seamless feeling. If iPhone had failed I expect Spotify would be just as successful today because whatever Smartphone platform came to dominate the high end of the smartphone market would be just as valuable to Spotify as the iPhone is.

In order for 3 to follow from 1 and 2 we must conclude that in the absence of the iPhone no other smartphone platform would have taken over. While we can give Apple some credit for redefining what it means to be a smartphone if Apple had never opened up the iPhone to third party Apps Android would still have evolved into a touch first OS and Spotify would likely be just as successful as an Android App. If Apple had never opened up the iPhone I expect either Blackberry, Windows Phone, or Symbian would still be with us as the alternative to Android.

 

[wbeasley]

The suggestion/implication that Spotify didn’t need the iPhone to be successful is incredible. The facts are (1) those other platforms failed, (2) the iPhone succeeded, and (3) it was Spotify on the iPhone that drove Spotify growth. Let’s put this debate to rest by answering one simple question: Do you actually believe that Spotify would have succeeded without an iPhone app?

let me add that availability can drive purchases...

when we bought a Tesla, the connective pack allowed internet and live map info for $10 a month.

The apps available were Spotify and Netflix.
Which meant keeping both those subscriptions going was a good reason as I could also use both in the car.

Then Apple released a Music app for Tesla.
I tried it but thought, I'm happy enough with Spotify.

After the EU drama caused by Epic and Spotify, I was motivated to ditch my paid account.
I transferred my playlists with another app that actually found about 99% of the songs.

I now get better quality files as a bonus.

So having an app available on a platform allowed me to choose a music service i wanted.
If Apple didnt have a Tesla app (one of the places I mostly listen to streaming music) I wouldnt have been able to do this. If Spotify didnt have an Apple app, it's likely fewer people would have subscribed.

 

[wbeasley]

The problem is that 3 does not follow from 2 because you are conflating several things.

The growth of Spotify was dependent upon the growth of a high value smartphone platform on which sophistcated applications could be developed with enough high bandwidth data to ensure that the streaming was seamless feeling. If iPhone had failed I expect Spotify would be just as successful today because whatever Smartphone platform came to dominate the high end of the smartphone market would be just as valuable to Spotify as the iPhone is.

In order for 3 to follow from 1 and 2 we must conclude that in the absence of the iPhone no other smartphone platform would have taken over. While we can give Apple some credit for redefining what it means to be a smartphone if Apple had never opened up the iPhone to third party Apps Android would still have evolved into a touch first OS and Spotify would likely be just as successful as an Android App. If Apple had never opened up the iPhone I expect either Blackberry, Windows Phone, or Symbian would still be with us as the alternative to Android.

in reverse, Apple created the iPod (and bought what became iTunes) and ran it as Apple only hardware/software combination.

It was popular BUT it became immensely popular once 90% of the PC market (ie Windows users) could also access and use it.

Having visibility and access makes a huge difference clearly.

Unlimited or high data allowance packages also moved the market along for music streaming to be viable.
Video still consumes way too much data for most people to rely just on a phone so wifi is still the preferred access method.

 

[heretiq]

let me add that availability can drive purchases...

when we bought a Tesla, the connective pack allowed internet and live map info for $10 a month.

The apps available were Spotify and Netflix.
Which meant keeping both those subscriptions going was a good reason as I could also use both in the car.

Then Apple released a Music app for Tesla.
I tried it but thought, I'm happy enough with Spotify.

After the EU drama caused by Epic and Spotify, I was motivated to ditch my paid account.
I transferred my playlists with another app that actually found about 99% of the songs.

I now get better quality files as a bonus.

So having an app available on a platform allowed me to choose a music service i wanted.
If Apple didnt have a Tesla app (one of the places I mostly listen to streaming music) I wouldnt have been able to do this. If Spotify didnt have an Apple app, it's likely fewer people would have subscribed.

Thanks for the excellent example. It’s perplexing why it’s so hard for some folks to give Apple credit where credit is obviously due.

 

[heretiq]

The problem is that 3 does not follow from 2 because you are conflating several things.

The growth of Spotify was dependent upon the growth of a high value smartphone platform on which sophistcated applications could be developed with enough high bandwidth data to ensure that the streaming was seamless feeling. If iPhone had failed I expect Spotify would be just as successful today because whatever Smartphone platform came to dominate the high end of the smartphone market would be just as valuable to Spotify as the iPhone is.

In order for 3 to follow from 1 and 2 we must conclude that in the absence of the iPhone no other smartphone platform would have taken over. While we can give Apple some credit for redefining what it means to be a smartphone if Apple had never opened up the iPhone to third party Apps Android would still have evolved into a touch first OS and Spotify would likely be just as successful as an Android App. If Apple had never opened up the iPhone I expect either Blackberry, Windows Phone, or Symbian would still be with us as the alternative to Android.

We don’t need to resort to invented logic based on hypotheticals when the facts are clear: Your hypothetical scenarios are purely imaginary and did not aid Spotify’s success in any way. The iPhone’s factual success was a catalyst for Spotify’s growth and success. Why is it so hard to acknowledge this?

 

[wbeasley]

We don’t need to resort to invented logic based on hypotheticals when the facts are clear: Your hypothetical scenarios are purely imaginary and did not aid Spotify’s success in any way. The iPhone’s factual success was a catalyst for Spotify’s growth and success. Why is it so hard to acknowledge this?

"because Apple are evil and i should be able to install my game emulator and pirated ROMS"

"because i'm a greedy developer who doesnt want to pay 15% for Apple capturing a customer for me. i want it all. for free"

that's it in a nutshell.
all the "open iOS up" demands boil down to those two statements.

no money in it for Apple so no desire to allow it.

DoJ is just trying to look relevant. Customers decide with their wallets.
If they were that trapped or unhappy they would buy something else.
It's not like the Microsoft days with defaults you couldnt get rid of.
You can install an app to do pretty much anything legal and not against health advice.
A million plus apps, billions paid to devs. Growing customer base.
Geez something's been working well... better go attack them

For an Apple rumors site, there are way too many just want to bring Apple down.
It's not constructive to pull success apart.

 

[bcortens]

We don’t need to resort to invented logic based on hypotheticals when the facts are clear: Your hypothetical scenarios are purely imaginary and did not aid Spotify’s success in any way. The iPhone’s factual success was a catalyst for Spotify’s growth and success. Why is it so hard to acknowledge this?

The problem is you keep missing the point. I used the hypothetical because the point is that it doesn't matter that it was the iPhone that became successful. Any unified smartphone platform would have enabled Spotify to succeed on mobile. Spotify chose Apple before Android because Apple had
1: Hype within the tech sphere and
2: Earlier to market.

Today we are all blinded by Android's success but back in 2009 Symbian was still the dominant mobile OS.
Why not Symbian then?

Symbian failed to attract devs for a number of good reasons:

1. (Most important) No unified UI, you had to develop your apps UI multiple times for each vendors custom version of Symbian
2. APIs weren't as complete as iOS (because iOS benefitted from nearly two decade of Mac OS X API development)
3. Software updates weren't consistent - some vendors just didn't update the phones to the latest software
4. No unified storefront - making it harder (but not impossible) to have quick app discovery

iOS some key problems in the mobile app market, I will grant you that, but the fact that Apple popularized these solutions does not in fact mean that without Apple Spotify would not be successful. A does not follow from B.

 

[bcortens]

in reverse, Apple created the iPod (and bought what became iTunes) and ran it as Apple only hardware/software combination.

It was popular BUT it became immensely popular once 90% of the PC market (ie Windows users) could also access and use it.

Having visibility and access makes a huge difference clearly.

Unlimited or high data allowance packages also moved the market along for music streaming to be viable.
Video still consumes way too much data for most people to rely just on a phone so wifi is still the preferred access method.

You're so close!

The fact that it was windows isn't what was important, it was access that was important, the ability to access 90% of the market. That 90% could have been running any OS under the sun and as long as it was something Apple could bring iTunes to it would have worked out just as well.

 

[wbeasley]

You're so close!

The fact that it was windows isn't what was important, it was access that was important, the ability to access 90% of the market. That 90% could have been running any OS under the sun and as long as it was something Apple could bring iTunes to it would have worked out just as well.

i never said it was Windows itself. it was and remains the biggest OS market.

And now you are arguing against yourself again... a device with big market share can obviously impact an apps popularity and sales... so being on iOS app store provides both of those functions except Spotify dont want to participate in the sales part because the want all the profits...

Elsewhere you wrote:

"Symbian failed to attract devs for a number of good reasons:

1. (Most important) No unified UI, you had to develop your apps UI multiple times for each vendors custom version of Symbian
2. APIs weren't as complete as iOS (because iOS benefitted from nearly two decade of Mac OS X API development)
3. Software updates weren't consistent - some vendors just didn't update the phones to the latest software
4. No unified storefront - making it harder (but not impossible) to have quick app discovery"

You want alt iOS app stores but here, in point 4, admit not having a unified store makes things harder...

 

[bcortens]

i never said it was Windows itself. it was and remains the biggest OS market.

And now you are arguing against yourself again... a device with big market share can obviously impact an apps popularity and sales... so being on iOS app store provides both of those functions except Spotify dont want to participate in the sales part because the want all the profits...

Popularity is the key, as such, I'm not arguing against myself. My point is that it is not the fact that it was the iPhone specifically that succeeded that makes Spotify successful. It is being able to reach a big market. Claiming iOS caused Spotify's success (as heretiq did) is confusing those two things. It was not iOS specifically that allowed Spotify to grow but access to the smartphone market. This is why I said that if iOS had failed, or iOS had never gained 3rd party native Apps then I think Spotify would likely still be just as successful because other players would have filled the void and released smartphones on which Spotify could run.

Elsewhere you wrote:

"Symbian failed to attract devs for a number of good reasons:

1. (Most important) No unified UI, you had to develop your apps UI multiple times for each vendors custom version of Symbian
2. APIs weren't as complete as iOS (because iOS benefitted from nearly two decade of Mac OS X API development)
3. Software updates weren't consistent - some vendors just didn't update the phones to the latest software
4. No unified storefront - making it harder (but not impossible) to have quick app discovery"

You want alt iOS app stores but here, in point 4, admit not having a unified store makes things harder...

That doesn't actually follow, Alt stores for niche use are different than a platform having no unified storefront at all. As Android can attest, the ability to side load doesn't drive most apps from the store, but it does allow apps not permitted in the store to exist. Those are different purposes.

 

[wbeasley]

Popularity is the key, as such, I'm not arguing against myself. My point is that it is not the fact that it was the iPhone specifically that succeeded that makes Spotify successful. It is being able to reach a big market. Claiming iOS caused Spotify's success (as heretiq did) is confusing those two things. It was not iOS specifically that allowed Spotify to grow but access to the smartphone market. This is why I said that if iOS had failed, or iOS had never gained 3rd party native Apps then I think Spotify would likely still be just as successful because other players would have filled the void and released smartphones on which Spotify could run.



That doesn't actually follow, Alt stores for niche use are different than a platform having no unified storefront at all. As Android can attest, the ability to side load doesn't drive most apps from the store, but it does allow apps not permitted in the store to exist. Those are different purposes.

So what apps doesnt Google let in the PlayStore and why?

 

[bcortens]

So what apps doesnt Google let in the PlayStore and why?

No idea, I don't use Android, but the existence of the side loading hasn't broken the main App Store, which is my point. My point is that allowing AltStores doesn't remove the primary store.

The point I was making with Symbian was that they didn't have any unified stores* (I think as it was in its death throws there were a few attempts to bring a unified store to the platform but by then it was too late).

 

[heretiq]

You're so close!

The fact that it was windows isn't what was important, it was access that was important, the ability to access 90% of the market. That 90% could have been running any OS under the sun and as long as it was something Apple could bring iTunes to it would have worked out just as well.

Windows provided that access. Just as iPhone provided access to a huge market for Spotify. In an alternate universe that access could possibly have been provided by Symbian or Celestial Whales or Tardigrades but in the real world that we inhabit that access was provided by Windows and iPhone. Why is it so hard to accept these plain facts?

 

[bcortens]

Windows provided that access. Just as iPhone provided access to a huge market for Spotify. Why is it so hard to accept these plain facts?

Providing the access is different than deserving credit for someone else's success. You have claimed that the iPhone is responsible for Spotify's success, that is a different claim than saying that the iPhone provided access to the market.