Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here.
I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair.
If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure website from the vendor - as far as I'm aware, Apple requires you have some sort of website anyway.
At least Google allows installing apps without the Play Store, perhaps it's time Apple permitted something similar with its apps? This could solve this whole problem and have other positive side effects such as people being less likely to jailbreak their iPhones.
Making micro-transactions more profitable would be an unfortunate course of action. There are enough of those apps in the store, and they are clearly profitable enough if they can buy Super Bowl airtime.
Subscriptions for apps should be different, but I see a challenge in drawing the line between Spotify/Netflix and a scam app like "awesome culculator" that charges $5/mo to people who don'didn't realize it was a subscription (there was an article on HN this week about apps like that, targeting kids and the elderly, of course).
If Apple has a stipulation about requiring a website, then maybe subscription-based apps can get a discount on the 30% fee if they also have a web or desktop-based version of their application that provides comparable functionality and takes payments.
While the Apple Tax is a problem of its own, I would hate for Apple to allow downloading apps through websites. A large part of iOS security is that everything has to be co-signed by Apple unless it's an Enterprise distribution app [1], so even if there is an exploit that breaks out of the app sandbox you don't have to worry about malicious websites drive-by downloading it.
1: they're likely refining the process of obtaining one of these certs after the recent news reports on business fraud
What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says?
Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing.
Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation? What makes your 30% price the right call? If you're an app developer, are you equally ok with someone else determining what you get to charge for your app when you're done with it? Isn't that the same (lack of) logic?
Try telling the IRS you think their tax rates are too high. Apple owns the sandbox with the most valuable customers and if you want to play in it you gotta pay. Personally I love letting Apple handle my subscriptions and subscribing through iTunes is one of the things it does well.
What they need to do is split off the new competing services into a walled corporation (even new entity). And they play fair by the rules, so 30% tax even to them.
Not sure that I completely follow your logic in regards to the "tax" here. With any product, you have two main things: production of the product and distribution of the product. Spotify doesn't NEED to be on Apple devices (they started off on the web), but they WANT to be on Apple devices (and Android devices) because they are great distribution channels for its product.
That said, how much is distribution worth to Spotify? Imagine that Spotify was not software, but instead it was a hardware device. Would they expect Best Buy to carry it for free? Would they expect Walmart or Target not to offer a store branded competitor? I think not.
When you don't own your distribution channel, you pay for distribution one way or another.
> I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%.
And then every PAID app will switch to FREE and charge for PRO, to circumvent the 30%. Oh, Apple complained it’s not technically a microtransaction? Fine, just separate every feature into a new purchase.
> If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure website from the vendor
If the vendor server is compromised or is down, a download from the App Store won’t work for a single app, leaving customers confused and complaining to Apple, who can’t fix the issue.
I believe it is not the problem of 30% cuts. It is the Problem of Anti-Competitive behaviour when you have a competing services without the cost of cuts.
This is not the same as Amazon offering their own label in their Store. Customers could shop in dozens of many other online retail or local retail. And Amazon does not charge other label 30% cut for stocking fees.
I believe Apple should charge a fair amount only when they have a competing product or services within its locked system. Had Apple Charge 15% for the first year on Spotify and 10% for all subsequent subscription it would have been much better. I don't believe the 5% would work, as I have seen many saying 5% should be enough. The cost of running microtransaction, processing, billing, legal, etc are just about break even at 5% even in the scale of Apple. I don't see charging 10% would seem unfair. ( In US at least, in EU the processing fees are much much lower )
Or Apple should never have made Apple Music in the first place. I still don't see any value in Apple offering it. iTunes was required for iPod. And it changes the whole music industry as a whole, along with iPod sold which ultimately saved Apple. No one will buy iPhone because of Apple Music, and Apple Music itself isn't even profitable.
This opens up a wide host of negative side-effects including the extreme ease of malware. I'd say the #1 value proposition for the App Store, and why most iOS users prefer it, is the guarantee of virus-free programs.
If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure website from the vendor - as far as I'm aware, Apple requires you have some sort of website anyway.
Because that worked so well for Windows with malware,viruses, and ransomware.
Apple should take no cut, and profit only from the sale of hardware. By taking cut on software they are double dipping. Good software makes the phone more valuable for users and drives phone sales.
Apple did the same thing to Kindle for iPhone back when it launched.
We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple announces their intent to build in-app purchasing.
The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MUST sell all books at a 30% margin on ALL stores if they want to sell their books via Apple's own ebook store.
Aka we couldn't sell books at an increased cost, even if we wanted to. We would have had to take a loss on every purchase.
In the end, we had to remove all of the store functionality from the app, and weren't even allowed to link people directly to the web store for purchasing (or even instructions for purchasing).
The claims in here are pretty wild, particularly around how Apple has favored its own products:
- Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch
- It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod
- It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri
- It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis
- It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies
I genuinely hope Europe takes this seriously. The issue of the 30% cut alone is enough for further investigation, particularly as Apple now uses that as an advantage to undercut Spotify with Apple Music.
The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this arbitrarily in a way that at least appears to favour your own products over your rivals is an abuse of your position.
If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely, given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously), then I'd be astonished if Spotify doesn't file lawsuits in the US under the Sherman Act.
In any case, having this fight happen, and in public, can only be good for indie developers if it forces Apple to apply it's rules arbitrarily.
For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that the US threatened heavily to break up the company.
Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...
I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in my power to fight.
Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained.
The only two ways out of this is to legislate a lower rate (through campaigns such as these), or to create a competing platform that lowers costs for its users. Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple?
Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS.
You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your "purchases" - there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems they created.
They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple platforms. They can market themselves as official/curated/whatever they want but the user should have the choice.
This is long overdue. I really hope this leads to something.
The anticompetitive behaviour described on that website is just the tip of the iceberg. Apple is doing a lot worse behind the scenes. Cellular service on Apple Watch for example - as a carrier you can't just provide service for the Watch - you have to be an "approved" carrier and this means being friends with Apple and selling iPhones among other things (you only provide SIM-only plans and not interested in selling phones? Tough luck.). Same for visual voicemail, etc.
Whenever Apple's 30% take on the App Store comes up, people on this website get all up in arms about it. Let me provide some perspective, which I think is sorely lacking:
I sell physical goods on Amazon. They charge me 15% for this privilege. The only reason they don't charge more is because physical goods have lower margins than digital goods (my margins after it's all said and done are somewhere between 10-15%). And, you know what? I'm happy to pay Amazon their 15% because they're bringing me customers that I wouldn't have otherwise.
Perhaps thinking about it like this is instructive: does Amazon have an obligation to let me sell on their platform simply because lots of consumers choose to buy stuff from Amazon? Does Amazon have an obligation to change their fee structure so that I can more easily compete with Amazon Basics branded products?
Should Apple charge a smaller percentage to subscription services that can't afford to give up 30%? Probably. It would net Apple a percentage of something, rather than the 30% of $0 that they're getting now. And it would be a better experience for Apple's customers. But it is in no way unreasonable for Apple to expect to get paid for originating sales of software and subscriptions. And it is certainly not unreasonable for them to get paid significantly more than credit card processing fees.
The timing of this is interesting in the context of Elizabeth Warren’s recent proposal to forbid platform operators from also being participants on their own platforms.
It looks like they’ve filed a complaint with the EU Commission; I wonder if it will become a talking point in US politics as well.
This exemplifies some of the reasons proprietary app store lock-in is bad for consumers.
Progressive Web Apps -- web apps that are installable and available offline without any app store -- are a viable alternative, and ultimately a threat to Apple's app store racket. It's likely why iOS Safari continues to drag it's feet on PWA support.
I don't think this is about Spotify versus Apple - its about Apple versus its customers. I want to be able to choose what music service I want, and I want the price to be competitive. And not just music.
Phones now have the same level of processing power as portable computers. We shouldn't be obligated to only run applications that are siphoned thru a third party "trusted clearinghouse", be it the smartphone or the operating system vendor.
If I want more safety or I am not a Power User, I can flick a switch on the device to allow that binding behavior to happen. Heck, they are giving me the 'free service' of taking care of app security for me, I could even pay for that if I am serious about having my apps checked and stuff.
Phones are computers. You own the hardware, you should be able to install whatever you want. Always.
Is the argument about protecting the masses of non-tech people? Great, make it an opt-out. And still: There ought to be someone keeping tabs on that big brother (gov regulations? agencies) or else shady behavior can ensue as well.
While I was ready to leave a comment about Spotify not playing fair with artists, I have seen Apple's unfair business practices first hand with developing apps and bluetooth devices.
Unfortunately they are abusing their power, and are being flat out unfair if you want to develop a bluetooth device or app.
If you want to vet apps to ensure a safe environment, that's fine, but these practices go beyond that and are unfair.
As a user, I much prefer the Android model. For example I can buy and browse Kindle or Audible books directly in the app. I don't use Spotify but I imagine it's a similar experience.
Apple policies do not really benefit anyone. Kindle iOS users will simply open Safari to buy their books, making their experience worse.
Either Apple should really remain objective and not have horses in the App Store race, or follow the same rules on its own apps that they impose on others, or change the rules to benefit everyone (including the users).
Just because Apple can currently do this shit legally, doesn't mean that they should.
Software platforms are marketplaces and company behind such platforms yield great power, even if technically speaking they aren't yet a monopoly.
Hardware devices should not be legally allowed to be locked down in the way that Apple devices are. Not sure how many people remember, but Microsoft eventually being forced to provide choice in browsers was a great outcome and allowed Firefox and Chrome to flourish. Yes, Microsoft was at that time a monopoly, whereas Apple right now isn't, but Apple has the potential to be a monopoly. They are after all the richest software company in the world.
Apple succeeded where Microsoft failed, they normalized “trusted computing”, which brought everything we feared.
I very much prefer EU's consumer protectionism in these regards and I'm hoping they'll do something about walled gardens such as Apple's.
I just don't understand why most people think Apple don't have a monopoly market position. Of course Apple is the monopoly on the App Service market ([1] App store generated 93 more revenue than google play in Q3). We are talking about app service rather than the phone units sold.
I’ve been waiting to see Spotify follow Netflix and create their own label, instead of just curated playlists. They’ll otherwise always be at the whim of renegotiations. (Not entirely relevant to the post, but seems like it’s an avenue for them to go to break a little from other players).
Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here?
Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies).
Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?
The crucial line in their argument is this:
> giving up 30% was too much for us to keep our prices low for our fans. Unfortunately, the end result is that you can no longer upgrade to Premium through the app.
How is this Apple's fault and not your fault? Every market place takes a cut from the vendor. Your business not being able to sustain the cost of doing business is nobody's fault except your own.
Apple should not be allowed to send push notifications about products or services they prohibit other apps from sending. They shouldn't arbitrarily restrict Spotify from updating the app (virtually no information is provided about what infractions Apple saw, and history suggests that companies are great at presenting one side of the argument and then we find that Apple has a legitimate grievance). They should not be able to charge Spotify more because of their competition.
But to suggest that Apple should be forced to allow Siri integration with Spotify? Homepod? Apple Watch? Ridiculous.
Monopolies where prices rise are bad news. But look at UK football coverage. On top of my free-to-air channels (£150 p.a. TV licence) I need a Sky Sports subscription (minimum £25 per month) and a BT Sport subscription (which necessitates one of BT Broadband - gross - or Sky) which I think is around £5-£10 per year. The top flight football is fragmented across all three providers. Is that better for me?
I think you're wrong - Apple's behaviour in this instance is clearly an abuse of market power and I fully expect the European Commission to rule in Spotify's favour.
Apple are directly competing with Spotify in the field of streaming music services via Apple Music. Apple's total control of the app store and their substantial share of the smartphone market means that they have a dominant market position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. Apple are using that dominant market position to advantage their own streaming service and disadvantage Spotify, for reasons set out at length in the original article. Apple are required under EU competition law to give Apple Music and Spotify an equal playing field, which they clearly aren't doing. Apple might have a partial defence if they allowed sideloading of apps, but they don't.
The obvious precedent is the European Commission's action against Google in 2018. Google were fined €4.34bn for using Android to unfairly advantage their search business. Android has a dominant market position within the mobile OS market - if you're a small mobile device manufacturer, you don't have many reasonable alternatives to using Android. Google didn't allow manufacturers to pre-install the Play Store app unless they also pre-installed Chrome and the Google Search app, which is an abuse of their dominant market position. They used their dominance of the mobile OS business to unfairly advantage their search business, which is blatantly illegal.
A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that subscribes to Spotify through Apple devices. This cost doesn't doesn't exist for PC users, for example.
They probably could live with it but I can understand why it feels like an artificial cost that Apple came up with. It would be an understandable cost if they were selling the Spotify App through the App Store and using the actual store infrastructure for supporting Spotify... but they are not.
The app is nothing more than a portal to the entire Spotify infrastructure, it doesn't weight anything to Apple.
And then we have the subject of the direct competition, Apple Music doesn't need to have their profits cut in 30% because they are owned by Apple itself.
And it's even worse if they are using Siri, Homepad and Apple Watch to make Apple Music more appealing in comparison to Spotify.
The difference comes in when Apple introduced Apple Music, a direct competitor to Spotify. So now, they're not only offering an essentially identical service, they're extracting a toll from their competition through their other holdings.
To put this in 19th century anti-trust terms, the manufacturing company owns the railways and charges the competition a toll to transport their goods. It's a clear cut case for Spotify, from a legal perspective.
> Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?
I see your point but you could flip that a 3rd way:
"Consumers pay for their hardware - they own the device - so why should manufacturers tell consumers what they can or cannot install on their hardware?"
I grew up in an era when hardware wasn't so tightly coupled with software. In fact you could go further than that and mod your hardware with custom chips and so on without violating anything more than your warranty. So I find this current era where consumers are expected to pay high prices for hardware and still not have any rights over that platform to be a massive con.
More than a decade ago, the EU forced Microsoft to let people choose their browser on a Windows machine with a fresh install. Not only that but the list of choices was randomly sorted so that IE would not be the first listed.
> Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?
Of course if you were Apple, you would not want to do it. But, that’s what antitrust laws are for. As a consumer they are valuable: how long have people been waiting to use Spotify their Apple Watch?
>Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?
It's not that you have to, but if you do and you become one of only two or three platform oligopolists worldwide, then you better make sure it's a level playing field or you risk getting regulated as a utility.
There was a post by Ben Thompson[1] that outlines some of the challenges with Apples approach in the App Store. It's a good read if you have the time. I'm not trying to change your mind, but more give a different perspective on the conundrum that Apple is in.
Monopolies can have negative effects without trying to extract monopoly rents.
The competition between BT and Sky massively increased the TV rights price for e.g. the premier league, so the clubs got much more money. In theory, they used this to buy better players etc and increase the quality of the league.
Although you now have to pay twice, the quality of the product has gone up. So it's not a zero-sum game. You can argue that you don't think it's worth it, but that's an opinion, it's not true that it's an inherently worse situation.
Until they entered into a rights sharing agreement.
As an avid user of Spotify well before I switched from Android to iPhone. It annoys me to no extent how everything used to work over there like it was first party.
On iOS unless everything else is only partiality supported. iTunes in comparison to Spotify was a joke when it was first released and they're shoving it down our throats constantly.
Never really used Siri until I bought a pair of AirPods. How am I not able to tell it to play music via Spotify?
The complaint regarding the fee is not just that Apple takes such a large fee (which is reasonable for a one-off game where the exposure and back-end processing is beneficial, but is ludicrous for a recurring subscription from a large scale org), it's that you are restricted from offering any other payment options, or even alluding to possible other payment options. That is grossly anti-competitive and does absolutely nothing for consumers.
As a user of an iPhone/Mac/etc, but who loves Spotify, this whole thing just sours me on Apple a bit. Spotify works great with my webOS TV, and just about everything else for that matter. It supports everything. Its networking/streaming model is brilliant. The interface is much better than Apple music (with its bizarre integration with iTunes). That I can't use Siri to play a song is just obnoxious and turns me off of Siri, and whatever middle managers in Apple are pushing this are just doing themselves harm in the longer run.
Something not mentioned anywhere in this thread either is the fact that, after 1 year, any subscription made through the app store goes from a 30% cut to 15% - what I would call much more manageable.
Bottom line: I can't queue and download Spotify content to my Apple Watch for offline use. Considering Apple has a competitor product, there is no reason for me to believe Apple is playing fair.
Secondarily, the expectation that Spotify buck the labels AND expect to bring the concept of 'all music for one price' is a non-starter, so I don't understand that criticsim.
~~Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?
I don't think we have a clear ethic yet, for these situations. There's obviously a ton of economic power in platforms. Since the msft-vs-netscape days, it's been controversial.
Ultimately... these are marketplaces, important ones and, considering their size, scope and influence... I think there is a strong case that "my house, my rules" is not a reasonable way of doing things.
Apple/Google's app & content stores are huge bottlenecks and being locked out of them is on the same scale as being locked out of the financial/banking system for certain companies.
Does "free market" mean anything useful, if the free market consists of a handful of unfree "platforms?"
There's a similar question for FB and Twitter. They are such big media channels that being locked out of one could (for example) make it impossible to run for elected office.
Things have different implications at large scale.
Apple does provide the infrastructure to distribute the app to customers and does deserve some compensation for it.
But on the other hand, Apple is stepping into a market (music streaming) from which they control top to bottom and has a advantage no one has (no IAP transactions fee, they basically pay themselves for it), which in a way is unfair.
If they want to remain fair to competition, they should waive IAPs costs or reduce them significantly in market they engage themselves in which they are direct competitors.
[+] [-] gurpreet-|7 years ago|reply
I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair.
If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure website from the vendor - as far as I'm aware, Apple requires you have some sort of website anyway.
At least Google allows installing apps without the Play Store, perhaps it's time Apple permitted something similar with its apps? This could solve this whole problem and have other positive side effects such as people being less likely to jailbreak their iPhones.
[+] [-] GeekyBear|7 years ago|reply
You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple getting any cut at all.
https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip...
Netflix has done the same thing.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-...
In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your payment website inside your app.
[+] [-] duhi88|7 years ago|reply
Subscriptions for apps should be different, but I see a challenge in drawing the line between Spotify/Netflix and a scam app like "awesome culculator" that charges $5/mo to people who don'didn't realize it was a subscription (there was an article on HN this week about apps like that, targeting kids and the elderly, of course).
If Apple has a stipulation about requiring a website, then maybe subscription-based apps can get a discount on the 30% fee if they also have a web or desktop-based version of their application that provides comparable functionality and takes payments.
[+] [-] judge2020|7 years ago|reply
1: they're likely refining the process of obtaining one of these certs after the recent news reports on business fraud
[+] [-] supernova87a|7 years ago|reply
Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing.
Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation? What makes your 30% price the right call? If you're an app developer, are you equally ok with someone else determining what you get to charge for your app when you're done with it? Isn't that the same (lack of) logic?
[+] [-] gigatexal|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalore|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veritas20|7 years ago|reply
That said, how much is distribution worth to Spotify? Imagine that Spotify was not software, but instead it was a hardware device. Would they expect Best Buy to carry it for free? Would they expect Walmart or Target not to offer a store branded competitor? I think not.
When you don't own your distribution channel, you pay for distribution one way or another.
[+] [-] latexr|7 years ago|reply
And then every PAID app will switch to FREE and charge for PRO, to circumvent the 30%. Oh, Apple complained it’s not technically a microtransaction? Fine, just separate every feature into a new purchase.
> If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure website from the vendor
If the vendor server is compromised or is down, a download from the App Store won’t work for a single app, leaving customers confused and complaining to Apple, who can’t fix the issue.
[+] [-] ksec|7 years ago|reply
This is not the same as Amazon offering their own label in their Store. Customers could shop in dozens of many other online retail or local retail. And Amazon does not charge other label 30% cut for stocking fees.
I believe Apple should charge a fair amount only when they have a competing product or services within its locked system. Had Apple Charge 15% for the first year on Spotify and 10% for all subsequent subscription it would have been much better. I don't believe the 5% would work, as I have seen many saying 5% should be enough. The cost of running microtransaction, processing, billing, legal, etc are just about break even at 5% even in the scale of Apple. I don't see charging 10% would seem unfair. ( In US at least, in EU the processing fees are much much lower )
Or Apple should never have made Apple Music in the first place. I still don't see any value in Apple offering it. iTunes was required for iPod. And it changes the whole music industry as a whole, along with iPod sold which ultimately saved Apple. No one will buy iPhone because of Apple Music, and Apple Music itself isn't even profitable.
[+] [-] hokumguru|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cma|7 years ago|reply
They've still got to at least cover bandwidth (minor) and payment processing.
[+] [-] scarface74|7 years ago|reply
Because that worked so well for Windows with malware,viruses, and ransomware.
[+] [-] soup10|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nevir|7 years ago|reply
We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple announces their intent to build in-app purchasing.
The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MUST sell all books at a 30% margin on ALL stores if they want to sell their books via Apple's own ebook store.
Aka we couldn't sell books at an increased cost, even if we wanted to. We would have had to take a loss on every purchase.
In the end, we had to remove all of the store functionality from the app, and weren't even allowed to link people directly to the web store for purchasing (or even instructions for purchasing).
[+] [-] owenwil|7 years ago|reply
- Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch
- It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod
- It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri
- It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis
- It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major podcasting companies
I genuinely hope Europe takes this seriously. The issue of the 30% cut alone is enough for further investigation, particularly as Apple now uses that as an advantage to undercut Spotify with Apple Music.
[+] [-] headmelted|7 years ago|reply
The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this arbitrarily in a way that at least appears to favour your own products over your rivals is an abuse of your position.
If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely, given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously), then I'd be astonished if Spotify doesn't file lawsuits in the US under the Sherman Act.
In any case, having this fight happen, and in public, can only be good for indie developers if it forces Apple to apply it's rules arbitrarily.
[+] [-] volandovengo|7 years ago|reply
Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an eyebrow...
[+] [-] headmelted|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ppeetteerr|7 years ago|reply
Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients remained.
The only two ways out of this is to legislate a lower rate (through campaigns such as these), or to create a competing platform that lowers costs for its users. Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't that send a very clear message to Apple?
[+] [-] supermatt|7 years ago|reply
You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your "purchases" - there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems they created.
They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple platforms. They can market themselves as official/curated/whatever they want but the user should have the choice.
[+] [-] Nextgrid|7 years ago|reply
The anticompetitive behaviour described on that website is just the tip of the iceberg. Apple is doing a lot worse behind the scenes. Cellular service on Apple Watch for example - as a carrier you can't just provide service for the Watch - you have to be an "approved" carrier and this means being friends with Apple and selling iPhones among other things (you only provide SIM-only plans and not interested in selling phones? Tough luck.). Same for visual voicemail, etc.
[+] [-] toasterlovin|7 years ago|reply
I sell physical goods on Amazon. They charge me 15% for this privilege. The only reason they don't charge more is because physical goods have lower margins than digital goods (my margins after it's all said and done are somewhere between 10-15%). And, you know what? I'm happy to pay Amazon their 15% because they're bringing me customers that I wouldn't have otherwise.
Perhaps thinking about it like this is instructive: does Amazon have an obligation to let me sell on their platform simply because lots of consumers choose to buy stuff from Amazon? Does Amazon have an obligation to change their fee structure so that I can more easily compete with Amazon Basics branded products?
Should Apple charge a smaller percentage to subscription services that can't afford to give up 30%? Probably. It would net Apple a percentage of something, rather than the 30% of $0 that they're getting now. And it would be a better experience for Apple's customers. But it is in no way unreasonable for Apple to expect to get paid for originating sales of software and subscriptions. And it is certainly not unreasonable for them to get paid significantly more than credit card processing fees.
[+] [-] yeldarb|7 years ago|reply
It looks like they’ve filed a complaint with the EU Commission; I wonder if it will become a talking point in US politics as well.
[+] [-] judah|7 years ago|reply
Progressive Web Apps -- web apps that are installable and available offline without any app store -- are a viable alternative, and ultimately a threat to Apple's app store racket. It's likely why iOS Safari continues to drag it's feet on PWA support.
[+] [-] yaseer|7 years ago|reply
4 years ago, I was all in- Mac, iPad, iPhone. In the last 4 years, I've been driven away by Apple seeming contempt for professional users.
Their contempt for other competition is even graver cause for concern.
[+] [-] talkingtab|7 years ago|reply
You just have to wonder what's up with Apple.
[+] [-] fb03|7 years ago|reply
Phones now have the same level of processing power as portable computers. We shouldn't be obligated to only run applications that are siphoned thru a third party "trusted clearinghouse", be it the smartphone or the operating system vendor.
If I want more safety or I am not a Power User, I can flick a switch on the device to allow that binding behavior to happen. Heck, they are giving me the 'free service' of taking care of app security for me, I could even pay for that if I am serious about having my apps checked and stuff.
Phones are computers. You own the hardware, you should be able to install whatever you want. Always.
Is the argument about protecting the masses of non-tech people? Great, make it an opt-out. And still: There ought to be someone keeping tabs on that big brother (gov regulations? agencies) or else shady behavior can ensue as well.
[+] [-] iambateman|7 years ago|reply
Antitrust is a useful tool for when players end up controlling monopolies and using them in anti-competitive ways.
[+] [-] ChrisRR|7 years ago|reply
Unfortunately they are abusing their power, and are being flat out unfair if you want to develop a bluetooth device or app. If you want to vet apps to ensure a safe environment, that's fine, but these practices go beyond that and are unfair.
[+] [-] pier25|7 years ago|reply
Apple policies do not really benefit anyone. Kindle iOS users will simply open Safari to buy their books, making their experience worse.
Either Apple should really remain objective and not have horses in the App Store race, or follow the same rules on its own apps that they impose on others, or change the rules to benefit everyone (including the users).
[+] [-] bad_user|7 years ago|reply
Software platforms are marketplaces and company behind such platforms yield great power, even if technically speaking they aren't yet a monopoly.
Hardware devices should not be legally allowed to be locked down in the way that Apple devices are. Not sure how many people remember, but Microsoft eventually being forced to provide choice in browsers was a great outcome and allowed Firefox and Chrome to flourish. Yes, Microsoft was at that time a monopoly, whereas Apple right now isn't, but Apple has the potential to be a monopoly. They are after all the richest software company in the world.
Apple succeeded where Microsoft failed, they normalized “trusted computing”, which brought everything we feared.
I very much prefer EU's consumer protectionism in these regards and I'm hoping they'll do something about walled gardens such as Apple's.
[+] [-] demuch|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/11/app-store-generated-93-mor...
[+] [-] nerdwaller|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgespencer|7 years ago|reply
Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies).
Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?
The crucial line in their argument is this:
> giving up 30% was too much for us to keep our prices low for our fans. Unfortunately, the end result is that you can no longer upgrade to Premium through the app.
How is this Apple's fault and not your fault? Every market place takes a cut from the vendor. Your business not being able to sustain the cost of doing business is nobody's fault except your own.
Apple should not be allowed to send push notifications about products or services they prohibit other apps from sending. They shouldn't arbitrarily restrict Spotify from updating the app (virtually no information is provided about what infractions Apple saw, and history suggests that companies are great at presenting one side of the argument and then we find that Apple has a legitimate grievance). They should not be able to charge Spotify more because of their competition.
But to suggest that Apple should be forced to allow Siri integration with Spotify? Homepod? Apple Watch? Ridiculous.
Monopolies where prices rise are bad news. But look at UK football coverage. On top of my free-to-air channels (£150 p.a. TV licence) I need a Sky Sports subscription (minimum £25 per month) and a BT Sport subscription (which necessitates one of BT Broadband - gross - or Sky) which I think is around £5-£10 per year. The top flight football is fragmented across all three providers. Is that better for me?
[+] [-] jdietrich|7 years ago|reply
Apple are directly competing with Spotify in the field of streaming music services via Apple Music. Apple's total control of the app store and their substantial share of the smartphone market means that they have a dominant market position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. Apple are using that dominant market position to advantage their own streaming service and disadvantage Spotify, for reasons set out at length in the original article. Apple are required under EU competition law to give Apple Music and Spotify an equal playing field, which they clearly aren't doing. Apple might have a partial defence if they allowed sideloading of apps, but they don't.
The obvious precedent is the European Commission's action against Google in 2018. Google were fined €4.34bn for using Android to unfairly advantage their search business. Android has a dominant market position within the mobile OS market - if you're a small mobile device manufacturer, you don't have many reasonable alternatives to using Android. Google didn't allow manufacturers to pre-install the Play Store app unless they also pre-installed Chrome and the Google Search app, which is an abuse of their dominant market position. They used their dominance of the mobile OS business to unfairly advantage their search business, which is blatantly illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
[+] [-] pedroaraujo|7 years ago|reply
They probably could live with it but I can understand why it feels like an artificial cost that Apple came up with. It would be an understandable cost if they were selling the Spotify App through the App Store and using the actual store infrastructure for supporting Spotify... but they are not.
The app is nothing more than a portal to the entire Spotify infrastructure, it doesn't weight anything to Apple.
And then we have the subject of the direct competition, Apple Music doesn't need to have their profits cut in 30% because they are owned by Apple itself.
And it's even worse if they are using Siri, Homepad and Apple Watch to make Apple Music more appealing in comparison to Spotify.
[+] [-] 5trokerac3|7 years ago|reply
To put this in 19th century anti-trust terms, the manufacturing company owns the railways and charges the competition a toll to transport their goods. It's a clear cut case for Spotify, from a legal perspective.
[+] [-] laumars|7 years ago|reply
I see your point but you could flip that a 3rd way:
"Consumers pay for their hardware - they own the device - so why should manufacturers tell consumers what they can or cannot install on their hardware?"
I grew up in an era when hardware wasn't so tightly coupled with software. In fact you could go further than that and mod your hardware with custom chips and so on without violating anything more than your warranty. So I find this current era where consumers are expected to pay high prices for hardware and still not have any rights over that platform to be a massive con.
[+] [-] xrmagnum|7 years ago|reply
> Why do I have to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because it's technically possible?
Of course if you were Apple, you would not want to do it. But, that’s what antitrust laws are for. As a consumer they are valuable: how long have people been waiting to use Spotify their Apple Watch?
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|7 years ago|reply
It's not that you have to, but if you do and you become one of only two or three platform oligopolists worldwide, then you better make sure it's a level playing field or you risk getting regulated as a utility.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/11/sen-elizabeth-warren-wants-t...
[+] [-] joeblau|7 years ago|reply
[1] - https://stratechery.com/2018/antitrust-the-app-store-and-app...
[+] [-] Blackbeard_|7 years ago|reply
Monopolies can have negative effects without trying to extract monopoly rents.
The competition between BT and Sky massively increased the TV rights price for e.g. the premier league, so the clubs got much more money. In theory, they used this to buy better players etc and increase the quality of the league.
Although you now have to pay twice, the quality of the product has gone up. So it's not a zero-sum game. You can argue that you don't think it's worth it, but that's an opinion, it's not true that it's an inherently worse situation.
Until they entered into a rights sharing agreement.
[+] [-] intellix|7 years ago|reply
On iOS unless everything else is only partiality supported. iTunes in comparison to Spotify was a joke when it was first released and they're shoving it down our throats constantly.
Never really used Siri until I bought a pair of AirPods. How am I not able to tell it to play music via Spotify?
[+] [-] alanfranz|7 years ago|reply
Because Apple+Android = de facto monopoly.
[+] [-] endorphone|7 years ago|reply
As a user of an iPhone/Mac/etc, but who loves Spotify, this whole thing just sours me on Apple a bit. Spotify works great with my webOS TV, and just about everything else for that matter. It supports everything. Its networking/streaming model is brilliant. The interface is much better than Apple music (with its bizarre integration with iTunes). That I can't use Siri to play a song is just obnoxious and turns me off of Siri, and whatever middle managers in Apple are pushing this are just doing themselves harm in the longer run.
[+] [-] hokumguru|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aklemm|7 years ago|reply
Secondarily, the expectation that Spotify buck the labels AND expect to bring the concept of 'all music for one price' is a non-starter, so I don't understand that criticsim.
[+] [-] dalbasal|7 years ago|reply
I don't think we have a clear ethic yet, for these situations. There's obviously a ton of economic power in platforms. Since the msft-vs-netscape days, it's been controversial.
Ultimately... these are marketplaces, important ones and, considering their size, scope and influence... I think there is a strong case that "my house, my rules" is not a reasonable way of doing things.
Apple/Google's app & content stores are huge bottlenecks and being locked out of them is on the same scale as being locked out of the financial/banking system for certain companies.
Does "free market" mean anything useful, if the free market consists of a handful of unfree "platforms?"
There's a similar question for FB and Twitter. They are such big media channels that being locked out of one could (for example) make it impossible to run for elected office.
Things have different implications at large scale.
[+] [-] m-p-3|7 years ago|reply
But on the other hand, Apple is stepping into a market (music streaming) from which they control top to bottom and has a advantage no one has (no IAP transactions fee, they basically pay themselves for it), which in a way is unfair.
If they want to remain fair to competition, they should waive IAPs costs or reduce them significantly in market they engage themselves in which they are direct competitors.