47 ms·

Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

• adam_arthur 4y ago
  It's pretty obvious that legislation or anti-trust action will come that opens up mobile computing platforms. Considering the whole of a large market share mobile computing OS a private market, and not subject to competitive pressures, leads to monopolistic capture similar to what utilities could achieve without regulation. Why not just move to another neighborhood if you don't like your electric bill? Well then you're subject to the monopoly on that side of the fence just the same. Illusion of choice/competition Competitive markets are what drive down margins, thus feed those margin savings back into consumer's pockets. Cheaper goods+services are what enriches broader society and are a net positive in my view. Some states solve the natural monopoly problem with utilities by allowing consumers to choose the energy provider separately from the utility itself. e.g making the power provider a competitive market. If Apple's app store and browser are the best, and people prefer them, they can continue to use them. But they will have other choices in the future
  • vanilla_nut 4y ago
    I'm less optimistic about the inevitability of this in the United States. We haven't been able to maintain competition in any utility spaces I can think of -- internet, cable, gas, electricity, etc. There's no freedom of choice in the healthcare industry either. In many parts of the country, almost all grocery stores are part of the same massive conglomerate. The FCC is completely captured by the ISPs, and currently missing a chair, IIRC. So what makes you so optimistic about regulation in the tech space breaking up these monopolies?
    • adam_arthur 4y ago
      The consequences of the lack of competition are borne by a huge number of other wealthy companies/people. Affecting pretty much anybody that builds a product that spans across mobile devices. Spotify and Netflix pay Apple a huge percentage of their subscription revenue, for example... simply because the consumer signed up via iPhone. This is not a chorus of small time devs, these are huge companies
      • greedo 4y ago
        Netflix pays reduced percentages to Apple. Been this way for a long time from what I recall. Other big companies negotiate the percentage as well.
        • ThatPlayer 4y ago
          Netflix removed In-App Subscriptions on iOS years ago: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/28/netflix-no-more-itunes-billing-options/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/28/netflix-no-more-itunes-... . Now that Apple is under anti-trust scrutiny, Netflix recently added a link to their website just a few months ago: https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/25/netflixs-ios-app-now-has-a-sign-up-button-that-takes-you-to-its-website/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/25/netflixs-ios-app-now-has-a...
        • adam_arthur 4y ago
          Doesn’t matter if they get a better rate than market. The precise number doesn’t change the stated dynamics or situation at all. That there are app developers that get preferential treatment just demonstrates the arbitrary power Apple has over choosing winners and losers
          • mrguyorama 4y ago
            But big companies love these kind of barriers, it prevents small competitors from being able to exist. Besides, Google takes a cut of things in their store, Epic from theirs, and if facebook made the metaverse work, you can bet your ass they'd try and take a thirty percent cut. They would never fight against that, it's literally free money.
            • AlexandrB 4y ago
              30% is for amateurs. Meta is taking 48%: https://www.engadget.com/meta-metaverse-virtual-good-sales-cut-142832149.html https://www.engadget.com/meta-metaverse-virtual-good-sales-c...
    • arcbyte 4y ago
      Funny that the monopolies you mention are all highly regulated industries with government-granted monopolies.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • veilrap 4y ago
    The restricted App Store does add customer value, and that customer value is degraded if there are other App Stores available. Namely - if a user buys Apple products because they want the security/curation/whatever that comes with Apple's walled garden, that advantage is broken by forcing Apple to have other app stores on their platform because now that user cannot get all the content through their trusted source as they could before.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • pessimizer 4y ago
      So having more than one app store degrades the experience of people who choose to use Apple's app store like having more than one newspaper degrades the experience of people who read the New York Post.
      • cmdli 4y ago
        That's exactly true. Right now, app megacorporations are only using Apple's App Store (with the protections like Ask Not To Track) because they are forced to. The moment those corporations aren't forced to, they will turn around and force whatever consumers to use the app store that the corporations prefer. The choice of app store isn't ever in the consumer's hands, its in the corporations hands (Apple or otherwise).
        • ArnoVW 4y ago
          If that were the true reason that Apple is forcing Appstore, and that's a big if, then Apple could still offer this "amazing service to customers", by contractually forcing companies to always also offer payments via Apple if payments are accepted elsewhere. If I can think of that in 30 seconds, then so can Apple. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.
          • coldpie 4y ago
            If the app is distributed via a non-Apple app store, then there is no contract between the app developer and Apple. What mechanism would Apple have to enforce that policy?
  • tootie 4y ago
    So long as Android exists and users aren't strictly locked to the Play Store, I don't think an antitrust case would succeed.
    • adam_arthur 4y ago
      Competitors to utilities exist too. Anti-trust is more nuanced than whether there’s a single party monopoly. And it certainly will apply here
• sdfhbdf 4y ago
  No substance, same arguments repeated from both sides all the time. Seems like a stalemate. I see to ways out for a company that feels it’s getting ripped of by Apple: 1. Don’t publish in App Store, do a web app or encourage your customers to get a different platform device. Not sure which one since Google Play Store AFAIK has the same rules. 2. Charge users +30% more when buying through IAP if same is offered any place else and eat this as a cost of doing business. Apple owns the platform. Apple sets the rules.
  • ThatPlayer 4y ago
    That doesn't work when you're preventing competition. Look at when movie studios used to set a ton of rules for their movies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Anti-trust_Case_of_1948 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Anti-trust_Case_of_1...
    • jfengel 4y ago
      Nothing about that article actually describes any harm done. It's often called the Golden Age of Hollywood, and many of the greatest movies of all time were made under the studio system. It's not even clear that the collusion increased ticket prices. Recently, in fact, the decrees have been reversed. Studios are allowed to own movie theaters again. I'm just curious why you picked that one. There are many better cases illustrating the dangers of monopolies.
      • ThatPlayer 4y ago
        I pick that one because there's always arguments that Apple is not a monopoly (just switch to Android) therefore other examples of dangers of monopolies don't apply. The studio system was multiple oligopolies and not a monopoly. I think it parallels the current smartphone app market more. The decrees were reversed because they served their purpose and studios no longer have oligopolies, not because there were new findings or research that suggested the decrees were not worth doing.
        • 4y ago
• donmcronald 4y ago
  I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have cars with a half dozen subscriptions forced on us and the apologists will still be here telling us how 10 companies all doing the exact same thing to deprive us of true ownership is a healthy, competitive market.
  • Spooky23 4y ago
    98% of people don’t care. But they will be scammed by bad actors who push them to install bespoke AppStores. This is just like Elon “free speech” - astroturf from companies who want to usher in the equivalent of scammy browser bars.
  • bamboozled 4y ago
    Yet I guarantee you in ten years there will be a market for the exact thing you're asking for, there will be a car maker who makes, "cars". Not subscriptions. Some people will buy those and some people won't. Wouldn't it be only be a problem if you were forced against your will to drive a subscription model based car?
  • isitmadeofglass 4y ago
    > What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? Thats literally what we have. What are you complaining about? For obvious reasons Apple is t going to support you if you jailbreak it, but that is absolutely reasonable of them.
  • greedo 4y ago
    The car industry already has subscription services; Volvo, Porsche, Jaguar/Land Rover, Genesis, Nissan, all have subscription plans. Don't like those? Go down to most car dealers and you can get a short term subscription called a lease... Funny how the world hasn't ended because of this. Just go buy an Android phone if you don't like Apple's walled garden.
• jdmoreira 4y ago
  He takes 30% for his platform, what's the issue with Apple taking 30% for their own platform? Quit the platform if you want. If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't)
  • Yujf 4y ago
    Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading. Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should work, which is how it does work on android (and yes most companies still use the play store, because it is hard to convince consumers to use another store, but at least the option is there. Also you can not auto update apps installed from outside the play store which also sucks). My device so I and I alone should determine which software I want to run
    • jdmoreira 4y ago
      1. Don't buy Apple. 2. What does that have to do with Spotify not wanting to pay IAP fees? 3. Should Spotify also allow you to "sideload" the mp3s you bought from bandcamp into their player?
      • FiddlerClamp 4y ago
        You can 'sideload' DRM-free MP3s into Spotify on iOS, Android, and desktop: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/
      • Daishiman 4y ago
        "Don't buy Apple" is not actionable advice in a duopoly.
        • threeseed 4y ago
          Except that it isn't a duopoly. There are hundreds of phones available and most have different variations of Android with their own features and restrictions.
• rchaud 4y ago
  Sharecroppers complaining that the land baron has stacked the deck in his own favour. Spotify and Twitter began life on the web, not in the app store. No feature they offer requires a native app. Hence there was no reason to corral half the US userbase into someone else's pen and leave them there for over a decade. Epic has already gone to court on this matter (re: Fortnite on App Store) and lost. And Fortnite wasn't even web-first!
  • nvrspyx 4y ago
    > No feature they offer requires a native app. Maybe not Twitter, but I don't see how Spotify's offline downloads would work through the iOS browser. Also, Spotify started as a native desktop app. The web player and full transition to electron wasn't until a couple of years later.
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      There's possibly smarter ways to handle this with Service Workers, CacheStorage, or other APIs. But with Indexeddb you could store blobs or array buffers up to 512MB on some mobile devices, 2GB on others. So there's like 100 songs offline.
      • nvrspyx 4y ago
        I won't pretend to understand the limits of Safari on iOS, but having the storage amount be based on the capabilities of one's device and not on the amount of actual storage available on it is a poor user experience, especially so if 512MB-2GB is the actual limit. In that sense, I would consider the ability to download as many songs for offline use as my phone's actual storage allows to be the feature, not necessarily simply being able to download a song for offline use.
        • Waterluvian 4y ago
          Sure, there's arguments to be made both ways. But it's a far cry from "there must be a native app because 100 offline songs isn't enough." This is kind of funny because you're describing the opposite of a ridiculously painful issue I've been dealing with: Signal on iOS eating up and refusing to free 20GB. I wish I could limit how much space an app is allowed to use. Furthermore, this is actually kind of proving the point: Apple is the one who picked the limit for their browser. Probably because they don't want you just using web apps. They want you thinking blissfully that the browser is inferior and you must go get native apps.
• sschueller 4y ago
  Elon just tweeted from Apple HQ and is meeting with Tim Cook. Elon also deleted the tweet meme that he's going to war over the 30%. All talk and no substance, this thing won't go anywhere. Elon probably got what he wanted from Apple and everything else is just fud for the masses. Elon does not care the 30% or what Apple does in China. He wants Twitter to stay in the app store and Apple to pay for advertising on Twitter.
  • crossroadsguy 4y ago
    > Elon probably got what he wanted from Apple Yup - the attention that he met people at Apple HQ.
  • mandeepj 4y ago
    > Apple to pay for advertising on Twitter You can’t win a fight with Tim. E-lawn should have consulted with Zuck first. He did something similar and we all know how it ended for Meta. Most probably Elon is getting schooled, spanked, and hopefully not dragged around in that beautiful Apple park.
    • sschueller 4y ago
      I hope he is getting schooled but he always seems to luck out somehow.
      • mrguyorama 4y ago
        Hard to fall on your face when you have ARMIES of normal people all jockeying to put the pillow under you for free
        • mandeepj 4y ago
          Are you certain we can call them normal?
          • SllX 4y ago
• KoftaBob 4y ago
  Shouldn't this provide even more motivation for companies like Spotify to invest in a high quality Progressive Web App that can be installed to phones, bypassing the app store entirely?
  • _-david-_ 4y ago
    PWAs on iOS have certain limitations. I am not sure if Spotify could fully recreate their app. Even if they could, it isn't really the easiest thing for the average person. Everybody knows how to install an app. How many people know how to install a PWA on their phone?
    • prettychill 4y ago
      Isn't the argument to add sideloading / other stores to ios? How does installing an alternate store to get a cheaper spotify app compare to installing a PWA?
      • _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Isn't the argument to add sideloading / other stores to ios? Yes, but the person I was responding to was talking about PWAs. >How does installing an alternate store to get a cheaper spotify app compare to installing a PWA? If you can install an alternative app store through Apple's app store the learning curve might be lower, but I'm not sure. Ultimately none of this would be an easy thing for most users. I think the best solution would be to require Apple to allow repositories (like Fdroid and Linux have) to their store. The end user wouldn't have to learn anything new since the app store would be the same.
  • satvikpendem 4y ago
    The same PWAs which Apple restricts on iOS because they know it would cut into their App Store cashflow? If it were an equal market, I'd agree with you, but the OS makers also make and prioritize their own application stores too, so of course they'd want to cut down other competitive avenues.
• bamboozled 4y ago
  • jvanderbot 4y ago
    Spotify is the last subscription I'll cancel. It's been life changing since it came out. I never wanted it to curate music for me, I wanted a massive catalog I can summon at will. The fact that it does an ok job at curating lists is just bonus.
    • bamboozled 4y ago
      Not trying to argue that it's a "bad product" but it's good for you, I'm not so sur it's a net good for produces, musicians and people who like to maintain a library of music which is important to them long term?
    • Gigachad 4y ago
      I still pay for Spotify despite getting YouTube music with premium. But Spotify is still worlds better than the competition. And I agree that it is monopolistic that Apple gets to both have their service preinstalled, and allow subscriptions in app without an extra charge.
  • sli 4y ago
    Napster, perhaps ironically, pays musicians the most. That honestly doesn't surprise me because despite it not being the same company now, it's roots are in music lovers instead of money.
  • threeseed 4y ago
    I would care more if there weren't so much hypocrisy going around. Spotify doesn't allow me to replace their payment processor with my own or provide a full API to allow me to build a fully-fledged thirty party client.
    • PaulsWallet 4y ago
      Why would Spotify allow you to replace payment processor? App developers make this complaint about Apple and Google because the App devs are actually selling something. In this case you are buying a service from Spotify. It literally makes no sense in this case.
• wnevets 4y ago
  Allow me to play the world's smallest Violin, its like not Spotify is going to use that increased cash flow to actually pay the artist a meaningful cut of the reveune
• cramjabsyn 4y ago
  “Over and over again @Apple gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting consumers.” That’s funny Ek. Seems like Spotify gives itself every advantage while at the same time stifling innovation and hurting musicians.
  • typon 4y ago
    It hurts because all the companies attacking Apple are just the best examples of "The worst guy you know just made a great point". Epic Games, Spotify, Elon/Twitter 2.0 have their own exploitative practices that I can't help but revel in some schadenfreude.
  • johnbellone 4y ago
    So we are defending the $2T market cap company in the room.
    • 542458 4y ago
      I don’t think that’s a great argument. Just because a company is large doesn’t mean they’re ethically in the wrong on every possible accusation.
  • ChadNauseam 4y ago
    How do they hurt musicians? Google says they pay at least a third of a cent per stream. How much should they pay?
    • Jataman606 4y ago
      Wow so you just need to have around million streams a month to get livable* salary!
    • jnsaff2 4y ago
      The biggest hurting in my view is them still sharing subscription revenue of all people to the biggest artists. I never listen to the taylorswifts and other really big names. But when I used to pay for premium most of my monies went there anyway. I wish so much that my subscription fee would have gone pro-rata to the actual artists who I streamed. Alas out of the lets say 10 bucks only cents were left for the artists who I really liked-listened. I ended cancelling spotify with the joe rogan saga, I am not paying for fucktards destroying our society.
• mullingitover 4y ago
  I wish this guy would take some of his ample spare time and get his engineers working on the support for HomeKit devices that customers have been demanding for years now[1]. [1] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Native-HomePod-Support/idc-p/5388594 https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Na...
  • s3p 4y ago
    Spotify corporate seems to be actively hostile toward their community. I see post after post with user questions that just get left unanswered.
    • chimen 4y ago
      Unanswered != hostile
  • kitsunesoba 4y ago
    It's hard to take Spotify's call for openness seriously when they're just as controlling as Apple is when it comes to how it allows its users to use its product. Most egregiously, they never delivered the promised playback-capable replacement for libspotify, probably because they want to keep their users in their little walled garden where Spotify can subject them to incessant A/B test tweaks to the UI designed to herd them towards the most profitable content. Third party clients that just act like normal music players and don't change constantly would be an affront to that. As you've pointed out, when Apple has made affordances to allow better support for third party services, Spotify has been slow to take advantage of them. HomePods have had APIs that third party music streaming services can hook as well as the capability to set your default streaming service to things that aren't Apple Music for a year and a half now, and as of this writing Spotify has not used them, despite smaller streaming services like Deezer and Pandora having implemented support months ago. Why? I can only guess because HomePods aren't Spotify Connect devices and thus aren't under the control of Spotify the way that Spotify Connect devices are. Spotify isn't upset by the lack of openness, they're upset that Apple won't give them the same VIP treatment that they've gotten from other platform/device vendors (including Microsoft, with Spotify being bundled with Windows 11).
• llboston 4y ago
  • wepple 4y ago
    Are there instances of apple disallowing criticism of Apple?
    • mochomocha 4y ago
      The analogy doesn't have to hold on every possible behavior of the two entities compared for OP to have a valid point.
      • aroma_mic 4y ago
        Same could be said for Nintendo or Sony, who assert the same control. Most of the money made is on games.
      • wepple 4y ago
        Agreed, but I was pointing out one of many significant differences. I was generally pointing out that the analogy has extremely tenuous overlap. Comparing a software ecosystem to an authoritative regime is a very big call, only one step away from the classic “x is basically hitler”
  • birdyrooster 4y ago
    You could say pretty much any corporation in America is like the CCP in that they are undemocratic and take unilateral action at the expense of stakeholders. Karl Marx has a lot to say about this. Complaining about Apple in these terms is missing the forest for the trees.
  • rosnd 4y ago
    All those poor children born in Apple.
  • p0pcult 4y ago
    Is Apple a government? Are Apple users born into its ecosystem? Is Apple committing genocide? I personally think Apple is garbage these days, but its nowhere near CCP levels of garbage.
• bogomipz 4y ago
  >"So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet? How many more consumers will be denied choice? There's been a lot of talk. Talk is helpful but we need action," Ek wrote." This from a man who built a company that has forced most of the artists on its platform to give away their work for pennies. This man has no problem with the "threat" to their livelihoods. And who can forget this quote from him: "You Can’t Record Music Every Three Or Four Years And Think That’s Going To Be Enough" [1] He also has no problem propping up the the oligopoly that is "record industry" where only three record companies control 70 percent of the market. And he has no problem with Spotify having exclusives on things like podcast that were once open to all. Daniel Ek is a hypocrite and an ass. He is best ignored. [1] https://www.stereogum.com/2093393/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-streaming-income/news/ https://www.stereogum.com/2093393/spotify-ceo-daniel-ek-stre...
  • ragazzina 4y ago
    >Daniel Ek is a hypocrite and an ass. He is best ignored. Do you think arguments from hypocrites and asses should be ignored?
• endisneigh 4y ago
  Stop buying Apple if you don't like it. Seriously. At the end of the day all of these companies would do the exact same thing as Apple if they were in Apple's position. The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those, then you can be free of the duopoly. Other than using phone specific features, why can't all apps run on your desktop, laptop or elsewhere? I'll never get why Apple makes their rules very clear, and people buy Apple and then complain it's restricted. By people purchasing non-Apple phones you incentivize the production of non-Apple phones, helping break their hold on things.
  • madeofpalk 4y ago
    > I'll never get why Apple makes their rules very clear Do they? They prevent app developers from explaining the rules to users.
    • brailsafe 4y ago
      All the iOS developers I follow complain that the rules and logic of app store reviewers are arcane and vague
      • johnbellone 4y ago
        Using the logic of the herd here those developers shouldn’t target iOS. It’s their choice after all. /s
  • tootie 4y ago
    Customers (and developers) could move to Android. They have a vibrant market for manufacturers and less vibrant but much more flexible app market. They just don't want to. Apple makes good products but their forte has always been marketing. Users think Android is for poor people.
  • wvenable 4y ago
    > The real solution to this is improved functionality of web apps and complete migration to those Progress on that front is hampered because fruit company only allows their own browser and puts just enough effort into it to keep it relevant as a web browser.
• sethd 4y ago
  Brought to you by the same company that delivered us amazing innovations like the “exclusive podcast”.
• LightG 4y ago
  • pessimizer 4y ago
    > Jesus, can we have one day where it's not a Musk d!ck sucking competition? Jesus, can we stop constantly yelling about whatever enemy that the administration tells us to yell about, and stop referring to their dicks over and over again? What is with the obsession with Musk's dick?
• jasmer 4y ago
  He makes a good case. Apple and Google have an oligarchy in mobile and Google has a monopoly in search. The amount of self-dealing is overwhelming. Google consistently prefers their own experiences to those of other companies. Apple does as well, in addition they lock out apps from the platform. This is 100% an anti-competitive situation the fact there is no competition in a situation that should not otherwise have natural monopolies is the primary evidence of this. I suggest that Google needs to be broken up and that it cannot defer search results to it's other lines of businesses. Apple must not be able to compete with services offered in the App Store, or, the App Store needs to be a separate business. Alternative app stores must be allowed on mobile platforms. While I'm on the anti-trust bandwagon - the money that AWS pours into Amazon retail, and their subsequent tax advantages are a form of economic dumping. Amazon is washing through retail with 'tech money' putting a lot of competition out of business, after which they will raise prices. A strong argument could be made for breaking up AWS from Amazon Retail. Finally, throw in some basic privacy rules and 'right to repair' etc. and then you have some semblance of basic governance. That there is no discussion about this whatsoever tells you who has power. Traditional media (even ostensibly Left Wing) outlets won't spend much time talking about it ... because money. If a 'Great Leader' emerged and did those things, I think we would look back upon it as a 'total no brainer' in hindsight. Much like whenever we provide Ukraine some new gear after months of fretting about 'upsetting Putin', we never regret it at all, ergo the question begs asking: why not sooner? This discussion needs to be had on a national scale, and though I'm generally not a huge fan of the EU, this is one area they could actually be useful.
• ogsalmanxx 4y ago
  Like … did everybody forget what the App Store/Play Store used to look like with little to no moderations. It’s not something you want to go back to. Take my 30% and keep the ecosystem clean. People like Elon Musk are just real life versions of malware who want to dictate the narrative to further satisfy their own personal superiority complex. Like, yawn… give me a break.
• jti107 4y ago
  if i build a store and allow companies to sell to my customers...i get to dictate the price. if you don't like it then innovate and build your own store or develop a direct relationship with the customer. spotify should team up with elon to build a competitor to apple just like epic decided to compete against steam. this is how free market capitalism works...if they decide apple is doing something monopolistic then the federal courts give spotify an avenue to pursue that. build your case and sue apple
  • suby 4y ago
    The issue is that there's no option to use an alternative store. They're also able to extract a % from companies like Netflix just because the person happens to use an ios device. It's like if Microsoft were able to extract 30% of Netflix's subscription service because a person signed up via a Windows device, it's untenable and wrong.
    • scarface74 4y ago
      Netflix hasn’t allowed in app purchases of subscriptions for years
    • suction 4y ago
      [dead]
• adamwk 4y ago
  Can someone explain why Apple is always the target for these complaints regarding fees? Is it just shorthand for both companies or a target people rally against? As Android has the same 30% fees for in-app billing, it's not like it's cheaper for Spotify on Google's platform. I get there's theoretically F-Droid and sideloading, but I don't see Spotify on fdroid so presumably there's not enough users to make it worth it.
  • halpmeh 4y ago
    Android allows 3rd party app stores, you can side load apps, and you can install a different OS.
    • adamwk 4y ago
      Is Spotify on any of those 3rd party app stores other than Amazon's (which also has a fee)?
      • thatguy0900 4y ago
        They could be if they wanted, is the point. So it's harder to go after them for the fee.
        • Waterluvian 4y ago
          Why aren’t they if they’re so upset about fees? Are they actually so upset about fees?
          • thatguy0900 4y ago
            Its only really in there to cover googles ass in a situation like this, it's not practical to get users to download your app elsewhere. Even fortnite couldn't really get people to do it.
      • smoldesu 4y ago
        Why does it matter? Spotify wants the freedom to set their own margins. Compensating artists fairly starts by kicking out useless middlemen, and Apple plays that role in this instance. Every developer deserves the right to distribute software on their own terms, that's not some extremist or abhorrent ideal to advocate for.
• bern4444 4y ago
  This is minor - but Spotify doesn't support Apple's home pod/home pod minis Siri integration... This is especially disappointing as this (Siri integration) is one of the few areas Apple has opened up to 3rd party platforms! Practically it's annoying, I can't `hey Siri play ...` and instead always have to start a song through my phone or computer and then airplay it over. This has been ongoing for years now [0]. It's only Spotify that hasn't supported this. Apple Music of course, Pandora, and a host of other 3rd party apps support this but not Spotify! [0]https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Native-HomePod-Support/idc-p/5291729/highlight/true https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Implement-Na...
  • surfpel 4y ago
    I believe they were citing apple not allowing them to do so as the cause, but it’s been years now that they’ve been able at this point, and others already have brought integration.
• H8crilA 4y ago
  I'm just here demoting the upvote/comment ratio.
• crossroadsguy 4y ago
  The kind of dark pattern bullshit and anti-usability mess Spotify has become I would rather see Spotify die. Not to mention the “Spotify only” podcasts. While we are at it we should point out Spotify has no clear ways to export your listening history, playlists etc that you can easily recreate on other portals. It’s not a fight for equality. It’s an attempt by Spotify to be more equal than others.
  • robbintt 4y ago
    I tried leaving spotify and am happily paying them again. I also noticed their recommendation quality improved.
  • sidvit 4y ago
    I don't think any major streaming platform has a way to export your playlists without some kind of 3rd party tool
  • krick 4y ago
    Well… Yeah, admittedly, “Spotify only” podcasts are fair and established business-practice, like "XBox only games", rock-bands signed up to a specific label, writers having a contract with a publisher and all. But let's remind ourselves what the word "podcast" used to mean. These were literally just RSS feeds with audio-files. A completely decentralized system by nature (ironically, unlike some modern decentralized systems like Mastodon, etc., that try to replace an established centralized system), monetized independently via adds or donations. Now it means just random long-winded badly produced talking-shows (in video format!) on YouTube and Spotify, mostly restricted to one publisher, copying being considered a pirate activity. So, while it's no different than Netflix-shows, really, it somehow makes me more bitter.
  • piva00 4y ago
    > While we are at it we should point out Spotify has no clear ways to export your listening history, playlists etc that you can easily recreate on other portals. This is absolutely not true. You can export all of your data from Account -> Privacy pane, you can also use the public APIs to extract all of your playlists, library, podcasts, etc. data: developer.spotify.net If you want to develop an app that does the migration for you you're absolutely free to do so, use the other portals/platforms APIs to recreate them.
• jonathankoren 4y ago
  I’m super surprised that people here are taking these corporations’ cries about “freedom” and “choice” at face value. This isn’t about the security checks of the App Store. It’s about the 30% cut, but not just the vig. It also about the privacy protections. Zuck is now complaining about the app store[0]. Why? They can’t track users on iOS. That’s it. They want the freedom to exploit you. [0] https://stocks.apple.com/A0-hW1tGKRs6TFkPCyFVJ8w https://stocks.apple.com/A0-hW1tGKRs6TFkPCyFVJ8w
• jquery 4y ago
  Spotify is 100% right about Apple's fees being extortionate. On the other hand, Elon is such a loathsome human being that I can't respect anyone signal-boosting him. Stop giving him attention, he is absolutely addicted to it.
  • scarface74 4y ago
    Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases on iOS for years.
    • jquery 4y ago
      That makes this doubly obnoxious on Spotify’s part, then. The media needs to stop giving Elon so much neutral/positive coverage, but someone as rich as Elon is surely paying for a lot of favorable coverage…
• brailsafe 4y ago
  As an aside, it occurs to me that if I did have an iPhone, in-so much as Apple is able to realistically control, I'm not allowed to watch porn or download torrents on my own damn device. Obviously that's not broadly true because of the web and esoteric workarounds, but because the one true app store is the only one, and Apple is the arbiter of what goes in there, I would have Ned Flanders staring in my window at all times. The main difference on Android for these specific cases, is that the Play store doesn't ban torrent clients, and I can install any apk I want. The OS enforces a certain amount of security granularity, and I hope that improves, but I'm not subject to Google's opinion if I don't want to be. Does this not seem ridiculous to people who go with iOS? Edit: To be clear, I'm not complaining about my real constraints, because I've already and always voted with my wallet and not bought an iPhone. They're very nice hardware though.
  • baby 4y ago
    I'm wondering if VR is going to be a repeat of VHS vs Betamax.
• wildpeaks 4y ago
  You're free to buy an Android device if Apple devices don't suit your needs. And if you don't want to pay the fee required to sell in this specific appstore, make it a website. After all, you don't get to sell your Etsy products in the shelves of local supermarkets for free either.
  • criddell 4y ago
    Not every app works as a website and even when they do, they aren’t as good as a native app. They use more CPU, memory, and network bandwidth.
    • havelhovel 4y ago
      The point stands that no one forced that developer or team to build a product on a platform that requires a 30% fee.
• SwSwinger 4y ago
  Given that there is tremendous code sharing of Apple's OS+AppStore software on the laptop and phone, I have not understood how both hardware products are not subject to the same rules. Phones are basically micro-laptops and should have similar platform expectations, legally.
• jjtheblunt 4y ago
  Musk now says that Tim Cook and Apple never threatened Twitter. Has Musk again violated SEC rules (market manipulation)?
  • mlindner 4y ago
    SEC rules don't apply here given there's no market to manipulate given Twitter is private.
    • jjtheblunt 4y ago
      He derided AAPL, which is public, and very clearly tried to foment a bandwagon of discontent against AAPL, which could easily bring SEC attention.
      • mlindner 4y ago
        He made no mention of the stock. And attacking and criticizing a company in public is not forbidden. In fact individuals have done it directly to Tesla in the past and made large sums of money on it with no repercussions.
• anfogoat 4y ago
  > "So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet? How many more consumers will be denied choice? There's been a lot of talk. Talk is helpful but we need action Jesus, laying it on a bit thick, don't you think? Spotify, Twitter, Facebook, Epic, Apple and their asshat CEOs could all disappear tomorrow and the future of the Internet would not suffer one single iota. > Musk is expected to talk with European Commissioner Thierry Breton via videocall on Wednesday afternoon, though the agenda was unknown. And why is an EU Commissioner having one-on-ones with Musk? Last time I heard of this it was another Commissioner talking with Ashton Kutcher about his pet project of saving the children by eradicating online privacy.
• dhx 4y ago
  The price of a new iPhone 14 Pro Max[1] or 12.9" iPad Pro[2] is ~45% component/part costs, on top of which there is all of Apple's R&D costs including the cost of developing iOS and integrating it with new hardware, amongst many other costs to Apple of bringing a new product to market. I couldn't find public information for Apple or Google on the amount spent on R&D for iOS and Android, hence I'm not sure what the cost to Apple is of maintaining iOS and all the APIs that application developers can use to build their applications. There are some attempts on the Internet of people attempting to estimate iOS/Android R&D costs from LinkedIn data, open jobs data, other public records of revenue from app stores, etc but nothing much I can see being of use to generating a useful estimate. It appears that in 2021, Apple received somewhere between USD$10-25 billion[3] (likely on the high end of this range) from app store sales (after paying developers) which for the 235 million iPhones[4], 58 million iPads[5] and 29 million macOS devices[6] sold in 2021 equates to about USD$77 per device sold. I'll just assume watches and TV app store sales don't make much of a difference so USD$77 may be slightly on the high side of an estimate. Apple could perhaps increase the price of all their iPhone, iPad and MacBook models by USD$77 and do away with collecting revenue through the app store, but would consumers still buy these devices at the higher price points? [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AwEUXo1KpJQJ:https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/iPhone-14-teardown-reveals-parts-20-costlier-than-previous-model https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AwEUXo... [2] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vDm8GLlEiKsJ:https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/iPad-Pro-teardown-shows-sharp-increase-in-Taiwan-parts https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vDm8GL... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/apple-implies-it-generated-record-revenue-from-app-store-during-2021-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/apple-implies-it-generated-r... [4] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS48830822 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS48830822 [5] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS48826122 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS48826122 [6] https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/global-pc-market-Q4-2021 https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/global-pc-market-Q4-2021
• chinabot 4y ago
  When tesla open up their touchscreen to 3rd party apps then musk can throw stones.
• etchalon 4y ago
  I will never understand the argument that "consumers are making the wrong choice and I want the government to force companies to take that choice away from them. It hurts my business. Force them to make different choices, specifically these choices which help me make money. That's freedom!"
• irrational 4y ago
  Go to war? How? I don’t see what leverage Musk would have over Apple.
• qualudeheart 4y ago
  Tesla phone by 2025 running a custom android version.
• amatecha 4y ago
  Hmm, plenty of "thoughts and prayers" as I browse on my OpenBSD laptop, listening to DRM-free music I bought on Bandcamp... I used to be a Spotify subscriber, and I used to buy Apple products... both companies have treated me (and the rest of their customers) worse and worse over time, and I take my money elsewhere.
• Razengan 4y ago
  Pure and simple jealously about not being able to leech people using Apple devices. Nobody wants to remove the fences protecting sheep more than the wolves.
  • xdennis 4y ago
    It's weird how you see being able to run any software as "leeching" as if owning an Apple device makes me belong to Apple.
    • Razengan 4y ago
      Not talking about end users wanting to run "any software" (which you can if you really wanted to), but do you really think that the companies and devs who want to force Apple to "open up" are fighting for your sake?
• bigfudge 4y ago
  I’d be more sympathetic to this if the Spotify interface wasn’t just so terrible on all platforms. There’s not much innovation at Spotify, except perhaps in the legal department.
• aurelien 4y ago
• lizardactivist 4y ago
  With iStuff and generally Apple things, I keep getting the feeling that I don't actually own and control the device, I rent it, and it is Apple who ultimately controls it.
• Halan 4y ago
  For those debating privacy here, we are still waiting for the year of Linux on desktop what makes you think that a fully featured smartphone with true privacy control is possible? Good luck staying away from Google on Android, it is a matter of choosing the less evil, and in my opinion Google is worse than Apple. Not only their entire business model is ads, they also run hardware divisions to get more ads revenue. Sure, Apple will never pass on the opportunity for some extra ads revenue but might have less pressure from its board and stakeholder to squeeze every single penny given the argument that this would impact the main revenue stream. Google does not have this luxory
• KaiserPro 4y ago
  The problem here is that there are competing wrongs. 1) apple taking 30% of everything is just plain greed. 2) Musk is being a prick. It's possible to have a subscription on the iphone and not pay 30%. It requires extra steps. The other issue is that musk almost certainly wants to do dodgy stuff with the payment processor because he's been stung hard by chargebacks from the Blue cockup. The best outcome for me personally is that apple boots them off the store, musk takes them to court and goes bankrupt in the process. By whichtime Apple (and google) will be balls deep in an anti-trust suit for the appstore/advertising power grab. (bonus points for the EU nailing them for hoovering up personal data like 2013 facebook)
• daviddever23box 4y ago
  Pay your artists something meaningful on your own platform first!
• solarkraft 4y ago
  Looking forward to the Digital Markets Act. Sucks that things only change when it affects big companies' profits, though.
• sgu999 4y ago
  The sheer audacity of these (tech) CEOs is always mind blowing. They really have absolutely no sense of shame and morality. > "So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet? How many more consumers will be denied choice?" The future of the internet? Really? Spotify is as much of treat to "the future of the internet" than any other of these very profitable tech corps...
• newbie578 4y ago
  I am constantly amazed how Apple continuously keeps getting defended online, even on HN, one would assume that you got paid for it, not that someone is spending their free time defending them. I always love reading the arguments in the comments. "Apple's platform, Apple's rules". I just want to know what would those same comments say if it was Microsoft who came out and said that any app on Windows 11 must pay a 30% "tax" and that you have no freedom to install the apps you wish. It doesn't matter if you like the current status of the Apple platform, if it breaks the law, it must be stopped, the same way Microsoft was stopped 20 years ago.
• dustedcodes 4y ago
  Honestly tech folks need to accept that everyone except them likes what Apple does. There is literally no other phone than an iPhone that I'd be comfortable to give my non technical mother or my underage children. They would get scammed, hacked or exploited and the tech companies behind those "you can do what you want with your phone" devices would hold up their hands and say we can't do anything about it, just like Instagram, Facebook or TikTok say now they can't protect our children from seeing harmful content or self harm material. I am so tired and sick of some privileged rich CEOs who campaign so hard to make the Apple ecosystem as toxic as their own platforms so they can get even richer. If you don't want to pay Apple 30% then don't put your stuff in the App Store. You don't like what Apple does, then don't do business with them. Stop whining. Consumers love Apple, young folks feel comfortable to install an online banking app on their grandparents iPhones and parents feel comfortable to give their teenagers an iPhone. I feel like every time some rich AF CEO complains about Apple's 30% Apple should increase it by 1% until they all shut their mouth.
• kif 4y ago
  It's a bit ridiculous to see people – who I believe to be tech literate – argue how Apple allowing more access to the device is going to be the end of the world. In my opinion, Apple could very well give a special entitlement to developers who want full system access, maybe even by requiring to register the UDID somewhere on Apple's website for that entitlement to be valid, whatever. Any apps signed with that entitlement can do whatever they want for the given UDID. Why they don't do it is pretty clear. But sure, it must be because they care about us :)
  • cainxinth 4y ago
    That covers the technical side of why they could do it, but it doesn’t provide a legal or ethical reason why Apple must open up their walled garden more. Everyone agrees they have the right to control their ecosystem to a great extent. This is just the free market fighting out how far that limit is. It’s ultra wealthy companies using their leverage to limit their costs and improve their margins… same as it ever was.
• ChildOfChaos 4y ago
  There isn't a good guy here, they are all just blaming each other and trying to take the moral high ground in order to make more profits for themselves.
• blunderkid 4y ago
  If ever there was a valid application of monopoly abuse laws, it is Apple's extortion for no value provided. Saying that as a blue blooded iFan who owns one of nearly every Apple product and service out there including the Apple Cloth. It is disgusting what Apple is doing. And it makes no sense that it is getting away with it. And if Google is doing the same, well then both need to be set right.
• nova22033 4y ago
  If Apple stopped taking 30%, does anybody believe Spotify will lower their prices by even 10%?
• z3phyr 4y ago
  In the windows world I download the installer for whatever software I need, click next->next->next (or choose where I want my stuff in my filesystem, add it to the path, opt in or out of stuff) and it works out of the box. No stores. (Well there is one, but I guess no one uses that) In the linux world, I mostly look for package managers, or if not, its mostly just ./configure -> make -> make install (or choose my own defaults at configure stage). (There are some app stores like canonical, but I guess no one uses that) Haven't used modern apple computers much, but I suppose its a mix of dragging and dropping dmg files, installers and package mangers (brew) or compile it yourself stuff. Why do any phones not do installation like this? Its simple and you get what you want?
  • dublinben 4y ago
    Does software distribution on Windows really "work" for most people though? At best, you've given unlimited, unsandboxed access to everything on your computer to the author of whatever piece of software you've just installed. If you're unsophisticated or unlucky, you've also gotten some spyware or a virus along for a ride. There's a reason why ransomware exists on desktop and server OSes, but not on iOS, and it's because of Apple's app store model.
    • z3phyr 4y ago
      > At best, you've given unlimited, unsandboxed access to everything on your computer to the author of whatever piece of software you've just installed. That's the risk I take for very good returns and very high quality software. My stack is Visual Studio, Julia, Wolfram Suit, Emacs, Blender, MSYS2, some great video games, compilers for various languages, Firefox, Spotify, SumatraPDF.. I see no reason not to trust any of the authors of these software. And it is logically my decision to trust or distrust, not some helicopter parent company. Right?
• dalbasal 4y ago
  Kettle. Pot. Black. Monopolistic practices is what Spotify is, not just something it does. Recently they went about buying podcasts. The idea was/is to kill off the free protocol and centralise podcasts under their control... That way, listeners, advertisers and podcasters would all have to live by spotify's rules. Like streaming music. Sure. Apple give themselves every advantage, cream the market, etc. They have a monopoly. So does Spotify! What happens when an artist doesn't like Spotify's take-it-or-leave-it terms? Why should apple treat you better then you treat others? Cry me a river.
  • yobbo 4y ago
    It's not technically a monopoly, but in so far as it might become one, it is someone else's responsibility to tweet and complain about it. And there is a difference in scale between Apple's control and everyone else's.
    • blululu 4y ago
      In the case of Apple I think if you look at the mobile phone usage of people in the top 25% of incomes in America you would find that they are well over 80% market share. While this is a somewhat contrived segmentation, it is also most important segment for a lot of businesses. Monopoly power is typically assessed by the doj at a regional level so it is not unprecedented to arrive at monopoly issues on the basis of a portion of a larger market. The novelty here is about switching costs and bundling.
      • dalbasal 4y ago
        It's inexact, but not contrived at all. If you've ever worked in online advertising, you'll know to treat apple users as a distinct segmentat without worrying to much about why exactly. There's a reason Google pays Apple so 15 billion pa for search defaults. Adwords would be deeply hurt if Apple decided to withhold its users.
      • totalZero 4y ago
        You can't cherry-pick a market segment like that. Each successful product has a niche somewhere. Dominant market share is not the same thing as a monopoly, because the existence of competitive alternatives is a check on the behavior of the market leader. Also, it is tough to ignore the fact that any customer can buy a Samsung phone with largely the same capabilities at a similar price point to the iPhone. Not all monopolies are unlawful in the US. There is a need to prove that practices are anticompetitive, such as by unfair pricing or exclusive dealing. If Apple is expected to curate and support an App Store with non-malicious apps and reviews thereof, used on a platform for which they provide an ecosystem of developer tools, they are entitled to charge a fee for that.
• eqtn 4y ago
  Is it possible to subscribe Spotify via iOS app? I can't find that option. It says "You can't upgrade to Premium in the app. We know, it's not ideal."
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• achenet 4y ago
  > Tim Sweeney, the CEO of "Fortnite" maker Epic Games, tweeted on Wednesday that fighting Apple's "monopoly" was "an American issue transcending party politics". Forget fixing healthcare, reducing gun crime or the opioid epidemic. This is the real issue.
• pjmq 4y ago
  This coming from a company that decimates its long-standing developer ecosystem at every available opportunity under the guise of security and licensing restrictions. At least Apple lets people build apps for its platform in a relatively open way whilst also allowing for monetisation. Reap what you sow.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Internet companies should boycott the App Store and pull their apps at the same time.
  • boringg 4y ago
    Can you please further describe what an internet company is? I haven't heard the term internet company since the late 90s (for all tech) except recently when referring to Comcast, AT&T which I don't think is what you are referring to.
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      I'm thinking companies that don't really have physical presence like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Roblox, Spotify, etc. Companies that if kicked off the App store would face an existential crisis.
      • boringg 4y ago
        So you want them to operate like a cartel? I guess they aren't price setting but they are flexing together.
        • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
          No. They aren't fixing prices or reducing competition.
• fastaguy88 4y ago
  The argument that users should have the option to control their own phone (which perhaps only a small fraction of users would select) seems pretty reasonable, but what if it less about Apple execs being control freaks, and more about support costs. I can certainly imagine that if even less than 1% of Apple users exercised the option to escape from Apple control, that small fraction could have support costs that quickly matched the support costs of the 99% that stayed in the garden. So perhaps Apple could a more-unlocked iPhone that enabled more user control, but cost 2 - 3X as much as the "locked" version. My guess is that even with a 50% surcharge, which would be unlikely to cover additional costs, it probably would not sell.
• fleddr 4y ago
  People are digressing into all kinds of matters unrelated to the article and issue. The heart of the matter is not control of the device, it's about the Apple tax, and how it makes no sense in particular scenarios, such as subscriptions. Sure enough, the app store services are worth something. Real labor, infra and costs go into it. Although Apple could very well subsidize it, it's not 100% unfair to ask for some kind of fee, such as the fee to set up a developer account. This fairness argument goes completely out the window in the case of Spotify or Twitter subscriptions, it no longer is related to any real costs made. When you pay 10$ to stream from Spotify, it's absurd to have to pay $3 to Apple for this "privilege". Nothing about the streaming or value delivered is in any way related to the App store. They leech enormous sums of money from creators, companies and consumers. The argument that they're a private company that can do whatever they want is moot. They're an unavoidable ecosystem middleman that affects the entire digital industry. It is insanely hostile to every player except Apple. The fact that you can't even MENTION an alternative payment in your app should tell you how draconian and power hungry Apple is. You shouldn't cloud your judgement by liking Apple in general or disliking Spotify.
  • perceptronas 4y ago
    I think your point is valid. However, I am wondering what is the alternative? Other paid apps developers will make their apps free and charge subscription fee instead to avoid paying any Apple tax.
  • cmelbye 4y ago
    The fee to set up a developer account is $99/year. The biggest apps on the store and the smallest pay the same fee. A fixed fee helps to equalize the barrier to entry, and everyone likes that. On the other hand, App Store's cost structure is not fixed. Spotify costs Apple vastly more than an app with 1000 installs. This needs to be accounted for. > Nothing about the streaming or value delivered is in any way related to the App Store. Entirely incorrect. By taking a percentage of transactions, App Store is incentivized to help apps grow. From day one, getting featured on App Store has driven serious business outcomes for developers. This has only grown over the years, especially after Apple started to focus on marketing apps more deliberately with the "For You" tab. That's a service that they provide "for free". You get an email from Apple saying that they'd like to feature your app, send over some creative assets, they write an article, and suddenly you're getting a lot of "free" installs. This is only one example of the value that apps get "for free" from Apple and the App Store. And again, this levels the playing field between big and small developers. Of course, nothing is actually free. Apple is a business and not only needs to be compensated for the value that they provide, but they also need to make a profit. That's why they take a cut of transactions. An alternative model would be to charge for all of this à la carte. All promotion would be paid for directly. Bandwidth would be metered and invoiced. WWDC sessions locked behind a paywall. Maybe that would even add up to be less than 30% of revenue. Certainly big developers would like it -- up and coming competitors would have a much tougher time competing than today.