Apple Says Spotify Is Breaking The Rules

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Yesterday Spotify claimed it was being bullied by Apple. Today, we have a response from Apple saying that Spotify wants special treatment. Spotify head of communications Jonathan Prince doesn't seem to agree and the back and forth bickering continues.

"We find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service," wrote Sewell. According to Sewell's letter to Spotify, the new update to Spotify's app would have let new customers sign up for the streaming-music service without paying Apple an in-app subscription fee -- one of Apple's App Store rules.
 
cjcox said:
I'd just pass an Apple tax onto the end user that foolishly uses Apple devices. Just saying...
Click to expand...

Well it was explained in the other post pretty well. That is exactly what Spotify was doing, $13 if you use in app. $10 if you go through website.....30% difference. The "Apple tax" only exists if Spotify chooses to use that channel for transactions. If Spotify went 100% outside of the app like many other successful companies they would not be in this issue.

Spotify wants convenience and market penetration, without paying for it. Sounds like special treatment to me.
 
"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor," Sewell explains

So they already had anti-competitive rules in place for just such an occasion? ;)
 
They want to make 30% of a subscription price. 30% is insanity! Apple should be ashamed. These are electronic transactions, they cost a fraction of a cent for Apple. They expect to walk away with nearly a 1/3 of the money. This isn't retail, there is no brick and mortar or sales staff to pay for. SHAME! Apple is soooo greedy... Too bad iOS is light years better than any Android variation I've ever seen or touched. I would have to switch back. As of now, I can't imagine life without my iPhone...
 
Zareek said:
Too bad iOS is light years better than any Android variation I've ever seen or touched. I would have to switch back. As of now, I can't imagine life without my iPhone...
Click to expand...

Eh, our definition of "light-years" must be really different. Have you used any Android version 5 and above? I find it superior than Apple's OS. But to each their own, and it really depends on what you're looking for.
 
Zareek said:
They want to make 30% of a subscription price. 30% is insanity! Apple should be ashamed. These are electronic transactions, they cost a fraction of a cent for Apple. They expect to walk away with nearly a 1/3 of the money. This isn't retail, there is no brick and mortar or sales staff to pay for.
Click to expand...

I'm resisting......trying really hard.....I just need to say......no I mustn't.......

Ok, I'm better....

Hey man 4 posts, in 5 years. Man that is impressive....you have more restraint then me! Glad to have you here! We love to rabble rabble here.
 
Whatever, I absolutely love Spotify. I've been a paying subscriber for about six months. It keeps me from blobbing out on my recliner, getting my IQ lowered by TV.

And I totally hate everything Apple. If you like the company, that's fine, you have the right to. But if Apple was all of a sudden in charge, dictatorially, of the world, nobody would have a choice ever again.
 
westrock2000 said:
Well it was explained in the other post pretty well. That is exactly what Spotify was doing, $13 if you use in app. $10 if you go through website.....30% difference. The "Apple tax" only exists if Spotify chooses to use that channel for transactions. If Spotify went 100% outside of the app like many other successful companies they would not be in this issue.

Spotify wants convenience and market penetration, without paying for it. Sounds like special treatment to me.
Click to expand...

Apple wants 30% of all income from the app even though Apple's servers aren't being used beyond allowing users to install the app in the first place.

That is fucking outrageous.
 
Do they get 30% of Facebook's Revenue? Do they get 30% of Amazon's Revenue? This is a test case for Apple.
 
Last edited:
Tak Ne said:
"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple. We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor," Sewell explains

So they already had anti-competitive rules in place for just such an occasion? ;)
Click to expand...

All except themselves, which is what we usually call anti-competitive behaviour.
 
westrock2000 said:
Well it was explained in the other post pretty well. That is exactly what Spotify was doing, $13 if you use in app. $10 if you go through website.....30% difference. The "Apple tax" only exists if Spotify chooses to use that channel for transactions. If Spotify went 100% outside of the app like many other successful companies they would not be in this issue.

Spotify wants convenience and market penetration, without paying for it. Sounds like special treatment to me.
Click to expand...

We have a winner. Not that it matters in a hardforum apple bashing thread but you nailed it.

BTW I use spotify daily on my iPhone. And iPad. And laptop. And work desktop.
 
rat said:
Apple wants 30% of all income from the app even though Apple's servers aren't being used beyond allowing users to install the app in the first place.

That is fucking outrageous.
Click to expand...
And it's the same for every other developer on the entire App Store, subscription-based or otherwise, and has been this way for years now. There's nothing special about Spotify's situation.


dgz said:
All except themselves, which is what we usually call anti-competitive behaviour.
Click to expand...
They gonna charge themselves 30%? Also, Apple doesn't make 100% of the profit from their subscription service. They pay out, just like the other streaming services do.
 
Wyodiver said:
And I totally hate everything Apple. If you like the company, that's fine, you have the right to. But if Apple was all of a sudden in charge, dictatorially, of the world, nobody would have a choice ever again.
Click to expand...

Feel free to hate Apple, but I can also say that if Google was suddenly in charge, rest assured they don't want you to have choices either. They want you just as locked down with your $$$ flowing to them as Apple.
 
vertices said:
Feel free to hate Apple, but I can also say that if Google was suddenly in charge, rest assured they don't want you to have choices either. They want you just as locked down with your $$$ flowing to them as Apple.
Click to expand...
It's just cool to single out and hate Apple. I'm not a fan of their locked down way of doing things, but it's not an Apple-exlusive business practice. It's just that Apple controls ALL their hardware and software. This is why I build Hackintoshes and will continue to do so until they somehow make it impossible or too hard making it no longer worth it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
as bad as this practice is, if that is their rules then you have to deal with it to use that platform. Everyone pays the same so either they all need to fight to get that changed or drop the platform if they don't want to pay, it is that simple. As for people bitching about Apple's cut, pretty sure that is the same that Valve takes if you sell your game on Steam.
 
cjcox said:
I'd just pass an Apple tax onto the end user that foolishly uses Apple devices. Just saying...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Or leave the market, and Spotify users may be swayed to Spotify friendly devices and services
 
Trepidati0n said:
Do they get 30% of Facebook's Revenue? Do they get 30% of Amazon's Revenue? This is a test case for Apple.
Click to expand...

I do not get the Facebook reference, but I don't use facebook much.

The Amazon example is interesting. I like it, it challenges me.

There may be concessions for those that sell tangible goods like Amazon and eBay.


EDIT: Ok, looking at the rules, which are a little convoluted for someone like me, it looks like they do treat purchases of physical good and services that exist OUTSIDE the app as outside the realms of the "Apple Tax". So for example that is why you cannot purchase MP3's with the Amazon App and you cannot purchase Audible books within the Audible App. Because those products would be used within the app itself. It is a hassle, but knowing this now, it makes total sense.
 
westrock2000 said:
I do not get the Facebook reference, but I don't use facebook much.

The Amazon example is interesting. I like it, it challenges me.

There may be concessions for those that sell tangible goods like Amazon and eBay.


EDIT: Ok, looking at the rules, which are a little convoluted for someone like me, it looks like they do treat purchases of physical good and services that exist OUTSIDE the app as outside the realms of the "Apple Tax". So for example that is why you cannot purchase MP3's with the Amazon App and you cannot purchase Audible books within the Audible App. Because those products would be used within the app itself. It is a hassle, but knowing this now, it makes total sense.
Click to expand...

I can purchase music through the amazon music app
 
Trepidati0n said:
Do they get 30% of Facebook's Revenue? Do they get 30% of Amazon's Revenue? This is a test case for Apple.
Click to expand...
Dude, what are you talking about? Those are free apps. Of course they don't get revenue. It only applies to purchased apps and subscriptions. It has never worked like what you're talking about. You've literally made NO point.
 
NemesisX said:
Dude, what are you talking about? Those are free apps. Of course they don't get revenue. It only applies to purchased apps and subscriptions. It has never worked like what you're talking about. You've literally made NO point.
Click to expand...

Why is Apple entitled to 30% of all subscriptions through a free app when they don't provide the services that the subscriptions enable?
 
rat said:
Why is Apple entitled to 30% of all subscriptions through a free app when they don't provide the services that the subscriptions enable?
Click to expand...
It's part of the agreement. Everyone adheres to it. I'm not attempting to explain Apple's super crappy business practices, I'm merely pointing out that Spotify is not a special case and they're treating it like it is. This is how it's always been. I disagree with it as much as you do, but it's not going to change anything and Apple's definitely not going to bend for Spotify.
 
NemesisX said:
It's part of the agreement. Everyone adheres to it. I'm not attempting to explain Apple's super crappy business practices, I'm merely pointing out that Spotify is not a special case and they're treating it like it is. This is how it's always been. I disagree with it as much as you do, but it's not going to change anything and Apple's definitely not going to bend for Spotify.
Click to expand...

Microsoft does it: ZOMG LETERIALLY HITLAR! Anti competitive!

Apple does it: Part of the agreement, they can do whatever thew want.

Visa and Mastercard were class action sued (and attempted to settle) for an outrageous 3% per transaction.
 
rat said:
Why is Apple entitled to 30% of all subscriptions through a free app when they don't provide the services that the subscriptions enable?
Click to expand...
Because sales of said goods are done using their platform (and their credit card merchant account), and they thus dictate what the terms are.

It's been a while since I was an iOS developer, but my recollection is that it was kosher to open up the browser, and have the user subscribe to your service that way. You obviously had to handle all the security business yourself that way, but it got you out of the 30% cut Apple demanded if you wanted to do this within your executable. I guess maybe the rules have changed?
 
rat said:
Microsoft does it: ZOMG LETERIALLY HITLAR! Anti competitive!

Apple does it: Part of the agreement, they can do whatever thew want.
Click to expand...
You do know what a straw man argument is, yes? I literally said nothing about Microsoft. Microsoft has nothing to do with this thread. I don't agree with Apple doing this, or Microsoft, or Google. We're talking about Apple. You just brought in an entirely new company that I never even brought up. You're pretty much talking to yourself right now. Good grief.

Visa and Mastercard were class action sued (and attempted to settle) for an outrageous 3% per transaction.
Click to expand...
Sorry, my mistake. You included 3 other companies I never brought up that don't pertain to this conversation. Good job.
 
NemesisX said:
Dude, what are you talking about? Those are free apps. Of course they don't get revenue. It only applies to purchased apps and subscriptions. It has never worked like what you're talking about. You've literally made NO point.
Click to expand...

I do have a point. You are arguing "technically correct" which is while fun and all to be "technically correct" it is a load of fucking bullshit because it is nothing but semantics to myopically focus on a single point to obscure the bigger point. Those arguments are boring....really fucking boring. Why was it all fine and dandy for years and years and all of a sudden "not fine"? It is a pure money grab in order to make their service the "better option". The fact of when you joined pretty much makes you look like a shill for Apple.

Here is the part you seem ignore...spotify DID try not use their pay system..but that wasn't allowed either.

Companies may allow users to sign up for subscriptions via their own web sites or other means without paying Apple the 30% cut, but they cannot link to those other sites in the app.
Click to expand...

Therefore...why can Amazon do it but spotify can't? Again....a rotten apple is sitll rotten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rat
like this
Trepidati0n said:
I do have a point. You are arguing "technically correct" which is while fun and all to be "technically correct" it is a load of fucking bullshit because it is nothing but semantics to myopically focus on a single point to obscure the bigger point. Those arguments are boring....really fucking boring. Why was it all fine and dandy for years and years and all of a sudden "not fine"? It is a pure money grab in order to make their service the "better option".
Click to expand...
I didn't say it wasn't a money grab. I'm saying that's the terms the company agreed to when chose to put their service into the App Store. I also didn't say I agree with it either. It think it's ridiculous for Apple to put the 30% tax on a subscription service. It makes sense for one-time paid apps, but not a monthly app in which they're not even providing the bandwidth for the app in the first place. My only point was that Spotify is acting like it's a unique case, which it isn't.

YouTube’s new streaming service charges iOS users an Apple tax | Cult of Mac


The fact of when you joined pretty much makes you look like a shill for Apple.
Click to expand...
That literally has nothing to do with my stance on Apple. I don't agree with Apple's business practices. I don't agree with their walled garden. Now you're just picking silly things to point fingers at.


Here is the part you seem ignore...spotify DID try not use their pay system..but that wasn't allowed either.
Click to expand...
That's because they were trying to circumvent something they agreed to. I've been using Spotify for years and I pay monthly outside of the Apple ecosystem because I refuse to give Apple money for a service they aren't providing. It's Spotify's bandwidth, not Apple's. Your problem with me is you think I'm a "shill" for Apple. I'm not. I don't agree with what they're doing, but getting upset over terms they agreed to abide by and making it seem like they're a special case is a problem. They should band together with other subscription-based services in which this tax is being placed on so they can actually make a difference instead of Apple giving them their typical snarky response. Look at what Taylor Swift did. She made Apple pay artists for their music being streamed with her commentary on Twitter. They were going to go 3 months without paying anyone dick until she said something. Spotify should get together with other companies and make waves. Is Apple greedy? Yes. Is what they're doing unethical? Yes. Are they breaking any rules they haven't already set in stones for years? No. I don't support their garbage business tactics. But their terms are their terms, crappy or not.
 
An aside from all the typical Apple silliness, I'm surprised at all the people enjoying Spotify. Last time I attempted to use it it was the worst experience possible. Nearly forced Facebook linking and the player was essentially iTunes. And I don't have Facebook and I fucking hate iTunes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liver
like this
The just need to sell a code and email it, then it's real goods outside of the app .
 
Nolan7689 said:
An aside from all the typical Apple silliness, I'm surprised at all the people enjoying Spotify. Last time I attempted to use it it was the worst experience possible. Nearly forced Facebook linking and the player was essentially iTunes. And I don't have Facebook and I fucking hate iTunes.
Click to expand...
It doesn't force Facebook linking ... not on the app and not on their website. Even on the app, signing up with Facebook is just a small section at the top of their sign up page. The majority of their sign up page is for e-mail sign up.
 
NemesisX said:
It doesn't force Facebook linking ... not on the app and not on their website. Even on the app, signing up with Facebook is just a small section at the top of their sign up page. The majority of their sign up page is for e-mail sign up.
Click to expand...
Then I may just be stupid but I had a hell of a time getting it to work 2012-2013 era. These days I don't have FB and just stick to Pandora, on device music, or Amazon prime music.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Then I may just be stupid but I had a hell of a time getting it to work 2012-2013 era. These days I don't have FB and just stick to Pandora, on device music, or Amazon prime music.
Click to expand...
I think I recall it being more of a pain in the ass back then, but it isn't like that anymore. You're certainly not stupid.
 
Pyroja said:
All these people losing their shit over Apple taking a 30% cut must really hate Steam.
Click to expand...

Steam, unlike Apple, actually does host all the content that is paid for, including updates which Steam does not charge extra to deliver (unlike Microsof for XBox)... Apple does NOT provide bandwidth for content delivery that Spotify uses.

Thanks for further highlighting how the whole 'deal' is extremely slanted into Apple's favor. It's a 30% transaction fee in Spotify's case, 10 TIMES what Mastercard and Visa typically charge to process a transaction... and Apple requires that you go through them.
 
rat said:
Steam, unlike Apple, actually does host all the content that is paid for, including updates which Steam does not charge extra to deliver (unlike Microsof for XBox)... Apple does NOT provide bandwidth for content delivery that Spotify uses.

Thanks for further highlighting how the whole 'deal' is extremely slanted into Apple's favor. It's a 30% transaction fee in Spotify's case, 10 TIMES what Mastercard and Visa typically charge to process a transaction... and Apple requires that you go through them.
Click to expand...

You do know that Steam takes a cut of in-game purchases, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top