11 ms·
Spotify calls Apple's DMA compliance plan 'extortion''complete and total farce'
- evasb 3y agoWhataboutism doesn't change that Spotify is right in this instance.
- kj99 3y agoSpotify, the company best known for paying artists almost nothing for their music.
- Hamuko 3y agoDoesn't like 70% of the stream revenue go towards licensing the music?
- kotaKat 3y agoSpotify, the company best known for playing fair only when it's advantageous for themselves.
- fsflover 3y agoThis doesn't make them wrong in this case though.
- V__ 3y agoA bad messenger doesn't necessarily mean the message is wrong.
- kj99 3y agoWhen it's only the bad messengers who are shouting loudest, you should pay attention.
- saintfire 3y agoI've see this message every day from different people/groups. People think the opinions of giant corporations means they're somehow more valid so it hits every single form of media. So really, its news outlets that are shouting louder.
- COGlory 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- proteal 3y agoTo be fair, consumers mostly don’t want to pay artists much money either. The consumers who do want to pay have plenty of avenues to directly support their favorite artists. Spotify is a music distribution tool that modern artists use to leverage their popularity into fiscal gains. Paying per stream is an antiquated business model at this point.
- klodolph 3y ago> Spotify is a music distribution tool that modern artists use to leverage their popularity into fiscal gains. This is a skewed way of looking at it, that highlights the positive and ignores the negative. It’s a lot harder to turn musical talent, productivity (writing & performing songs), and popularity into money than it used to be. Spotify is a big part of that change—and yes, it probably would have been a different company if it weren’t Spotify, but so what? In our history, it’s Spotify.
- flohofwoe 3y agoBesides a handful popular artists not making as much as they used to during the golden age of MTV and CDs, have things really changed that much for the rest? Music business was always extremely hit driven.
- klodolph 3y agoSmaller / medium bands have it rough compared to, say, the 2000s. Music isn’t just hit-driven. There used to be more house bands, more bands who could make a living from tours, that sort of thing. These days, musicians try to find an audience on Spotify and social media and make money doing performances, selling merch, and going on tour, but the amount of revenue you make from that kind of work is a lot less.
- jncfhnb 3y agoSeems like an unlikely claim given that much wider variety of small artists making it work now than before
- micwag 3y agoApple pays out roughly the same percentage to developers as does Spotify to artists. As Apple pays almost nothing to developer the DMA seems a step in the right direction.
- klodolph 3y agoWhen you stream a song, it’s Spotify who controls both the revenue and the revenue share. Spotify gives you 70% of some amount of revenue, and Spotify determines how much that revenue is, in the first place. If you put an app in the App Store, at least you get to determine the price point—you get to determine whether you want to charge up-front, make an ad-supported app, or rely on IAPs. Spotify doesn’t let you set the price of your song.
- Hamuko 3y agoIsn't that just because it's a fundamentally different business? It's not like you can freely set what price your album and songs are if you put it on iTunes Store for sale.
- klodolph 3y agoI was comparing the App Store, which lets you freely set prices. iTunes Store does offer you some control, within certain limits. You can set the “price tier” for different songs, which is why you see some songs for 69¢, some for 99¢, and most for $1.29. If you’re a prog-rock band who put out an album with 20-minute songs, one song per side, then you mark the songs as “album-only” and set the price for the album (or at least the price tier). Or you can divide the song into segments and let people buy those as individual tracks. I’ve seen both approaches.
- kevingadd 3y agoYes, and in Apple's awesome new pricing model, "free" is no longer a price you can choose as a developer because you owe an install fee per install/update no matter what, unless they generously decide to exempt you from it. You can choose any price you want as long as it's Expensive. The end result is more gamification, more exploitative monetization, more dark patterns, and more gambling games.
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoThey have to make a profit. If I recall correctly, Apple Music pays artists more and is cheaper, which is only possible because they take a loss. That's anticompetitive behavior, especially considering they charge their competitor Spotify an additional 30%. Apple Music is available on the Google Play store. It does not pay Google their 30%, because they have a link in their app allowing users to pay Apple directly.
- adrr 3y agoThey pay 70% of their revenue to artists. What percentage do you think they should be paying to artists so people don’t consider it nothing? Or should they just jack up their subscription rates?
- stavros 3y agoNot to artists, to labels. Labels are massive companies, and everyone there needs to be paid from stream money.
- adrr 3y agoLabels own the copyright to the recordings that Spotify is streaming.
- stavros 3y agoAnd yet they are not artists.
- adrr 3y agoAnd is it Spotify’s fault that some artists use labels? Spotify does allow artists to self publish and not use labels.
- nickthegreek 3y agoYour argument was built upon the premise that Spotify pays 70% to artists. You were show to be wrong and now appear to be trying to move the goalposts.
- adrr 3y agoIt pays artists that don’t use labels 70%. Saying Spotify doesn’t pay artists is rooted in ignorance because most major artists use labels and don’t own the rights to the recordings.
- malermeister 3y agoYeah, there's no way this is gonna fly. American companies always try to do some rules lawyering around EU regulations and it never goes well for them. That's exactly how Facebook ended up getting their 1.3B Euro fine.
- AshamedCaptain 3y agoAnd Facebook is still doing fine, and even last time I looked they were still outright defying EU regulations with their "consent to tracking or subscribe" popups.
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y agoSpotify is under a terrible position. Nothing they tried have worked so far and they are being squeezed by the media companies.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoSpotify’s biggest purpose is to serve as negotiating leverage for the 3 big music licensing businesses against Apple/Alphabet/Amazon. As far as I can tell, their only hope is if copyright terms are drastically shortened, so a good portion of the music they need to stream is public domain.
- jwells89 3y agoOn the other hand, Spotify spent a lot of money trying to lock up and monetize what used to be one of the most free and democratic mediums in existence (podcasts), have been hostile towards third party devs and manufacturers by way of deprecation of libspotify and refusing to enable interop with devices that don’t implement Spotify Connect, and have been endlessly pushy towards their customers with their endeavors. With that in mind it’s difficult to feel too much sympathy for them. It’s too bad that more open streaming services (which ironically includes Apple Music, which allows third party clients) haven’t usurped it yet.
- jwagenet 3y agoI bet they would have made more money by offering subscriptions on iOS despite the fee because of the reduced friction for consumers. Spotify, epic, et al just want to have their cake and eat it too.
- COGlory 3y agoI loathe Apple. We have this absolutely incredibly powerful, world changing invention in all of our pockets now, and Apple is doing everything they possibly can to suck every single penny out of it, at huge economic burden, just to become wealthier. Apple has always been bad, but this is just a next level of evil. I will never buy an Apple product, and I will make sure no one close to me does either.
- tibbydudeza 3y ago"world changing invention in all of our pockets now" My Android phone does the same thing :).
- pdntspa 3y agoIt's better than the alternatives (Google). Does Android still have mandatory locaton services enabled?
- Hamuko 3y agoNote that Apple will track what country you are located in so that you don't accidentally install an alternative application store outside the European Union.
- gjsman-1000 3y agoIf you loathe Apple, you’ve never met Google…
- malermeister 3y agoAt least Android is open source and doesn't restrict sideloading. Even if you don't like the Google version, you can always install something like GrapheneOS.
- jwells89 3y agoOpen source with big asterisk. AOSP grows more anemic by the day as more and more of the Android that ships on consumer devices becomes proprietary, even on Google devices. While custom ROMs exist you’re then at the mercy of cat and mouse hacks to evade security checks from bank apps and the like, something that many don’t have the time or energy for.
- pdntspa 3y agoI'm really confused by this story. It is super vague about what is the current state of things vs what is the change. If Apple is going to allow sideloading, how exactly are they able to charge all these fees? Doesn't this make staying with the App Store even less appealing? Are they trying to force users to sideload or something?
- kevingadd 3y agoSideloading will still require Apple approval, thus fees
- aftbit 3y agoThat's insane. The whole point of sideloading is that it should not require approval. Otherwise Apple can use this to block competitors and we're right back where we started.
- toyg 3y agoCorrect. And chances are there will be EU proceedings against Apple, because the DMA contains wording explicitly prohibiting this behaviour. I guess they are just trying to stall a little bit more, and maybe make a quick buck, before they're told to stop playing games.
- turquoisevar 3y agoOn the contrary, the DMA explicitly provides for this. Article 6 sub 4, second and third paragraph: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper. According to Apple, the notarization requirement and the soft requirements for “software application stores” to be able to ensure users are safe, fall within this exception that the DMA provides. Other than that, the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, so Apple would be in the clear here with the fees they intend to charge. Especially when the new fee structure is similar to (or I’d argue, a little bit more competitive than) current market rates.
- TekMol 3y agoWhen developers distribute their app via non-Apple appstores, they do not use any services of Apple, right? Then how can Apple still charge them? For what? And how could Apple force them to pay?
- jeromegv 3y agoThey do use the OS, the APIs, many of them depends on service in the cloud. The App Store is not the only thing apps interact with. And apps still need signing, that’s how Apple still interact with the apps.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThe OS is not an Apple service. That is the consumer’s. The ability to write with Apple’s stuff is covered already by the developer fees. It’s fine to pay for the cloud services but those are low value.
- SoftTalker 3y agoSomeone hasn't read their Terms and Conditions Agreement.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThe terms not holding up to regulatory scrutiny is exactly the issue.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago> The ability to write with Apple’s stuff is covered already by the developer fees. I think Apple would argue that the developer fee was previously $99 + 30% of app sales, and that the developer fee is now $99 + $0.5 per install.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThen Apple can fuck off
- bmikaili 3y agoSpotify can talk once they actually support the Apple Platform fully. They cried constantly about Homepod having a closed API but now that it’s open they are in no hurry to implement those APIs.
- macintux 3y agoGruber takes a detailed look at the proposal. Sure, he's an Apple fan, but he still has some valid insights. I appreciated his point that anti-big-business isn't necessarily the same as pro-consumer. https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/apples_plans_for_the_dma https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/apples_plans_for_the_dma
- nixpulvis 3y ago> The CTF is recurring each year however, and updates count as downloads. Having to pay for updates seems a bit weird. Also, I can’t tell if I’m glad apps where I live won’t be redirecting me to the web for payment or not. On one hand it’s giving the web a bit more utility, on the other hand it makes it easier to scam people across platforms… idk. It’s really too bad we can’t intact regulation that puts the interests of companies like Apple and their users more inline.
- archagon 3y agoFWIW, plenty of apps already have built-in payment (Uber, etc.) Just not apps that offer software services.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] Official post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39148422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39148422
- TekMol 3y agoMaybe it would have been better to allow alternative OSes rather that alternative appstores? The OS is something that gets actively managed by Apple. So they can argue that interacting with it has to follow certain rules. Independent OSes would just use the hardware, which is fully paid by the user and does not change.
- nixpulvis 3y agoYes! Or how about we go a step further and demand Apple open source everything so we can tweak just the parts that we want of our own phones?
- 7e 3y agoFrom each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
- dns_snek 3y agoI'm all for alternative operating systems, but do I take strong issue with the framing of this situation. Apple can "argue" all it wants, but at the end of they day they operate in our countries with our laws, and will be forced to behave the way we allow them to behave. They enjoy access to millions of customers in the EU because we let them, subject to very specific terms. The overton window has shifted so far to the extreme, we're legitimately discussing whether laws still apply to them or whether the drivel that comes out of their lawyers' mouths will be allowed to just stand uncontested.
- paulmd 3y agoThis has been the obvious end-goal for the users who constantly demand the EU regulate this or that. People want a legislative solution to the iPhone vs android dilemma: just ban iPhone already. That’s what they want, they’re just boiling the frog to get there. Rip the bandaid off and just ban apple from the market entirely. I’ve said all along, people are offended that apple is allowed to operate on a different business model from android. That’s the core thing, they don’t want to have a choice between open and walled-garden options, moreover they are annoyed that walled-garden continues to exist and be sustainable and people choose it. Therefore they have to remove that choice from the market so nobody can choose it. This isn’t an exaggeration or misrepresentation - it comes down to people thinking that walled-gardens need to be regulated out of existence, the people in question would agree with that and think it’s a social good. The same also applies to the debate between OEM-sourced first party parts and “Amazon bazaar” parts distribution, serialization, etc. It’s not enough that android provides the model you want - you have to eliminate the other model from the market, nobody else can be allowed to choose a product with a reliable first-party parts chain and optimize repairs (including third party) around that. A model that probably results in higher rates of repair and reuse than on android! The option needs to be removed from the market. It’s a legislative solution to the android vs iOS debate. Just ban apple. Get the EU to do it for you.
- blibble 3y ago[flagged]
- McDyver 3y agoAm I missing something? What stops a company from imposing enormous fees on a competitor? By continuously installing/uninstalling the competitor's app they can even make their business unsustainable. And more, what would stop apple from hiring a third party to do that, just to inflate their own profit?
- burnerthrow008 3y agoBecause only the first install each year incurs a fee.
- kevingadd 3y agoCan you provide a source for this? It would directly conflict with updates costing money.
- hurtigare 3y agoApple stated it in their press release.
- kemayo 3y agoThe source would be: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/ If you've seen people say updates cost money, it's because an update counts as another installation of the app. But because you're only billed for the "first annual install", this just means that someone who installs an app and leaves it installed for years will still wind up counting against your annual install-count so long as you're updating that app. You can release an update of your app every day of the year and it won't cost you anything extra.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago> Can you provide a source for this? It would directly conflict with updates costing money. Sure: https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#dev-qa https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#... And from the FAQ: "What is Apple doing to prevent ‘install bombing’ — efforts from bad actors to increase install numbers to increase the Core Technology Fees developers owe to Apple? Already, Apple takes a number of steps to prevent fraud and scams and protect developers’ intellectual property. Apple is implementing additional measures to monitor, detect, and prevent install abuse, including: An install verification mechanism to ensure all installs come from real Apple devices Limits on the number of first annual installs that can come from a single device Investigating, and potentially terminating, user or developer accounts that engage in suspicious behavior"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoWhat this is about is power. Apple thinks it has the money and brand to pull this shit. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. The opposing force is their competitors, governments and the collective action of people who think Apple is on the nose. I really don't care about Apple, they were great in the 80's but now they are just an evil corp whose deep pockets have gone to their heads. It is beyond hubris. What I do care about is any evil corporation, defined as those that are not held in check by competition or regulation and who act evil, pushing around the little guys such as consumers and smaller businesses. That behavior must be punished, otherwise we'll all end up at the mercy of sociopathic corporations that seek only to get as big and powerful as possible and control whatever they want to control. When corps like Apple think they are beyond the control of government regulation and are somehow politically untouchable then it is time to take action against them, whatever that needs to be. As both a US and EU citizen I'm looking for the most effective ways to take direct action against Apple via those who represent me. As a consumer I'll be spreading the word about Apple and the contempt it has for those that do business with it.
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- rajishx 3y agoSo glad I am using android (Rooted with anti ads stuff)
- bastard_op 3y ago[dead]