5 ms·

> To offer subscriptions on iOS, Spotify must give away 30% of it's revenue to Apple Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years. This finding is because Sp

> To offer subscriptions on iOS, Spotify must give away 30% of it's revenue to Apple Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years. This finding is because Spotify aren't permitted to "[inform] users of payment options outside its App Store" due to Apple's anti-steering rules.

hu3 3y ago
I think you agree with your quoted message then? To be more clear: Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years... because they haven't offered payment from inside the iOS app.
madeofpalk 3y ago
I know. I also read the press release. So Spotify has three options available to them: - They make 30% less on iOS subscriptions compared to Apple Music - They charge users 30% more compared to Apple Music - They offer less functionality (don't accept subscriptions on iOS) compared to Apple Music. Apple uses one area of it's business to disadvantage competitors to it's other areas.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Spotify can also manufacture their own device and sell to consumer. Nobody is forcing them to be on iOS.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    This is going to be downvoted, very hard. I could not disagree more. Thank goodness there is a strong regulator in EU. In is unfortunate that US and Japan have not come to similar conclusions.
  - oblio 3y ago
    They can also boil the oceans or wait for the heat death of the universe, while they're at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat Mobile phones are NOT a free market.
    - browningstreet 3y ago
      So you’re agreeing that Apple successfully boiled the ocean and now should help others who can’t?
      - arlcode 3y ago
        I'm not the OP but I sure do think they do. Once you get in a market domineering position your liabilites and duties to society increase and your ability to make unlimited profit decreases. The more central your product is the more you need to do. Either voluntarily or by force of law. The EU (comission) seems to agree and yes that is very much not an unregulated "libertarian dream" market they are talking about.
        browningstreet 3y ago
        Yeah, I wasn't commenting so much on the remedy, or the need for a remedy, but the line of thinking Apple boiled the ocean but Spotify can't be expected to. I've written my position before and that is -- nothing in my tech life works as well as iOS on iPhones. I have Linux and Windows and have been given Android devices and none of those are close enough in quality and execution to what Apple keeps shipping. That said, 30% of everything is plainly obnoxious, but I'd rather see a direct approach on that than a per-platform, or per-app-store approach.
      - oblio 3y ago
        There are moments in time when all you need to boil is a small pond.
  - IsTom 3y ago
    Nobody is forcing Apple to do business in the EU.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Then go ahead and ban foreign companies from doing business in the EU or put a straight up importation tax on them, instead of squeezing them for money using dubious juridical manoeuvres. But expect the rest of the world to do the same to EU companies. And remember that EU companies do much more serious damage abroad than what Apple does to Spotify.
      - nulld3v 3y ago
        I think many people (including me) would be happy if the rest of the world did to EU companies what the EU is doing to Apple...
        dns_snek 3y ago
        An an EU resident, I agree. Every country should protect consumer rights, have oversight over corporations operating in their jurisdiction, and enforce anti-trust laws to ensure a functioning free market. Your problem seems to be that you see this as the EU doing something "to" Apple (for fun or whatever nefarious reasons you think they have), rather than the EU just doing their job in protecting its citizens against an economic aggressor. Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism.
        nulld3v 3y ago
        > Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism. This framing was by the parent, I didn't come up with it and I don't agree with it either. > Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism. Yes, I know, hence why I would like if the rest of the world did to EU companies what the EU did the Apple: proper regulation. In fact, I would also be happy if the rest of the world did that to all companies as well.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    If you believe in democracy then you would know that the buck stops with us, the citizens, or to be more specific, with our democratically elected officials. Apple's participation in the EU market is contingent on their obedience of our laws and regulations. If they don't wish to follow these laws, they're just as free to exit the market.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      It's kind of a long stretch that this has to do with democracy. Rather you could argue that it is the sovereignty of the EU against foreign businesses. Fine, EU regulators of course have the right do whatever they want and see for how long foreign businesses take it. A little racket, a little pay-to-play. But why not just go with a straight up higher importation tax on the devices if they look with such envy at the money? That's how other nations do it. But international trade goes both ways and the EU is just as dependent on exporting their own goods and services. The antitrust case could just as easily be made against Spotify, seeing that they are a dominant actor in their field and squeeze the artists much worse than Apple squeezes them. But in my opinion, artists can choose freely if they want to be on Spotify or not, just like Spotify can choose freely if they want to be on iOS or not. Or Spotify can actually manufacture and sell their own devices to consumers. That was exactly what started Apple's success. A portable music player.
  - tsycho 3y ago
    I see comments like yours, and I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or whether you genuinely believe this. However, I'll try to answer (once) in good faith. There are so many things in life, due to either scarcity, lack of options, laws, or prior investments that we have made, that we can't leave them easily, even when we dislike a subset of our choice. If you hate Comcast's service, but they are the only available broadband option in your city, would you leave your city just for better internet? If you don't like 10% of the policies of your current government, but dislike 50% of the policies of the opposition, would you start your own political party? I like a lot of things about iOS as a user, including the quality of their hardware, but I dislike the dictatorial control that Apple exerts over both developers and consumers. Not just their anti-steering provisions (which is pure rent seeking), and lack of sideloading (which I want), there's no way for me to write my own app and install it on my own device, and have it run permanently without paying Apple even more money. I bought the phone at full price, I hate Apple's attitude that I have just bought the privilege of using it as per however they see fit. And so, similar to above, my alternative is to switch to something like f-droid, and lose my hardware, lose my purchases, and in many cases, lose my ability to even use my phone for standard communication (eg: iMessage). Or maybe you would suggest that I build my own phone company In all these cases, the alternative option is possible, yes, but it's very impractical and infeasible for the vast majority of people to pursue, and they come with serious negative costs. So we pursue them only when things become unbearably bad, as a last resort. And so the feasible option is to complain, protest, and try to leverage the government/courts to change the rules so that large companies can't take advantage of us and keep exploiting us in a "boil the frog" manner. And if that doesn't work, then one day, my cup of frustration will overflow, and I will switch over to f-droid or something
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Do you have your troll accusation saved in a text file to copy and paste when you write comments? Are you so far up in your own ego that anybody who has a different opinion or take than you has to be a troll, and still consider yourself writing in "good faith"? You are comparing individual consumers and citizens with a powerful billion dollar company like Spotify. They should be able to take care of themselves, and if they can't they should fail and close shop. > And so, similar to above, my alternative is to switch to something like f-droid No, and this has become a strange hang-up of hackers. You can have an iPhone _and_ an Android phone with F-Droid. Apple do not send agents to break into your house and force their devices out of your hands when they get notice that you've bought a Samsung. Have both and use each as they benefit you. My recommendation is that you purchase devices that fit your needs. I like feeling the breeze when I drive, but I don't petition the European Union to force Toyota to add a window that can be opened in the windshield. Instead I go for a motorcycle ride. That doesn't mean I have to get rid off my car.
  - blackoil 3y ago
    Apple is free to exit Europe is they don't like its laws.
    - saurik 3y ago
      Of course, Apple will fight the EU tooth and nail but always will bend over backwards for China... it really shows their true colors.
- albert180 3y ago
  And they aren't even allowed to only charge Apple Users 30% more
  - pilif 3y ago
    Can you point to a source of this? I think this was true in the past but isn't any longer. YouTube Premium is more expensive through iOS for example. What's not allowed is telling the users that it's available for cheaper in other places. But you can charge as much as you want.
    - sgerenser 3y ago
      This is correct. They are allowed to charge whatever they want via iOS subscription, so that they could cover the 30% "Appple Tax" if they wanted to. They just can't tell people that they could get Spotify cheaper direct, which is the source of this antitrust action.
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      Even that last part isn’t true anymore. Spotify is free to link outside the app and inform of better deals.
      - madeofpalk 3y ago
        This is disingenuous. Spotify may apply for permission to have one link that does "not include, or be used with, language that includes the price of items available on the website". The OS will throw up an intermediary scare sheet warning the users of the dangers of the link https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/ https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  I see it differently because of the status quo. Spotify is allowed to link to their website from the app and even inform about better deals since a while. Spotify is of course also allowed to use IAP and pay a 30% commission. Spotify is currently doing neither. Meaning Spotify isn’t getting the 70% they’d get when converting a user via IAP nor are they getting 100% of users they convert in the app without IAP because they’re not doing that. As an aside, it’s astonishing they’re still growing so hard despite that. But that means Spotify is leaving money on the table so every choice is better than $0. You’re right though, they can, without issue, charge 30% more. Some devs do this. All of this means that it ultimately isn’t about “hurting” because Spotify is actively cutting off their nose to spite their face. What this is about is not wanting Apple to get a cut of the pie, even if they’d charge 30% and wouldn’t lose a dime. With that in mind, I think it’s fair game for Apple to point out all the benefits Spotify has enjoyed at Apple’s expense.
isodev 3y ago
Spotify hasn't paid revenue to Apple in years... because Apple does not offer reasonable terms for Spotify to comply. The 30% fee + no way to redirect users to better offers is kind of extreme, especially when Apple has a first party offering which doesn't need to go through the same hoops.

hu3 3y ago

I think you agree with your quoted message then? To be more clear: Spotify haven't paid revenue to Apple in years... because they haven't offered payment from inside the iOS app.

madeofpalk 3y ago

I know. I also read the press release. So Spotify has three options available to them: - They make 30% less on iOS subscriptions compared to Apple Music - They charge users 30% more compared to Apple Music - They offer less functionality (don't accept subscriptions on iOS) compared to Apple Music. Apple uses one area of it's business to disadvantage competitors to it's other areas.

carlosjobim 3y ago
Spotify can also manufacture their own device and sell to consumer. Nobody is forcing them to be on iOS.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  This is going to be downvoted, very hard. I could not disagree more. Thank goodness there is a strong regulator in EU. In is unfortunate that US and Japan have not come to similar conclusions.
- oblio 3y ago
  They can also boil the oceans or wait for the heat death of the universe, while they're at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat Mobile phones are NOT a free market.
  - browningstreet 3y ago
    So you’re agreeing that Apple successfully boiled the ocean and now should help others who can’t?
    - arlcode 3y ago
      I'm not the OP but I sure do think they do. Once you get in a market domineering position your liabilites and duties to society increase and your ability to make unlimited profit decreases. The more central your product is the more you need to do. Either voluntarily or by force of law. The EU (comission) seems to agree and yes that is very much not an unregulated "libertarian dream" market they are talking about.
      - browningstreet 3y ago
        Yeah, I wasn't commenting so much on the remedy, or the need for a remedy, but the line of thinking Apple boiled the ocean but Spotify can't be expected to. I've written my position before and that is -- nothing in my tech life works as well as iOS on iPhones. I have Linux and Windows and have been given Android devices and none of those are close enough in quality and execution to what Apple keeps shipping. That said, 30% of everything is plainly obnoxious, but I'd rather see a direct approach on that than a per-platform, or per-app-store approach.
    - oblio 3y ago
      There are moments in time when all you need to boil is a small pond.
- IsTom 3y ago
  Nobody is forcing Apple to do business in the EU.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Then go ahead and ban foreign companies from doing business in the EU or put a straight up importation tax on them, instead of squeezing them for money using dubious juridical manoeuvres. But expect the rest of the world to do the same to EU companies. And remember that EU companies do much more serious damage abroad than what Apple does to Spotify.
    - nulld3v 3y ago
      I think many people (including me) would be happy if the rest of the world did to EU companies what the EU is doing to Apple...
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        An an EU resident, I agree. Every country should protect consumer rights, have oversight over corporations operating in their jurisdiction, and enforce anti-trust laws to ensure a functioning free market. Your problem seems to be that you see this as the EU doing something "to" Apple (for fun or whatever nefarious reasons you think they have), rather than the EU just doing their job in protecting its citizens against an economic aggressor. Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism.
        nulld3v 3y ago
        > Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism. This framing was by the parent, I didn't come up with it and I don't agree with it either. > Your framing of this is actually kind of sad. This isn't an EU vs US issue, but citizens united against the evils of the dark side of capitalism. Yes, I know, hence why I would like if the rest of the world did to EU companies what the EU did the Apple: proper regulation. In fact, I would also be happy if the rest of the world did that to all companies as well.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  If you believe in democracy then you would know that the buck stops with us, the citizens, or to be more specific, with our democratically elected officials. Apple's participation in the EU market is contingent on their obedience of our laws and regulations. If they don't wish to follow these laws, they're just as free to exit the market.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    It's kind of a long stretch that this has to do with democracy. Rather you could argue that it is the sovereignty of the EU against foreign businesses. Fine, EU regulators of course have the right do whatever they want and see for how long foreign businesses take it. A little racket, a little pay-to-play. But why not just go with a straight up higher importation tax on the devices if they look with such envy at the money? That's how other nations do it. But international trade goes both ways and the EU is just as dependent on exporting their own goods and services. The antitrust case could just as easily be made against Spotify, seeing that they are a dominant actor in their field and squeeze the artists much worse than Apple squeezes them. But in my opinion, artists can choose freely if they want to be on Spotify or not, just like Spotify can choose freely if they want to be on iOS or not. Or Spotify can actually manufacture and sell their own devices to consumers. That was exactly what started Apple's success. A portable music player.
- tsycho 3y ago
  I see comments like yours, and I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or whether you genuinely believe this. However, I'll try to answer (once) in good faith. There are so many things in life, due to either scarcity, lack of options, laws, or prior investments that we have made, that we can't leave them easily, even when we dislike a subset of our choice. If you hate Comcast's service, but they are the only available broadband option in your city, would you leave your city just for better internet? If you don't like 10% of the policies of your current government, but dislike 50% of the policies of the opposition, would you start your own political party? I like a lot of things about iOS as a user, including the quality of their hardware, but I dislike the dictatorial control that Apple exerts over both developers and consumers. Not just their anti-steering provisions (which is pure rent seeking), and lack of sideloading (which I want), there's no way for me to write my own app and install it on my own device, and have it run permanently without paying Apple even more money. I bought the phone at full price, I hate Apple's attitude that I have just bought the privilege of using it as per however they see fit. And so, similar to above, my alternative is to switch to something like f-droid, and lose my hardware, lose my purchases, and in many cases, lose my ability to even use my phone for standard communication (eg: iMessage). Or maybe you would suggest that I build my own phone company In all these cases, the alternative option is possible, yes, but it's very impractical and infeasible for the vast majority of people to pursue, and they come with serious negative costs. So we pursue them only when things become unbearably bad, as a last resort. And so the feasible option is to complain, protest, and try to leverage the government/courts to change the rules so that large companies can't take advantage of us and keep exploiting us in a "boil the frog" manner. And if that doesn't work, then one day, my cup of frustration will overflow, and I will switch over to f-droid or something
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Do you have your troll accusation saved in a text file to copy and paste when you write comments? Are you so far up in your own ego that anybody who has a different opinion or take than you has to be a troll, and still consider yourself writing in "good faith"? You are comparing individual consumers and citizens with a powerful billion dollar company like Spotify. They should be able to take care of themselves, and if they can't they should fail and close shop. > And so, similar to above, my alternative is to switch to something like f-droid No, and this has become a strange hang-up of hackers. You can have an iPhone _and_ an Android phone with F-Droid. Apple do not send agents to break into your house and force their devices out of your hands when they get notice that you've bought a Samsung. Have both and use each as they benefit you. My recommendation is that you purchase devices that fit your needs. I like feeling the breeze when I drive, but I don't petition the European Union to force Toyota to add a window that can be opened in the windshield. Instead I go for a motorcycle ride. That doesn't mean I have to get rid off my car.
- blackoil 3y ago
  Apple is free to exit Europe is they don't like its laws.
  - saurik 3y ago
    Of course, Apple will fight the EU tooth and nail but always will bend over backwards for China... it really shows their true colors.
albert180 3y ago
And they aren't even allowed to only charge Apple Users 30% more
- pilif 3y ago
  Can you point to a source of this? I think this was true in the past but isn't any longer. YouTube Premium is more expensive through iOS for example. What's not allowed is telling the users that it's available for cheaper in other places. But you can charge as much as you want.
  - sgerenser 3y ago
    This is correct. They are allowed to charge whatever they want via iOS subscription, so that they could cover the 30% "Appple Tax" if they wanted to. They just can't tell people that they could get Spotify cheaper direct, which is the source of this antitrust action.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Even that last part isn’t true anymore. Spotify is free to link outside the app and inform of better deals.
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      This is disingenuous. Spotify may apply for permission to have one link that does "not include, or be used with, language that includes the price of items available on the website". The OS will throw up an intermediary scare sheet warning the users of the dangers of the link https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/ https://developer.apple.com/support/reader-apps/
turquoisevar 3y ago
I see it differently because of the status quo. Spotify is allowed to link to their website from the app and even inform about better deals since a while. Spotify is of course also allowed to use IAP and pay a 30% commission. Spotify is currently doing neither. Meaning Spotify isn’t getting the 70% they’d get when converting a user via IAP nor are they getting 100% of users they convert in the app without IAP because they’re not doing that. As an aside, it’s astonishing they’re still growing so hard despite that. But that means Spotify is leaving money on the table so every choice is better than $0. You’re right though, they can, without issue, charge 30% more. Some devs do this. All of this means that it ultimately isn’t about “hurting” because Spotify is actively cutting off their nose to spite their face. What this is about is not wanting Apple to get a cut of the pie, even if they’d charge 30% and wouldn’t lose a dime. With that in mind, I think it’s fair game for Apple to point out all the benefits Spotify has enjoyed at Apple’s expense.

isodev 3y ago

Spotify hasn't paid revenue to Apple in years... because Apple does not offer reasonable terms for Spotify to comply. The 30% fee + no way to redirect users to better offers is kind of extreme, especially when Apple has a first party offering which doesn't need to go through the same hoops.