
Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair - dmitriid
https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/
======
gurpreet-
Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance
here.

I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe
for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe
5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive
the tax altogether. It's only fair.

If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide hosting
and some quality control then I don't see why apps can't be hosted on a secure
website from the vendor - as far as I'm aware, Apple requires you have some
sort of website anyway.

At least Google allows installing apps without the Play Store, perhaps it's
time Apple permitted something similar with its apps? This could solve this
whole problem and have other positive side effects such as people being less
likely to jailbreak their iPhones.

~~~
GeekyBear
Spotify has already turned off the ability for new accounts to pay to upgrade
to a premium account inside their iOS app last year.

You pay for your account on Spotify's own web site, which bypasses Apple
getting any cut at all.

[https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscrip...](https://support.spotify.com/us/account_payment_help/subscription_information/spotify-
through-the-app-store/)

Netflix has done the same thing.

[https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-...](https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-
netflix-bypassing-apple-app-store-billing-charges)

In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to your
payment website inside your app.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
It's not just those two, it's standard practice: Audible, Google Play video,
Amazon video, Amazon music, Playstation Video, Vimeo, Sky Store video, and
YouTube Premium/Google Music (same subscription with different marketing).

Deezer music went another route: you can pay for your subscription through an
iOS device, but you'll pay a higher price. [0] I'm surprised Apple permit
this.

All this strikes me as a clear indication that Apple is asking for too high a
cut.

I've never been tempted to use a mobile app to shop on, say, Amazon, but Apple
are clearly ok with that experience being far better on Android than on
iPhone.

> In my book, the problem is that you are not allowed to provide a link to
> your payment website inside your app.

Interesting.

The exact words used by the Audible app for iPhone: _This app does not support
purchasing content. Instead, add to your wishlist._

[0] [https://support.deezer.com/hc/en-
gb/articles/360000633989](https://support.deezer.com/hc/en-
gb/articles/360000633989)

~~~
ar_lan
> The exact words used by the Audible app for iPhone: This app does not
> support purchasing content. Instead, add to your wishlist.

I honestly never really thought about why this is - I simply just _hated_
Audible for it, and thought it was the most annoying part of their app.

However, it's odd - how come the Amazon app is allowed to get away with its
own purchasing system?

~~~
jordanthoms
I believe there's an exception for physical goods, so Amazon is ok but not
Kindle, audible etc.

------
nevir
Apple did the same thing to Kindle for iPhone back when it launched.

We submitted the original version to Apple with a fully functioning store
built into it—and were then stuck in submission limbo. Two weeks later, Apple
announces their _intent_ to build in-app purchasing.

The kicker: Apple wanted a 30% cut of every book sold on the store …and at the
same time, had negotiated with book publishers that the publishers MUST sell
all books at a 30% margin on ALL stores if they want to sell their books via
Apple's own ebook store.

Aka we couldn't sell books at an increased cost, even if we wanted to. We
would have had to take a loss on every purchase.

In the end, we had to remove all of the store functionality from the app, and
weren't even allowed to link people directly to the web store for purchasing
(or even instructions for purchasing).

~~~
elagost
My dad has had iPads since the first one, and it is still jarring for him to
not be able to just click a "store" button in the Kindle app. (I believe it
used to have a webview for the store built-in; I do not use the Kindle app)

He was very confused when it disappeared. I imagine most users feel this way.
I had to coach my mom to sign up for Pandora on the website so she saved a
couple bucks a month, and it was baffling to her why it costed more in the
app.

~~~
sinnoh
boy, that kind of "deep regulation" into UX design from a single arbitrary
company should be illegal regardless.

people bought apple hardware and the operating system, not voted them the
unilateral governing body on consumer choice in that platform. one should not
be taken to imply the other.

~~~
ehaliewicz2
I've never actually owned one, but did the iphone ever allow users to install
arbitrary apps (without jailbreaking, of course)?

~~~
skohan
No it did not.

------
owenwil
The claims in here are pretty wild, particularly around how Apple has favored
its own products:

\- Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch

\- It blocked Spotify from building apps for HomePod

\- It blocked Spotify from building apps for Siri

\- It blocks Spotify updates on a regular basis

\- It blocked Spotify from using a podcasting API after it acquired 2x major
podcasting companies

I genuinely hope Europe takes this seriously. The issue of the 30% cut alone
is enough for further investigation, particularly as Apple now uses that as an
advantage to undercut Spotify with Apple Music.

~~~
cujo
> Apple blocked Spotify from working with Apple Watch

I'm not sure this is 100% true. From browsing the spotify support forums many
moons ago, some guy had built a spotify playing app for the apple watch, but
spotify squashed it. Given that some random dev could do this, it doesn't seem
like apple prevented anything.

~~~
ChicagoBoy11
Counterargument: Apple's review process is more likely to let "some guy's" app
slip through the cracks and make it in the App Store than the official app of
one of its huge competitors with an install base of many, many, many millions
of devices.

~~~
dmlittle
If I remember correctly the app wasn't on the app store (presumably because it
couldn't get approved)

~~~
rahoulb
I have an install of Apollo for Spotify on my Apple Watch.

It streams Spotify directly without your phone and has a very flaky offline
mode.

The developer tweeted that Spotify (not Apple) asked him to remove it four
days after it reached the App Store.

I was lucky enough to get hold of it in that brief window and use it often.

------
headmelted
Utterly disagree.

The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make
it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this
arbitrarily in a way that at least _appears_ to favour your own products over
your rivals is an abuse of your position.

If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely,
given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously), then I'd be
astonished if Spotify doesn't file lawsuits in the US under the Sherman Act.

In any case, having this fight happen, and in public, can only be good for
indie developers if it forces Apple to apply it's rules arbitrarily.

~~~
volandovengo
For a long time I've been confused about the rules of monopolies. Microsoft
got into a lot of trouble when they bundled IE into Windows so much so that
the US threatened heavily to break up the company.

Fast forward a decade later and apple, google and amazon bundle a crazy amount
of unrelated services into their platforms without the regulators raising an
eyebrow...

~~~
jonhohle
They bundled _while_ having a monopoly. They could have bundled or they could
have had a monopoly, but doing both is where it crosses the anti-trust line
since your customers are effectively captive.

What does Apple have a monopoly on? What does Amazon have a monopoly on?
Google arguably has a monopoly on search which could put them in an
unfavorable position should an antitrust case be brought against them (maybe
why they added DDG to a default search engine choice in chrome, see judge,
there are other search options!).

~~~
bduerst
Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. Having a popular or high-quality
product is not the same as having no competition. You can run an ecommerce
business online entirely through instagram if you wanted to.

Amazon theoretically is abusing it's market power by being selective about
which products it sells in it's stores. When they removed competing
AppleTV/Chromecast products from their own and seller lines, to promote their
firestick, that was monopolistic behavior. There's also arguments that Amazon
is promoting their own line of products on their platform as well, by
replicating products that end up being successful, but this is a new area for
antitrust that needs to be sussed out.

~~~
sinnoh
really the entire concept of a 'store' has been bastardized by these companies
(another thing we can thank apple for) and is a misdirect.

the locked down software platforms wherein users can't install anything on
their own devices without the owning company's say-so is the artificial
monopoly. they're trying to get away with adding things like device management
now to weasel out of it but in reality these are artificially high barriers to
entry for any competing software distribution services or 'stores'.

when _Amazon_ can barely even get a foothold in a competing ecosystem with its
own 'app store' you know it's anticompetitive and it's working.

~~~
threeseed
Amazon can build their own phones and run their own store. In fact they did.

It’s just that their products were terrible and consumers didn’t want them.
And the barrier to building your own ecosystem really isn’t that high anymore.
We have hundreds of Chinese companies doing this today.

------
ppeetteerr
I agree that Spotify is taking the right stance. In their position, working on
whatever team is responsible for fighting Apple, I would also do anything in
my power to fight.

Having said this, Apple can do as they please. They control the hardware, the
OS, the App Store, and the user accounts. The same was true of Twitter who
effectively squeezed access to their API until one or two desktop clients
remained.

The only two ways out of this is to legislate a lower rate (through campaigns
such as these), or to create a competing platform that lowers costs for its
users. Imagine if Spotify offered a lower rate for Android users... Wouldn't
that send a very clear message to Apple?

~~~
aclimatt
Well, that's not entirely true, Apple can't exactly do what it wants. As other
comments point out regarding Microsoft, Microsoft were forced to allow IE to
be debundled and other competing browsers installed, because having a monopoly
on a platform and using that platform to enforce anti-competitive practices is
illegal under anti-trust law.

So given Apple's marketshare (not a monopoly per se though pretty
substantial), and given they both control the platform that people pay money
to access, and promote preferential treatment of a first party service at the
expense of any third party services, it sounds pretty ripe for an anti-trust
lawsuit.

The same I believe has recently been applied to Google in the EU for using its
monopoly to promote its own product search results above other online stores.

The only difference now is, the teeth of anti-trust regulators are a lot more
dull than they were in the 90s, for various reasons.

~~~
bunderbunder
You've misremembered the Microsoft ruling. It wasn't about Microsoft having
control over computers running Windows - that alone does not a monopoly make.
What made Microsoft a monopoly was that over 95% (can't remember the exact
number) of all computers were running Windows.

Apple's marketshare is nowhere close to that.

~~~
nojvek
Also that was the 90s. Way more corporate money runs in the govt now so things
like this are unlikely to ever happen.

~~~
xbmcuser
Being anti competitive and being a monopoly are 2 similar but different
things. What we are seeing today is the same as train Barron's of us history
they control the track/os and do all they can to make it harder/costlier for
others to move stuff on their tracks doesn't matter if they own all the
tracks/OS or not.

------
supermatt
Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors
should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS.

You cant move to another platform without losing access to all your
"purchases" \- there is no free market. They have monopolies within ecosystems
they created.

They should be FORCED to have an open platform, with users able to access
multiple 3rd party storefronts on multiple platforms. They can market
themselves as official/curated/whatever they want but the user should have the
choice.

~~~
ubermonkey
>Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors
should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS.

That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop
monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market.

>They should be FORCED to have an open platform,

Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly
content with a single, curated-by-Apple app store for iOS. I like the
stability it affords the platform.

I'd never accept it on a general-purpose computing device, but for my phone
it's perfect.

~~~
jorvi
> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market.

That's Apple's magic trick. They only own the top 20% of the market (evading
monopoly attention) but they extract almost 100% of all profit in the
smartphone market. No idea how you'd legislate against that though..

~~~
lotsofpulp
Their magic trick is creating products and services that people want to buy.

No one told Google to skimp on customer service and make 18 chat programs that
don’t work. No one told Microsoft to drag their feet on preventing malware
from destroying the usability of their system. It was Microsoft’s choice to
profit from letting manufacturers sell computers riddled with malware that you
had to spend hours to remove after buying. It’s google’s choice to not offer
product support such that you can’t use their “flagship” devices for 5 years.

Apple invested in setting up their retail stores, training employees well,
making their devices easy to use, and now they are reaping the rewards.

------
Nextgrid
This is long overdue. I really hope this leads to something.

The anticompetitive behaviour described on that website is just the tip of the
iceberg. Apple is doing a lot worse behind the scenes. Cellular service on
Apple Watch for example - as a carrier you can't just provide service for the
Watch - you have to be an "approved" carrier and this means being friends with
Apple and selling iPhones among other things (you only provide SIM-only plans
and not interested in selling phones? Tough luck.). Same for visual voicemail,
etc.

------
toasterlovin
Whenever Apple's 30% take on the App Store comes up, people on this website
get all up in arms about it. Let me provide some perspective, which I think is
sorely lacking:

I sell physical goods on Amazon. They charge me 15% for this privilege. The
only reason they don't charge more is because physical goods have lower
margins than digital goods (my margins after it's all said and done are
somewhere between 10-15%). And, you know what? I'm happy to pay Amazon their
15% _because they 're bringing me customers that I wouldn't have otherwise_.

Perhaps thinking about it like this is instructive: does Amazon have an
obligation to let me sell on their platform simply because lots of consumers
choose to buy stuff from Amazon? Does Amazon have an obligation to change
their fee structure so that I can more easily compete with Amazon Basics
branded products?

Should Apple charge a smaller percentage to subscription services that can't
afford to give up 30%? Probably. It would net Apple a percentage of something,
rather than the 30% of $0 that they're getting now. And it would be a better
experience for Apple's customers. But it is in no way unreasonable for Apple
to expect to get paid for originating sales of software and subscriptions. And
it is certainly not unreasonable for them to get paid significantly more than
credit card processing fees.

~~~
WA
Thing is, unless your app is already somewhat popular, Apple won’t do anything
for you. Maybe you get more customers. But maybe an app like Spotify invested
enough in marketing to reach new customers without Apple‘s health.

The problem is that it’s really hard to measure how many customers Apple
really brings and how many would find an app through other means.

~~~
toasterlovin
Amazon is similar. Listing your products on there does not lead to sales. So,
in addition to the 15% cut, I pay Amazon roughly 5-10% more to advertise my
products as sponsored listings. But I can tell you that Amazon has resulted in
way more sales than advertising on Goole and sending customers directly to our
site. There is tremendous value to being on Amazon. Despite the constant
declarations of Amazon having a counterfeit product epidemic, customers are
comfortable buying on Amazon. They know that Amazon will have their back if we
rip them off. As a result, there are lots of consumers who only buy certain
classes of goods from Amazon. And it is Amazon, not me, who has cultivated
that relationship. It makes sense that they charge me a significant amount to
participate.

------
yeldarb
The timing of this is interesting in the context of Elizabeth Warren’s recent
proposal to forbid platform operators from also being participants on their
own platforms.

It looks like they’ve filed a complaint with the EU Commission; I wonder if it
will become a talking point in US politics as well.

~~~
atestu
Didn't Elizabeth Warren say Apple shouldn't distribute its own apps in the App
Store? Apple Music isn't in the App Store…

~~~
sneak
For the purposes of reasoning about this, Apple iOS and Apple's iOS App Store
and the iOS Apple Music app are all the same entity, equivalent. It doesn't
matter that it's not in the App Store, it ships on the phone alongside the App
Store. That's the same as being in the App Store and getting autoinstalled on
every device.

------
judah
This exemplifies some of the reasons proprietary app store lock-in is bad for
consumers.

Progressive Web Apps -- web apps that are installable and available offline
without any app store -- are a viable alternative, and ultimately a threat to
Apple's app store racket. It's likely why iOS Safari continues to drag it's
feet on PWA support.

~~~
fmo91
I agree with that. However, what worries me about PWAs is discoverability. How
can I find a catalog of available PWAs to download? Is there a way?

~~~
VBprogrammer
Counter point: the discoverability on all of the app stores I've tried has
been pretty terrible. Unless I know the name of an app that I'm trying to
install I almost never find what I'm looking for. Most often I search for 'the
best app to do X' on Google and then put a name from that into the app store.

~~~
Sharlin
App store UX is so horrible I’m sure it is intentional. But I have no idea
what they’re trying to achieve. In the case of Apple’s store, I have literally
never wanted to browse any of the curated lists of apps, just to open the
search view which doesn’t even have the search textbox focused by default!

------
yaseer
Seeing this makes me want to get even further away from Apple's ecosystem.

4 years ago, I was all in- Mac, iPad, iPhone. In the last 4 years, I've been
driven away by Apple seeming contempt for professional users.

Their contempt for other competition is even graver cause for concern.

~~~
kalleboo
Sometimes I think so too. And then I look at the alternative ecosystems.
Google? Amazon? Microsoft? Not even tempted...

~~~
novaRom
Why do you need ecosystem own by one company? You can have Ubuntu laptop,
Android phone, WebOS TV. They all support Spotify and Netflix, you can cast
videos from Android phone to your LG TV.

~~~
kalleboo
I support friends & family with mixed ecosystems. Nothing ever works right.
Maybe they just made unlucky choices.

------
talkingtab
I don't think this is about Spotify versus Apple - its about Apple versus its
customers. I want to be able to choose what music service I want, and I want
the price to be competitive. And not just music.

You just have to wonder what's up with Apple.

~~~
paulgb
This is why I think the "if you're not the customer you're the product" mantra
is overly simplistic. In this case, you can still pay $1000 for a phone, and
it only makes you a more valuable product for Apple to sell to its (developer)
customers.

------
fb03
Let's be fair then:

Phones now have the same level of processing power as portable computers. We
shouldn't be obligated to only run applications that are siphoned thru a third
party "trusted clearinghouse", be it the smartphone or the operating system
vendor.

If I want more safety or I am not a Power User, I can flick a switch on the
device to allow that binding behavior to happen. Heck, they are giving me the
'free service' of taking care of app security for me, I could even pay for
that if I am serious about having my apps checked and stuff.

Phones are computers. You own the hardware, you should be able to install
whatever you want. Always.

Is the argument about protecting the masses of non-tech people? Great, make it
an opt-out. And still: There ought to be someone keeping tabs on that big
brother (gov regulations? agencies) or else shady behavior can ensue as well.

~~~
sneak
> _Phones now have the same level of processing power as portable computers.
> We shouldn 't be obligated to only run applications that are siphoned thru a
> third party "trusted clearinghouse", be it the smartphone or the operating
> system vendor._

I pay a lot of money for iPad Pros and Google Pixelbooks for precisely this
functionality. When the user can run anything they want, the result is the
unsafe landscape of malware we see on common desktop OSes.

~~~
effingwewt
As OP mentioned, that could be enabled with a toggle. An example of this all
being for the benefit of walled gardens, take rooting. Obviously if a user is
going through the trouble to attain true ownership of their phone and os, they
are doing so because they want to be in control. Phone carriers openly fight
this at every turn because they want us to be forced to use their BS apps,
known as bloatware, and prevent users from no longer seeing ads. This is all
about money. Microsoft is trying hard to do the same on desktop now with all
their in-os ads. Protecting users is the single most bullshit line ever and
they all use it.

------
iambateman
Just because Apple can do as they please, doesn't mean they ought to be
allowed to.

Antitrust is a useful tool for when players end up controlling monopolies and
using them in anti-competitive ways.

~~~
ppeetteerr
Antitrust would not apply here as Apple's share of the smartphone market is
less than monopolistic.

There is a stronger case against Amazon for selling Amazon-branded, well-
moving products like batteries and diapers, even though they don't stifle the
other brands.

~~~
jcranmer
> Antitrust would not apply here as Apple's share of the smartphone market is
> less than monopolistic.

Having had to take antitrust training at my company in the past few weeks, I
can say that you are _very_ mistaken if you think antitrust only kicks in when
the company is a monopoly.

~~~
ppeetteerr
Can you elaborate on why I am mistaken?

~~~
jcranmer
Antitrust covers in general anticompetitive practices, and has done so since
the original Sherman Antitrust Act. So, for example, colluding with another
business to fix prices is covered under antitrust, even if the sum of the
businesses concerned do not constitute a monopolistic power in the industry.
The other common category is the various rules around the preference of a
company's other product lines over competitors--the line between "legal" and
"illegal" is a little more blurry here.

You can fall afoul of these conditions if you have "sufficient market power",
which is a substantially broader claim than "monopoly power." I don't think
there's any lawyer that would try to claim that Apple doesn't have "market
power"\--note that the smartphone market, from an OS perspective, is basically
a duopoly.

~~~
ppeetteerr
You _might_ have an argument here: "The other common category is the various
rules around the preference of a company's other product lines over
competitors". We'll see what the courts decide

~~~
tptacek
You can just look at the case history.

[https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-
filings](https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings)

------
ChrisRR
While I was ready to leave a comment about Spotify not playing fair with
artists, I have seen Apple's unfair business practices first hand with
developing apps and bluetooth devices.

Unfortunately they are abusing their power, and are being flat out unfair if
you want to develop a bluetooth device or app. If you want to vet apps to
ensure a safe environment, that's fine, but these practices go beyond that and
are unfair.

~~~
dmitriid
> Spotify not playing fair with artists

Spotify is paying as much as music industry extorts from it. Where does the
money go? Ask the big labels that are the ones paying artists.

~~~
tomphoolery
The big labels aren't important, they're going to get their money anyway. This
hurts the smaller labels, like my label, and countless others who never see a
god damn dime from Spotify streaming.

Meanwhile, Bandcamp streams the songs for free but they allow you to pay what
you want. I've made at least 10x the profit from selling tracks on Bandcamp
than I ever did in the streaming world.

If Spotify wants to play fair, they need to pay artists more for streams. This
site is just another instance of tech bros thinking they know better and
meanwhile fucking over everyone else involved.

~~~
westpfelia
The problem is how do they break apart what to pay people. If they pay your
record company a dollar every time a artist of yours is played and life time
they get played say 100,000 times sure thats great for you. But are they going
to make 100,000 off you? Sure they can make you a loss leader and parrot that
they are a platform for the little dude.

But what happens when a major label demands that they also get a dollar every
time a song is played. The next time Taylor Swift releases a new album the
entire country of Sweden would be owed in Royalties.

Yea digital streaming doesnt pay jack. Even the best paying streaming services
only pays .0064 cents per stream. Of course that doesnt add up to much
considering they only have .65% of the market.

At the end of the day duder it sucks that you dont make shit from streaming
services. It really does. But with how the entire streaming payout model works
it just is NEVER going to be profitable for smaller artists. It 100% caters to
artists that will pull in 100 million streams in a month. But how much does
platforms like Spotify help artists on your label get noticed? I constantly
try to find new artists that have under 100,000 listens on their top song to
see if its some hidden gem or the next big thing.

[https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/16/streaming-
music-...](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/16/streaming-music-
services-pay-2018/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-
much-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-
musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube)

------
pier25
As a user, I much prefer the Android model. For example I can buy and browse
Kindle or Audible books directly in the app. I don't use Spotify but I imagine
it's a similar experience.

Apple policies do not really benefit anyone. Kindle iOS users will simply open
Safari to buy their books, making their experience worse.

Either Apple should really remain objective and not have horses in the App
Store race, or follow the same rules on its own apps that they impose on
others, or change the rules to benefit everyone (including the users).

~~~
Mindwipe
In all seriousness, when people say "iPads are better tablets because of
software compared to Android tablets" I really do raise an eyebrow.

If your use case for a tablet is to read books or comics (which I suspect it
is for many people! A lot!), then the iPad is terrible because of this
specific limitation, and Android tablets are much easier to use. Shame Google
seems hellbent on destroying them - the Pixel C really was a very, very nice
comic reading tablet when it wasn't suffering hardware failures.

~~~
pier25
I'd say 40% of my iPad Pro use is for reading (Kindle/Google Books) or using
Comixcology.

------
bad_user
Just because Apple can currently do this shit legally, doesn't mean that they
should.

Software platforms are marketplaces and company behind such platforms yield
great power, even if technically speaking they aren't yet a monopoly.

Hardware devices should not be legally allowed to be locked down in the way
that Apple devices are. Not sure how many people remember, but Microsoft
eventually being forced to provide choice in browsers was a great outcome and
allowed Firefox and Chrome to flourish. Yes, Microsoft was at that time a
monopoly, whereas Apple right now isn't, but Apple has the potential to be a
monopoly. They are after all the richest software company in the world.

Apple succeeded where Microsoft failed, they normalized “trusted computing”,
which brought everything we feared.

I very much prefer EU's consumer protectionism in these regards and I'm hoping
they'll do something about walled gardens such as Apple's.

------
demuch
I just don't understand why most people think Apple don't have a monopoly
market position. Of course Apple is the monopoly on the App Service market
([1] App store generated 93 more revenue than google play in Q3). We are
talking about app service rather than the phone units sold.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/11/app-store-
generated-93-mor...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/11/app-store-
generated-93-more-revenue-than-google-play-in-q3/)

~~~
8f7tjdsk9o8
It's one things to compare app sales from one market to another, but the
broader issue is that Apple maintains a monopoly on the store itself. There is
no Google Play store on iPhone.

And... listening to SCOTUS oral arguments recently, that sounds like it will
be changing soon.

------
nerdwaller
I’ve been waiting to see Spotify follow Netflix and create their own label,
instead of just curated playlists. They’ll otherwise always be at the whim of
renegotiations. (Not entirely relevant to the post, but seems like it’s an
avenue for them to go to break a little from other players).

~~~
hesk
I hope this never, ever happens. I love that I can basically listen to any
music I like on Spotify. (I know there are exclusivity deals in music
streaming but so far it hasn't affected me.) Compare that to the fragmented
video streaming marketplace where services try to distinguish themselves with
exclusive and/or original content. If you want to watch N shows, you have to
subscribe to N different services. And none of the services have a
comprehensive movie library (at least where I live).

------
georgespencer
Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here?

Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the
labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who
have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms
which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies).

Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow it to develop software for
certain of their hardware lines, such as Homepod or Apple Watch. Why do I have
to allow you to develop software for my proprietary hardware, just because
it's technically possible?

The crucial line in their argument is this:

> giving up 30% was too much for us to keep our prices low for our fans.
> Unfortunately, the end result is that you can no longer upgrade to Premium
> through the app.

How is this Apple's fault and not your fault? Every market place takes a cut
from the vendor. Your business not being able to sustain the cost of doing
business is nobody's fault except your own.

Apple should not be allowed to send push notifications about products or
services they prohibit other apps from sending. They shouldn't arbitrarily
restrict Spotify from updating the app (virtually no information is provided
about what infractions Apple saw, and history suggests that companies are
great at presenting one side of the argument and then we find that Apple has a
legitimate grievance). They should not be able to charge Spotify more because
of their competition.

But to suggest that Apple should be forced to allow Siri integration with
Spotify? Homepod? Apple Watch? Ridiculous.

Monopolies where prices rise are bad news. But look at UK football coverage.
On top of my free-to-air channels (£150 p.a. TV licence) I need a Sky Sports
subscription (minimum £25 per month) and a BT Sport subscription (which
necessitates one of BT Broadband - gross - or Sky) which I think is around
£5-£10 per year. The top flight football is fragmented across all three
providers. Is that better for me?

~~~
pedroaraujo
A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user that
subscribes to Spotify through Apple devices. This cost doesn't doesn't exist
for PC users, for example.

They probably could live with it but I can understand why it feels like an
artificial cost that Apple came up with. It would be an understandable cost if
they were selling the Spotify App through the App Store and using the actual
store infrastructure for supporting Spotify... but they are not.

The app is nothing more than a portal to the entire Spotify infrastructure, it
doesn't weight anything to Apple.

And then we have the subject of the direct competition, Apple Music doesn't
need to have their profits cut in 30% because they are owned by Apple itself.

And it's even worse if they are using Siri, Homepad and Apple Watch to make
Apple Music more appealing in comparison to Spotify.

~~~
georgespencer
> A 30% cut is something that Spotify needs to pay to Apple for every user
> that subscribe to Spotify through Apple devices

Not so as I understand it. Only if you put the option to subscribe into your
app in the app store. That cost doesn't exist for Mac or PC, but Apple doesn't
heavily curate and have costs associated with the wild west of downloading
apps from the web.

> it doesn't weight anything to Apple

There are significant costs associated with the app store, no? Part of the
reason users gravitate towards the iPhone is because you can download high
quality apps without malware, viruses, etc.

> Apple Music doesn't need to have their profitts cut in 30% because they are
> owned by Apple itself.

Conceptually I'm with you. This is an area I'm struggling with though. The
Apple Online store charges accessory manufacturers a fee to be featured there.
Should Apple also pay a fee to feature their own products there? I don't think
so.

> it's even worse if they are using Siri, Homepod and Apple Watch to make
> Apple Music more appealing in comparison to Spotify

Why? They've made the hardware. Why should they have to let Spotify run on it
in the exact way Spotify wants? (You can Airplay Spotify to Homepod.)

~~~
pedroaraujo
> There are significant costs associated with the app store, no? Part of the
> reason users gravitate towards the iPhone is because you can download high
> quality apps without malware, viruses, etc.

That should be covered by the one time fee that developers pay to Apple in
order to publish apps into the App Store. I am not sure if a simple binary
needs a 30% cut of the entire Spotify profit to keep up with the costs of
hosting an app there.

> Why? They've made the hardware. Why should they have to let Spotify run on
> it in the exact way Spotify wants? (You can Airplay Spotify to Homepod.)

Because Apple is using a completely different market, which they have a strong
presence on, to increase the value of Apple Music and consequently devaluing
any other competing music streaming services.

~~~
12298765
> Because Apple is using a completely different market, which they have a
> strong presence on, to increase the value of Apple Music and consequently
> devaluing any other competing music streaming services.

This is the core issue. Apple using their dominant market position in the
hardware/operating system markets to push anticompetitive practices for their
product in a different market (Apple Music).

I don't see how this is much different than IE. Maybe even worse in some ways.
But regardless, it is very clearly manipulating the market artificially in
Apple's favor.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
Apple is not dominant in the hardware market in the same way IE was. Nowhere
near.

~~~
mschuster91
For those who have significant sums invested in the App Store, they _are_
effectively dominant as there is no way to switch app licenses to a different
app store.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
Sure, but the rules are _reasonably_ unambiguous and unchanging. The 30% cut
has been in place since day one. If Spotify didn't like it, they had the
choice to focus their attentions exclusively on other platforms. That wasn't
the case with Windows+IE, when effectively there were no other platforms of
any size.

~~~
georgespencer
And worth noting that Spotify grows by millions of paying subscribers every
quarter without the app store. They're currently choosing to focus exclusively
on other channels rather than try to pay the 30% and… doing better than Apple
Music…

------
steve1977
Spotify asking someone else to play fair, ha, that really made my day...

I mean, of all companies, Spotify. Their whole business model is built upon
not playing fair with content creators.

~~~
hbosch
Which streaming service plays the most fair?

~~~
mastercheif
Napster, Tidal, then Apple Music.

Source: [https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming-
music-...](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming-music-
services-pay-2019/)

~~~
hbosch
I remember a (deleted) tweet from the rapper Nipsey Hussle where he posted his
payout breakdown. It's been reblogged since deletion and is preserved:

>ATTENTION EVERYONE: > >1 Million Streams on YouTube = $690 > >1 Million
Streams on Spotify = $4,370 > >1 Million Streams on Apple Music = $7,350 > >1
Million Streams on @Tidal = $12,500 > >1 Million Streams on Amazon Music =
$4,020 > >Don’t shoot the messenger. >Jus Sign up 4 @tidal > >— THA GREAT
(@NipseyHussle) January 15, 2018

The only thing about payout $ is that you have to take into account how many
streams you actually get on each service. Are we to believe that Tidal's
payouts would stay they same if they had Spotify's much greater listenership?
Or Apple for that matter? Streaming services pay the rates charged to them by
the record companies based on myriad listenership demographics.

I believe the labels are charging the services, and those labels pay the
artist. Am I wrong on that? The labels set the price to be paid, don't they?

------
digianarchist
Pretty annoying as an Apple Watch user to find out only Apple Music is allowed
to store music on the device itself.

~~~
saagarjha
I don't see why other watchOS apps cannot store music on the watch itself.
Don't apps get some local storage space? Why can't they use that?

~~~
Nextgrid
See [https://marco.org/2017/09/24/what-watch-podcast-apps-
need](https://marco.org/2017/09/24/what-watch-podcast-apps-need).

~~~
filleokus
Also see
[https://marco.org/2018/09/17/overcast5](https://marco.org/2018/09/17/overcast5)

> That’s why I nearly jumped for joy during the watchOS 5 announcement in
> June, when Apple unveiled most of my list of watchOS changes needed to make
> good podcast apps.

In my understanding, an Apple Watch Spotify app would surely be technically
feasible as of watchOS 5 (but I might be in the wrong here, I haven't tried
myself more than read the available API docs).

~~~
Nextgrid
Seems like there's still the issue of networking, and I guess if the
accusations about the Spotify app rejections are true then I wouldn't be
surprised if a Watch app that allows offline playback would get rejected.

~~~
filleokus
> Seems like there's still the issue of networking

Yes, but I would guess that limitation is done for some "legitimate" technical
reason. Streaming Apple Music on the watch just kills the battery life in my
experience, and it seems pretty on par with Apple's M-O of limiting expensive
hardware access to third parties (like multitasking back in the days). But who
knows, could perhaps be out of some evil anti-spotify spite.

> I wouldn't be surprised if a Watch app that allows offline playback would
> get rejected.

Maybe, but Pandora seems to have done it without problem.
[https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/04/pandora-apple-watch-
update/](https://9to5mac.com/2019/01/04/pandora-apple-watch-update/)

------
bpyne
I've been with Apple Music and Pandora for years. A few months ago my
teammates at work convinced me to try Spotify: I love Spotify! Both the
content and the UX work for me.

While this post represents Spotify's view without having Apple's to contrast
it with, it seem eerily similar to the "Browser War" days leading up to
Microsoft's admonishment. Apple seems to be the equivalent of a drunkard
walking a fine line.

~~~
colmvp
I would totally buy this fear if iOS was anywhere close to the marketshare
that Windows was back in the 90s.

------
Zenbit_UX
I guess now I know where Spotify's priorities have been over the last few
years as their Android app regressed.

Your war with Apple seems to have distracted you from the one platform you are
on good terms with. As a premium subscriber it's very frustrating to not be
able to pause music on the lockscreen anymore. Or using the headphone
controls. Or why a blocked song keeps being played in discover weekly. Get
your act together or you'll lose your android customers to Apple too.

~~~
thekyle
> As a premium subscriber it's very frustrating to not be able to pause music
> on the lockscreen anymore. Or using the headphone controls.

I just wanted to say that I am also a Spotify Premium subscriber using the
Android (Pie) app and I don't have any issues with these two features. I
cannot comment on the blocked songs, since I do not use that functionality.
Have you checked the forums to see if other users are experiencing the same
problems? Maybe there is a specific fix for your device.

~~~
Zenbit_UX
I'm on android pie and I'm not the only one having these issues, go to the
play store listing and sort reviews by latest version, many are complaining
about the lack of lock screen and headset controls.

The app is extremely unstable on Bluetooth as well, I now leave my expensive
wireless earbuds at home because Spotify can't handle more than 10 seconds of
continuous wireless playback without cutting out.

------
berbec
I hate to say this, but one of my main gripes against Apple - the unfair
advantage they have in pricing by not having to "pay themselves" 30% - has
lost some strength in my mind.

Every grocery store takes a cut of every item sold on the store. The store
owner determines the percentage. Just like Apple. Grocery stores make
similar/nearly identical products to the third-party merchandise they sell.
Just like Apple. Grocery stores can routinely undercut the pricing of third-
parties due to not needing to "pay themselves". Just like Apple.

Damn. I really wanted to hate EvilBigTech for this.

The rest of Spotify's points I have no issue, but this one doesn't hold as
much water for me anymore.

~~~
miloignis
I think the fact that Apple prevented them from using payment methods that
didn't go through them makes it significantly worse though - to carry the
analogy (perhaps to far) the grocery store prevents the packaging of the
products it carries from mentioning the website where you can order other
products or something.

------
nojvek
Yes please. EU commission, please fine the shit out of Apple and give them a
reality check that they infact are a bully.

I have given all hope on the US govt doing anything to help the average joe.
It’s a govt lobbied and paid for by corporations.

------
tlogan
All companies do this. Back in days, even Evernote started doing that (with
disguise "API bandwidth limits"). Nowadays, Evernote is irrelevant, so nobody
complains.

The only difference here it that Apple's customers have $$, so everybody wants
to be on their platform and everybody make noise.

And these politicians are talking on both side of their mouth: first they say
how "3rd-party apps are stealing data" so platform must to have more checks
when adding an app on their store. And when platform tries to enforce the
rules they complain how platform needs to be "more open".

------
intellix
When I'm on Spotify on macOS and press play on my keyboard, it always opens up
iTunes instead. Am sick of this second party support for everything especially
when the Apple versions are so dire

~~~
Ardon
I had a similar frustration where the media keys would control videos in
Safari instead of my music.

This little app lets you go back to the old behavior, or set a priority:
[http://milgra.com/mac-media-key-forwarder.html](http://milgra.com/mac-media-
key-forwarder.html)

------
madrox
A week before launch of an SVOD product I worked on, Apple chose to reject us
in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances
we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring.

It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so
you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While
everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to
change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since
having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went
through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our
launch date.

Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message
was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the
streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and
other over the top services. They're already trying to control the UX with the
TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration
work. Cutting back from 30% is how Apple incentivizes even heavier integration
into their ecosystem.

Apple keeps doing this: Google and the Google Phone app, Netflix, Spotify, my
product...more that we haven't even heard of, since not many are as big as the
ones I've mentioned. The idea that this is somehow about protecting the
consumer rings hollow.

------
jordansmithnz
Something to note: competition wise, Spotify doesn’t have a 30% App Store
profit handicap compared to Apple Music, it has a 60% one.

Spotify doesn’t just forfeit 30% of their App Store revenue, they pay this
directly to Apple - so the relative handicap is doubled.

~~~
Grustaf
No, Apple doesn’t get all its money from Spotify. For Apple it’s
insignificant.

And of course it only applie for in app purchases, if you browse to
Spotify.com on you iphone and pay there, Apple doesn’t get a penny.

Most of these claims are dubious at best. Bunch of cry-babies.

------
unethical_ban
Spotify is platform neutral. All things being equal, that's enough to use them
vs. Apple/Google/Amazon anything.

Those three serving up things like music or movies are ancillary to their main
product. Spotify has a vested interest in being the best music platform. Apple
as an interest in selling more phones and computers, which may be benefited by
a good in-house music app.

------
tmsh
What will be the real innovation if the platforms are more open?

I'm looking forward to the Chrome dev tools and v8 that comes out of this.

Microsoft/IE antitrust led to a retraction in unhealthy Microsoft dominance
(see IE6) and a rise in Firefox and eventually Chrome. Rise in Chrome led v8,
node and better dev tooling (and by extension a richer JS ecosystem and maybe
things like ClojureScript tangentially).

When the platforms monopolist/duopolists get retracted that will pave the way
probably for more open source apps in the app stores and maybe a few other
large corporations (like Google did for Chrome) dominating. Maybe better
cross-platform tooling will come out of this? It's fun to think of what this
will allow.

------
su8898
Slightly off-topic: I find it intriguing that Spotify keeps on calling their
users as 'fans' instead of users or customers!

~~~
Dirlewanger
Slimy and disingenuous corporate PR speak is everywhere. They probably have
something equally repulsive for their employees.

~~~
maaaats
Why the hate? Many communities have nicknames for the users. HNers, redditors,
slashdotters, imgurians.

------
GeekyBear
They have some valid complaints, but "if we use Apple's payment
infrastructure, we have to pay them a cut for doing so" isn't one of them.

The thing I find to be anticompetitive is that Spotify cannot provide a web
link to their own payment processing web page within their app.

Apple has long allowed content providers to opt out of using Apple's own
payment system (and paying Apple a cut), but without being able to point users
to your payment website, this rings hollow.

As far as Apple Watch goes, the API to allow for downloading content to local
storage and playing it back in the background landed in last year's Watch OS
update.

Pandora manages this task just fine.

~~~
AsyncAwait
> They have some valid complaints, but "if we use Apple's payment
> infrastructure, we have to pay them a cut for doing so" isn't one of them.

But Spotify doesn't want to use Apple's infrastructure and is compelled to do
so regardless.

Spotify is saying that if using Apple payment infrastructure was free, then
not allowing other options would not be a problem, but since it's not free,
not allowing anything else is a problem, not that Apple charging for the use
of its payment infrastructure is a problem in itself.

~~~
GeekyBear
They are not compelled to use Apple as their payment processor.

They are absolutely free to handle billing their customers on their own
website and to turn off the ability to pay through their iOS app altogether.

This is, in fact, exactly what Netflix has chosen to do with new users.

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-
the-a...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-
tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/)

Nothing is stopping Spotify from doing the same thing with new and/or existing
users.

What they are not free to do is provide a link to their billing web page
within their app.

~~~
AsyncAwait
Oh come on, why play dumb at the behest of a corporation? They ARE compelled
to use Apple's payment platform on Apple devices, which is the problem and you
know it.

~~~
GeekyBear
Did you notice the citation showing that Netflix is already doing the thing
that you claim is impossible?

Would you believe it after a citation showing that Spotify itself has already
ditched Apple's payment system?

>Spotify & Netflix Are Bypassing Apple's App Store Billing Charges

Both companies are now driving new subscribers to pay directly, avoiding
iTunes' 30% cut.

[https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-...](https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-
netflix-bypassing-apple-app-store-billing-charges)

~~~
AsyncAwait
Nobody's claiming it's impossible. That's a strawman.

What Spotify is complaining about is that it is possible, but at a massive
inconvenience to users, (having to manually type the payment url into safari
etc that they need to find manually first), which makes it so that most just
decide the burden is not worth the hassle. That's how anti competitive
behavior manifests itself, usually. Technically, anything is possible, Spotify
can develop an iPhone competitor and then ship the app there, but come on, we
both know that's unrealistic.

~~~
GeekyBear
>Spotify doesn't want to use Apple's infrastructure and is compelled to do so
regardless

I believe I mentioned that not being allowed to provide a link to their
payment website within their app was anticompetitive in my initial post?

However your assertion that Spotify is forced to use Apple's in app payment
system is simply not true. Especially given the fact that they no longer use
it at all for new users.

~~~
AsyncAwait
> However your assertion that Spotify is forced to use Apple's in app payment
> system is simply not true.

But they absolutely are if they want to offer the same level of experience as
Apple Music can.

What they're doing now is significantly degrading the user experience compared
to Apple Music, which is the whole premise behind them complaining. I don't
know why that needs explaining.

What you're saying is effectively akin to 'the iPhone is not limited to
running iOS, because you could disassemble the SoC, reverse engineer the HW
and load your own OS on it".

Am sure it would theoretically be possible, however nobody sane would say
'Apple allows multiple operating systems to run on the iPhone'.

------
abalone
There's a lot of things I like and are consumer-friendly about the App Store,
mainly around privacy and security. But the "Apple tax" is absolutely where it
veers into a level of concentrated power that concerns antitrust law.

Yes, I get that you can switch to Android and Apple doesn't have an actual
monopoly. They still wield a lot of power to force this 30% tax down
everyone's throats. Specifically it's the power of "bundling" which is a
potential antitrust violation.[1]

The implied reasoning behind Apple's restrictions on bypassing the tax is to
ensure a positive customer experience. By selling things through Apple they
take on the role of an intermediary merchant that can do things like refunds
and otherwise ensure a positive, trustworthy customer experience.

But we need only look at the Mac App Store to get an idea of how much
consumers truly value this value-add. On that platform, vendors and consumers
have the freedom to directly interact, while Apple has still enacted a pretty
good level of privacy and security protections (through revokable developer
certificates and sandboxing). Many simply bypass the store. And the tax there
would make even less sense for strictly ongoing _content_ subscriptions that
pose no additional security or privacy threat.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_\(antitrust_law\))

------
fedxc
I hate to be that guy, but Apple built their own platform and they can bend
the rules as they see fit.

Spotify should just quit said platform if they don't like the rules and ask
their "fans" to follow them over to other platforms. I know this is not likely
to happen but, oh boy, what a move. Let's all jump into the water and let the
Apple platform be an Apple service ghost town.

On the other hand I do want to see Apple slapped on the hand by the European
Commission and level the ground for all developers, specially indie ones.

------
qrohlf
Interesting tidbit: "FairPlay" was the name of apple's proprietary iTunes DRM
technology that was eventually mostly phased out due to the aftermath of Steve
Jobs' open letter [1]. I wonder if the naming parallel is intentional?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#Steve_Jobs'_%22Though...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#Steve_Jobs'_%22Thoughts_on_Music%22_open_letter)

------
caprese
European Commission is the only antitrust regulator with teeth, I'm glad that
single market area is coming into its own. The regulator for the 21st century
that corporations actually listen to. Without them, we would be here debating
how this doesn't satisfy antitrust laws to the American standard, which would
be beyond the point but a typical discussion.

Going to take another 50 years before that succumbs to regulatory capture.

------
chj
Kudos to Spotify! Somebody has to do this, and from the time line posted, they
really suffered. Amazon's Kindle team probably should chime in too..

------
sneak
It's time to trot out Cory Doctorow's talk on DRM to Microsoft (2004):

[https://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt](https://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt)

> _" Sony didn't get permission. Neither should you. Go build the record
> player that can play everyone's records."_

I remember when Apple's M.O. was to build insanely great hardware, and make
money selling that hardware. It was the Other Guys who would do shady things
like bundle browsers with OSes and do things explicitly against users'
preferences to promote their own platform and ecosystem. Apple never really
started with that until the iPhone.

Now they do all of this ecosystem-lock-in stuff because they're not solely
interested in revenue from hardware sales now. It's lame and scummy and un-
Apple.

I'd love to be able to use the Google Assistant and Signal Messenger on my
Apple Watch, and use Spotify on my HomePod, and use iMessage on my Pixelbook.
Real shame that I pay top dollar for hardware and that I can't.

------
badatshipping
Apple _owns their platform._ It cost a fortune to develop, and it's theirs.

Imagine it's the 1800s and you wanted to develop technology to let anyone
listen to music anytime. You'd have to invent the computer, an operating
system, and the internet (some means of distribution), then invent Spotify.
(Or maybe not all those things in their entirety, but just enough to support
the Spotify's functionality.)

Since it's 2019, there are platforms that provide the operating system and
means of distribution, and Spotify merely has to deliver an app that floats in
high-level-land. They then complain that that platform, who did all the work
Spotify didn't have to, isn't being "fair." What does that mean? What are they
rightfully owed?

Why doesn't Spotify create their own OS and App Store, and develop/distribute
Spotify there? Because it's inconceivably hard? Surely that's why the people
who did it get to set the rules.

~~~
writepub
Maybe Intel should only allow Apple to run Intel approved apps on Intel Mac's,
because it's Intel's CPU running the show? And what about the modem chip
vendors? Shouldn't Qualcomm put a firewall in firmware and filter all traffic
on the iPhone that it hasn't approved? What about the ISP carrying those
packets? Shouldn't they lay claim to packet ownership?

This platform ownership piffle Apple has sold for eons is pure horse shit, and
the EU regulators will rule as such. Simply put, a fridge manufacturer cannot
control what items get stored and cooled in the fridge, after the customer has
paid in full for both the fridge and the item. And the fridge manufacturer
certainly cannot restrict items only sold though it's own stores

------
rchaud
It would be nice if the platform-independent music sites (Spotify, Tidal,
Beatport, Bandcamp, etc) joined together to fund a web framework for music
streaming that didn't require the same level of system access as a native app.
That would allow them to escape the App Store tax, and the headaches related
to Apple's review process, deployment issues, etc.

Right now, Apple owns the moat. The fairness Spotify is asking for requires
people to give up money on the table. Because of that, a well-intentioned
public awareness campaign is no substitute for legal action.

PS - I'd love it if more news websites were structured like the simple
timeline on this site. I'd like to see how the situation developed over time,
rather than seeing a stream of articles littered with links to past stories.
Just give me one timeline I can scroll through, and I'll decide which of the
linked stories I want to click on.

~~~
theandrewbailey
I'm pretty sure that such a web framework exists. There's <audio> element and
web audio JS API.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/au...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/audio)

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_A...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API)

------
lisperforlife
I think we should break the monopoly of app store and play store. Platforms
should enable other stores to play well along with their stores. It is
ridiculous at this day and age to go through a process like app store / play
store approval after you've spent so much money building an app. The web works
fine without a single party deciding what should or should not be on it. We
should treat app store as a service for distributing apps and providing
services to update and charge people for those services. It should be distinct
from the platform itself. The platform should stick with publishing a spec for
how an executable should be and standards to verify the veracity of the
distribution with certificates and digital signatures. I think if there is a
region that can enforce this change, it will be the EU and the rest of the
world will follow.

------
justfor1comment
A recent law passed in India seems like the kind of regulation that is needed
to prevent this kind of behaviour [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/amazon-how-
india-ecommerce-l...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/amazon-how-india-
ecommerce-law-will-affect-the-retailer.html) Essentially what the law says is
that if you own a platform you can't create and sell products on it. This law
targets Amazon and Flipkart since Amazon also uses their own website to sell
Amazon basics products. Amazon also uses internal metrics to determine which
new product categories to launch which other sellers on the platform won't
have access to. Apple and Google app stores should also have similar
restrictions.

------
joshstrange
Wow... Spotify had an opportunity to make a good case and then threw it all
away because they got greedy.

A company not providing you and API you want does not equate to them blocking
you. FULL STOP.

Spotify had some decent arguments (re: 30%, IAP, payment) but it fell 100%
flat when they started giving equal importance to things that were not
targeted at them. The lack of music API's on homepod, watch, iPhone are not
some direct slight against Spotify and to pretend they are only shows
Spotify's inflated view of themselves. Put simply: NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT
YOU.

Spotify is twisting the truth to it's breaking point in this post with just
enough truth sprinkled around that you might not notice the bullshit.

~~~
writepub
The complaint is that Apple is withholding certain APIs from public access,
though nothing technical prevents it from doing so, other than anti-trust
issues. There is certainly truth to that! When Apple is both an app publisher,
and API publisher, these anti trust issues are bound to pop up

~~~
joshstrange
> The complaint is that Apple is withholding certain APIs from public access,
> though nothing technical prevents it from doing so

And once Spotify proves that then maybe we can have a discussion. There is no
data to support that claim. I can think of a number of reasons why they
weren't ready to provide audio API's like battery reasons. Also Apple has
released audio API's both before Apple Music (iPhone) and after (Watch).
Spotify is just mad they didn't get them sooner.

~~~
writepub
I don't think this goes to trial, but it's trivial to prove unfair API
advantages to the manufacturer. Either provide the same API to others, or
concede to anti-competitive charges.

NO ONE is willing to give Apple the benefit of doubt, after they have
unilaterally, retroactively mucked with app store rules to kill competition.
The most egrageous case was with Steam, whose game streaming app was found to
be non compliant _after_ apple retroactively applied change of policy.

------
countryqt30
There are always 2 sides to it. Especially when one side makes the other look
like a blithering idiot.

A few points: * Without Apple, Spotify would be worthless and not reached any
users at all, never grown * Apple is doing the heavy-lifting of building and
distributing Apple Watch, HomePod, iPhones. Spotify is creating little
additional value in comparison * Spotify repeatedly tried to cheat Apple's
system and they were blocked and rejected (in my opinion) rightfully. They
tweaked wordings, they even linked to a website that first looked harmless and
would be MODIFIED after the app is approved. I'm not sure Spotify's behavior
is ANY better.

------
aranw
This reminds of the whole browser war situation with Microsoft many years ago
which Microsoft was forced to allow other browsers. It, however, feels
different from Apple who seem to be able to just get away with this behaviour
unchallenged.

------
dzonga
There should be an alternative App Store, plain and simple. As long as the
sandbox for apps exist, users will be pretty safe. Apps should work the same
way sandboxing works on PC browsers. Apple constricts Safari iOS because they
don't want web apps to be fully competitive with native apps. E.g I prefer to
use Overcast.fm over web than the native app, but most times, my podcast
streams will stop abruptly in mobile safari, that i'm thinking of trading my
privacy to Android for a pixel 1. Only thing that saves me, is I hardly use my
phone, otherwise the limited functionality of iOS for devices you pay hundreds
for is painful.

------
y7
I'm glad that Spotify is taking this stance. Apple and Google Play together
have an effective monopoly on the mobile device app market, which is worth
about 70 bln USD per year. Cost of entry and network effects make it
essentially impossible to have new competing app stores, so barring new
regulations the market will remain as un-free as it is. It's therefore about
time for regulators to step in if we want to promote innovation in the app
market that doesn't necessary align with the self-interests of Apple and
Google, so I'm glad a relatively well-known company such as Spotify is pushing
for this.

------
whalesalad
Anecdotally spotlight has had a hard time finding the Spotify app for me
recently. (I use spotlight like an app launcher.) I chalked it off to some
mojave bug with my new laptop but a tiny part of me was thinking conspiracy.

------
calcsam
It's interesting how this appears just after Elizabeth Warren's call to break
up the big tech companies.

I don't agree with Warren's stance, but hats off to Spotify for nice PR
campaign timing.

------
halfjew22
This all seems well and good.

However, I'd like to point out something that doesn't sit well with me.

Spotify uses this same kind of extraction mechanism on the artists that use
its platform.

The complaint loop is complete. We have artists complaining about artist
'hosting' companies complaining about application hosting companies.

I believe the solution lies in different, non-zero sum economics, but haven't
been able to think of anything for music. I do, however, have some pretty cool
ideas for longer form text and video content.

------
mises
> We – and our partners – use cookies to deliver our services and to show you
> ads based on your interests.

Seriously? Y'all want to sniff/sell my data and run ads on a website that's
supposed to "raise awareness" about "consumer unfairness"? Jerk move. Yeah
it's all technically legal, but it's definitely tacky. You're making it rather
hard to sympathize with you.

------
mediocrejoker
It's hard to have much sympathy when you know that this was written by the
marketing department of a company with a $30bn market cap.

This looks to me like a blatant attempt to latch on to a perceived popular
sentiment that Spotify thinks they can use to to have the government give them
a big advantage that they didn't have before.

Call me cynical but it's hard to see this as anything but self serving.

~~~
mcrae
Sure, but if another company with a $1T mkt cap is abusing it's market
position to the detriment of a $30B company, wouldn't you want to hear about
it?

After all, if they treat Spotify this way, how do you think they'll treat your
app in the future if it happens to compete with them in someway?

------
localhoat
That’s actually the reason why I don’t by a HomePod

~~~
Hamuko
The HomePod is a horrible device unless you want Siri in a can. The source
selection is just so locked down for whatever reason, so unless you're all in
with the Apple ecosystem, you're going to be missing out something.

~~~
sneak
The HomePod would be a incredible bargain even if it didn't support Siri at
all, and were just an AirPlay compatible speaker. Everyone who complains about
Apple Music (myself included) and Siri's uselessness are mostly ignoring the
fact that it is the single best compact speaker, audio-wise, shipping today.
It's an _order of magnitude_ higher audio quality than everything within
10%-1000% of its price range.

It's insanely great. As a speaker. Period.

~~~
Hamuko
As a speaker you can't connect to.

------
hobbescotch
Has anyone noticed in CarPlay that Spotify sounds much quieter (and worse)
than Apple Music? I have always had a suspicion that this was Apple’s doing,
but now it seems much more likely. But if I’m wrong someone please let me
know! I’d really love to know what is causing it. It almost makes me want to
subscribe to Apple Music just for listening in the car.

------
MagicPropmaker
Apple's actions are not good and will eventually discourage companies from
developing anything more than marketing apps for the App Store. You don't want
a big piece of your revenue stream dependent on Apple app sales and Tim Cook's
whim. Maybe this is why there are so many Cr-Apps and fewer and fewer "killer
apps" anymore.

------
Taylor_OD
As Apple hardware sales decline they are desperately trying to build other
services to make up for that lost revenue.

------
elamje
> Uber doesn't pay the 30% like others do.

This makes me curious if this is how Uber(Jump Scooters) is undercutting Lime
and Bird on Scooter and Bike pricing in my city (Dallas). Uber is $0 to start
a ride + $.15 a min. Bird and Lime and $1 to start + $.15 a min.

Is this partially because Apple takes 30% from Bird and Lime, but not Uber?

------
ChildOfChaos
Eh this is just one big company trying to get more profits by complaining
against another.

Spotify is not the good guy here.

Spotify works just fine on apple products (I use it), who cares about using
Apples payment processing system (which they have a right to charge for), it's
a Spotify service, so i should pay through Spotify which i do.

------
dclusin
Given the increasing importance of smart phones in our lives it seems like we
would benefit by having a modern day equivalent of the Carterfone decision[1]
for smartphones.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone)

------
sirmike_
Its been a super long time since I have looked into developing on the iOS side
-- are there restrictions on Safari which would prevent Spotify from going to
an all PWA type deployment for iOS and peacing out from the App Store? What
would the API for Safari restrictions be to overcome? Thanks in advance.

~~~
pier25
AFAIK Safari has great support for PWAs these days except for not being able
to show a native banner that allows the user to install the PWA on the home
screen.

------
qwerty456127
When I've first read about the 30% apps tax I couldn't believe my eyes. That's
insane. It would be Ok if the actual devices were at least 10 times more cheap
and Apple was making the actual profits relying on apps taxation only but
given how much iPhones cost it's ridiculous.

------
shiven
It’s thanks to crap like this & the total lack of original innovation on the
iPhone platform, that I am seriously considering the Samsung S10, after 8
years of exclusive iPhone use.

Post-Jobs Apple is over & done for. They are in “rent collection” mode now.

So long & thanks for all the fun. It was good while it lasted.

------
bytesmith
Customer to Spotify: support Siri Shortcuts and I will switch immediately.

[https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Siri-
Shortcu...](https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/iOS-Siri-Shortcuts-
Support/idi-p/4569462)

------
bartoszhernas
[https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-trying-to-lockin-
user...](https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-trying-to-lockin-users/)

Spotify is not the angel here, as it's using same tricks to block free choice
and lock in users heavily.

------
simonh
Funny that Spotify fails to mention that, for app subscriptions, after a year
Apple's cut drops to 15%.

------
appstorelottery
I think if you own the platform you shouldn’t be allowed to compete. E.g. You
can’t write apps for your OS. You can’t sell your own products through your
own market. Etc. I’m surprised this hasn’t been legislated by now... we all
remember Novell & WordPerfect... it never gets better.

------
johnnycab
This is part of a bigger war to maximise the duopoly of music and video
streaming, _perhaps_ analogous to the triple/quad play in telecoms.

It seems that Spotify's latest salvo is timed to capitalise on the rumoured
event[1] and maybe even influenced by previous decision by Netflix to
breakaway[2] from the two main revenue generating platforms (Android & iOS).
Whether or not it will be beneficial to their business model(s) long term -
only time will tell.

Apple needs a new goose and a contender in the ring to keep institutional
investors happy, at least until a new market strategy[3] is cemented and next
round of R&D, technological advancements, tooling etc. take effect and come to
fruition; especially considering the recent battery recalls[4] and lower than
expected demand for flagship products, So, I would assume they have carried
out some due diligence to avoid any punitive measures by the EU or invite
excessive regulation.

Nonetheless, it might turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for Spotify, despite a
ruling in favour of an app with some _clout_ in a dominant ecosystem. For
example, Amazon has decided to fight[5] Google/Apple on many occasions, with
no obvious benefits. Microsoft has largely capitulated to Amazon & Google on
some of their efforts e.g. Cortana v Alexa, Edge v Chrome..

[1][https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-streaming-
servic...](https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-streaming-
service-3610603/)

[2][https://bgr.com/2018/08/23/netflix-subscription-payment-
chan...](https://bgr.com/2018/08/23/netflix-subscription-payment-change-
iphone-matters/)

[3][https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-must-reverse-angela-
ah...](https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-must-reverse-angela-ahrendts-
luxury-brand-strategy-2019-2?r=US&IR=T)

[4][https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/2/18165866/apple-iphone-
sale...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/2/18165866/apple-iphone-sales-cheap-
battery-replacement)

[5][https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16371292/google-
youtube-a...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/26/16371292/google-youtube-
amazon-echo-show)

------
jy1
This isn't about a 30% take rate on IAP (that's fine). This isn't about apple
having apple music.

The problem is that Spotify is not allowed to take credit card input directly
in the app. The problem is that Spotify isn't allowed to redirect users to a
webpage to collect payment.

------
amelius
> Apple decides to open up the App Store to outside app developers and lures
> them in by the hundreds. They ask users – want to order a pizza, find your
> nearest florist, or look up how to do the Soulja Boy dance? “There’s an app
> for that.”

We already had the web for those things ...

------
tareqak
I'm 100% behind Spotify on this issue even though I don't use the service.

BUT

If you're going to ask someone else to play fair, then maybe you should do the
same i.e. have a revenue-sharing model that is fair to all of big labels,
indie labels, and independent music producers.

------
sumitsrivastava
Interesting to see this given Spotify doesn't play fair by locking in data in
their app for developers. See:
[https://freeyourmusic.com](https://freeyourmusic.com) [not mine, but read why
this exists]

------
tasubotadas
I've submitted a complaint about this requirement to use specific purchase
systems against Play Store and App Store two years ago but they didn't see it
as a problem because, apparently, you can switch from GPlay to Apple products
or vice-versa.

A sound logic.

------
jotjotzzz
Not sure why Apple didn't get hit with an anti-trust lawsuit yet. Spotify is
correct.

------
chairmanmow
Spotify is a shady company that doesn't pay artists as well as Apple, it
doesn't have a sustainable business model and now that they're public they're
hiring PR firms to make timetoplayfair.com and spam HN because they're
accountable to investors.

Spotify doesn't play fair with intellectual property, they were founded by a
guy than ran an ad supported torrent company and got enough early market share
to go public, but it's not sustainable. Now they expect less of a cut to gain
market share because they didn't build something sustainable, unique or based
upon a higher standard of ethics. No tears to be shed for this company's
standard of fairness. Plus the product has other issues which I noted when I
was a customer but were ignored as this company is simply interested in the
bottom line; so I cancelled my account, which was not easy.

------
sjg007
What if Spotify takes your phone number and sends you a text link to sign up
to pay?

~~~
erikig
That would probably be fine...until Apple created a rule to discourage and
then eventually ban all apps that used that pattern without going through
their API.

------
adontz
Cannot post link to

[https://www.timetoplayfair.com/](https://www.timetoplayfair.com/) on
Facebook.

It says:

    
    
      Oops
      Something went wrong. We're working on getting it fixed as soon as we can.

~~~
erikig
Facebook was experiencing issues all day today.

[https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/tech/facebook-instagram-
down/...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/tech/facebook-instagram-
down/index.html)

------
dman
Someone - please commoditize mobile phone hardware. I want to be able to get a
phone and assemble my on stack on it. Without any playstores / subscription
services / location tracking / snooping built in.

------
UpperBodyEimi
What am I missing here? Why can Spotify not redirect users to subscribe on
their own website?

I'm pretty sure I signed up on Spotifys website, then logged into my iPhone.
Apple definitely don't get 30% of that subscription fee.

~~~
alex_duf
>Why can Spotify not redirect users to subscribe on their own website?

Because it's forbidden by apple to inform your user that it's cheaper on the
website.

~~~
UpperBodyEimi
Is this in their ToS or is this just hearsay?

------
humbfool2
They also posted a Video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=&v=l8SShgWqJvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=&v=l8SShgWqJvg)

------
kaelig
This is exactly why I moved from the iPhone to an Android phone about a year
ago: I couldn't use Siri to play things on Spotify – that's pretty much the
only thing that really bugged me about iOS.

------
alanz1223
As an extension, not only is Apple guilty of the absurd 30% tax on IAP, Google
does it too and I think its very unfair that you cannot choose your own
payment processor. Apple and Google should be viewed as an oligarchy of some
sort being that they control almost all of the mobile market. The fact that
there is almost no oversight to their business practices and their ability to
literally take any app off the market or charge whatever processing fee they
want is ridiculous. Its not like any company can also just set out to build
their own app store since Google and specially Apple would never allow them to
compete. I could go on this topic for days since I just know how much mobile
developers are so vulnerable and powerless against the app stores.

------
vnorilo
Isn't it a little ironic that Spotify complains about Apple's cut while their
entire business model is exactly the same? If anything, they are _less_ fair
to artists than Apple is to devs.

------
bo1024
I wonder if companies like Spotify would be willing to help invest in
developing FOSS devices that compete with Apple products. It would be one way
to fight back and advance their own business.

------
dijksterhuis
Just to add to the debate - when in was working in the music industry and had
a view of the data (~ 3 years ago now), the money Apple Music would pay per
stream was higher than Spotify...

------
pje
The solution here is for the US to start enforcing anti-trust laws again.

I can't imagine a clearer example of uncompetitive business practices and
platform monopolization than the App Store.

------
KangLi
Regardless of Spotify or not, Apple has become a state of the art bloodsucker
while delivering flat out products. Making the switch to Android has never
been more convenient.

------
johnnydoe9
I hope the EU takes this seriously just like they did with Microsoft. They
shouldn't charge the 30% if they have a competing product and are undercutting
it.

------
monsieurdoc
Meanwhile, Spotify is still a rip-off for artists
[http://www.timetoplayfair.art](http://www.timetoplayfair.art)

------
Xplosiveoctopus
It’s their platform and they can do whatever they want. They invested, they
built it, they rule it. Whiny generation and their stupid EU laws...

------
iamsaitam
Oh, that title.. thought for a moment they were going to start paying more to
the musicians.. but I guess it's not yet time to play fair there.

------
sandov
Asking the European commission to impose regulations is morally worse than
taking advantage of your market position and consumers' ignorance.

~~~
JangoSteve
For what it's worth, I don't think Spotify is asking the European commission
to impose regulations, but rather asking them to enforce the regulations they
already have.

------
objektif
How about Spotify also start paying a better cut to all creators? Are you guys
not sick of corporarions pretending like they are good citizens?

------
hiven
Apple seem completely unreasonable behind the scenes. As an iPhone fan boy it
really puts me off. Do google do similar things I wonder?

------
jaimex2
So what was wrong with using Apple subscription service but jacking up the
price 50%?

It's a lazy tax as far as I see it, why would anyone complain?

------
jasonhansel
This will keep happening until Apple does what it should have done all along:
give users control by allowing them to sideload apps.

------
daveheq
It really should be a progressive fee, which starts low for new apps and goes
up as more and more sales are made per time period.

------
amelius
The entire platform economy is a bad idea.

Because it's one thing if a government regulates a market, but yet another if
a company does it.

------
gumby
You can already write web apps (which can be pretty sophisticated these days)
and users can even “install” them right on their home screen. This capability
has been there since the original iphone though the power available to web
apps has grown enormously.

Unfortunately not every app can work his way, e.g. access to PII-sensitive
sensors. But nothing stops Spotify from doing this — it’s how Spotify works on
a laptop anyway.

------
dddddaviddddd
Nice title given Apple's FairPlay DRM.

------
0x262d
hard to feel bad for spotify, another publicly traded company maximizing
profit and posing as a person, but it does highlight the downsides of rent-
seeking behavior.

it's almost like private markets are bad and always lead to this sort of bs in
every single real world case.

------
Timothee
Side note but talking about their users/customers as "our fans" is super
strange.

------
bovermyer
Unpopular opinion: I will never go back to the Apple ecosystem. I like my
freedom way too much.

~~~
novaRom
Why unpopular? It's a rational decision. Diversity vs centralization.

~~~
W4ldi
diversity vs privacy. iOS is still much more secure and has much more
protection for the typical user than android.

~~~
novaRom
Why do you think that "iOS is still much more secure"? The fact it's a closed
source system means only we are not aware of many potential security risks.
Apple has really bad reputation because of serious security bugs discovered in
Mac OS recently. It might be similar with iOS devices.

------
LaGrange
...unfair as Apple's rates may or may not be, it's a bit rich coming from
Spotify.

------
49531
Imagine if the entire web were subject to the arbitrary will of an individual
corporation.

------
excalibur
Artists to Spotify: _cough_

------
nubela
Upvote the fuck out of this.

Google does exactly the same thing with Chrome Extensions or Android Apps.

~~~
elagost
I'm no great fan of Google, but it's a little harder to point the finger at
them.

F-droid works perfectly well on any Android device, and is a viable
alternative to Google Play (for some users). Android .apk files can be
installed on any Android device with one switch flipped - and the first time
you attempt to install an .apk file, it points you to the setting. Chrome
extensions can similarly be packaged and distributed from another source (i.e.
GitHub) and are treated as first-class chrome extensions alongside their
store-installed counterparts. Apps installed on an iPhone via Xcode (only
available for macOS, which is only available on Apple hardware) expire after 7
days and refuse to open unless they are re-deployed. They last for a year if
the user pays Apple $99/year for a developer certificate.

Google's platforms don't have people spending money as much as iPhone users
do, but they are not nearly as locked down or restrictive.

------
booleandilemma
_But Apple not only has unilaterally changed the rules themselves time and
again, but also frequently decides to interpret (and re-interpret) them in
ways to disadvantage rivals like us._

Spotify isn’t so much a rival as it is a serf on Apple’s farm though, right?

Apple could just remove Spotify from the app store altogether, for fun.

------
booleandilemma
I like how Spotify uses the word _fans_ in place of _customers_.

Nice marketing.

------
bithavoc
I forgot my Apple Music membership was active, I just canceled it.

------
sascha_sl
You had me, until the point where you turned off libspotify.

------
hellopat
Is Netflix next? March 25th is right around the corner...

~~~
eicnix
Netflix already removed iTunes payment[0] to avoid the 30% Apple tax ($256
million in 2018)

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-
the-a...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-apple-
tax-on-its-853m-in-annual-ios-revenue/)

------
znpy
Me to Spotify: it's time to start looking closely Purism's PureOs and Librem
5.

It has the potential to really be the one true alternative runtime that can
get mass adoption.

------
tumetab1
A more honest title would be - Spotify to Regulator: Please force Apple to be
fair™

------
jordache
Apple needs to be broken up. Warren go it right.

------
sbt
About time.

------
wut42
A bit off-topic but since this page is a call to the European Comission, it
would have been nice to have a GDPR compliant cookie notice.

------
mises
Someone just posted this, about Spotify trying to lock in users:
[https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-trying-to-lockin-
user...](https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-trying-to-lockin-users/)

Spotify isn't really complaining about "unfairness". Business complaining are
really just them trying to mobilize customer outrage to force a better deal
for them. Apple created an ecosystem, and is allowed to charge what they want
for it. Other vendors charge markups: retail, a business with notoriously low
profit margins, charges about 15% markup. This is because price elasticity of
groceries is exceedingly high: customers have extensive choice and it's not an
immediate/emergency good. Restaurants charge about 60%. Clothing can be 300%,
high fashion more. But nobody complains about that.

We need to stop thinking of the app store as a "tax" and more as a retail
outlet, because it is just a digital retailer. The 30% effectively amounts to
a markup.

> [Apple] frequently decides to interpret (and re-interpret) them [App Store
> rules]

This is a hard line for Apple to walk. Other platforms have issues with this
too, and can't always come to one perfect interpretation. See some of the
issues with Youtube policing pedophilia recently and having to take some
drastic (and very unpopular) steps. What was okay previously isn't now.

On Apple's payment system: they run a walled garden. Though there are
disadvantages to this, there are also advantages to it. The case could be made
that this has massive security benefits (iOS malware, anyone?) and can also
keep users from having their payment details tricked out of them by forcing
them through one channel. Think it wouldn't happen? An app tried to trick
iPhone users into scanning their fingerprint to authorize a large Apple Pay
charge to the scammer. It could be worse without the security.

> Siri still won’t talk to us today

Need some more technical detail here, but why is the onus on Apple to do the
work to integrate with __your __platform the way __you __want to do it? Apple
does provide
SiriKit:[https://developer.apple.com/sirikit/](https://developer.apple.com/sirikit/)

> [they] won’t work with us to develop an app for it [the Apple Watch]

Again, why should Apple have to work with you? What you're effectively looking
for is a support contract. Pandora managed it.

> Apple Music doesn’t have to pay the 30% IAP charge

Yes, it's called vertical integration and there are huge benefits to it. It's
been one of Apple's core business practices from day one. They control huge
parts of their supply chain, even developing their own phone chips (which may
well end up as desktop-grade CPUs and could provide a __huge __consumer
benefit in terms of microarchitectural advancement). This isn 't unfair.
Undercutting is not unfair.

App store tightening is of course designed to protect Apple's revenue stream.
They've seen other developers stop using IAP, and want to ensure the App Store
remains dominant. Not unfair. It's Apple's right to say what they sell and
don't sell on their store.

> "level playing field"

See the article linked at the top of this reply. Spotify is trying to keep
users in its platform by preventing playlist transfer (and even prohibiting
apps that do it for them, so not an issue of just not developing the
functionality). That's at least as anti-consumer. Business do this sort of
stuff all the time, and Spotify is more committed to its revenue than to
"fairness".

Spotify is just salty because they didn't get the deal they wanted and because
Apple is trying to push users toward its products over Spotifys. Not really
nice of Apple, but not "unfair".

------
ayvdl
To whoever is responsible for this page: in the svg files, turn the text into
paths, otherwise they look like Arial with terrible kerning.

[https://i.imgur.com/uLaVwnd.png](https://i.imgur.com/uLaVwnd.png)

~~~
simongr3dal
It's also very bad on the "There's an app for that" image.

The other parts of the page are very nice though. The font contrast is fine
and the font has a nice weight to it. When they want us to read something they
actually still know how to make a proper webpage. And it works fine without
JS.

------
ringaroll
Well I want to make a startup but dont want to to get wrecked by Facebook or
Google or Apple. I guess I'll wait until lawmakers break them. Or else they
dont deserve innovation.

------
ringaroll
I really hope Apple dies and burns. They have good PR but thats it. They lie
and deceit developers just like Google. Bait and Switch. There should be
government regulation of Apple, Facebook and Google. These corps are just too
big and control our democracy.

Apple is starving innovation by deliberately not supporting many thing on the
Safari iOS browser and prevents competition illegally by restricting 3rd party
browser engines.

Taking a 30% rent on purchases is blatant theft. More people need to speak
out. #AppleRentSeeker

Because Apple is unable to increase revenues, it's now trying to increase by
using uncompetitive tactics and illegal restriction of competition.

~~~
thanatos_dem
What does iOS Safari not support? It uses WebKit, so more or less full
technical/js support, it has ad blockers, tracking prevention, a built in
password manager that uses the iOS keychain... not sure what else I’d really
want for web browsing.

------
coldtea
Knowing how crap Spotify app is (an Electron monstrocity on the desktop)
that's for the best.

~~~
duski
except its not electron and it doesnt hog half as much as itunes

~~~
kitsunesoba
CEF is still Chromium related, it’s not that much different.

As far as resources usage goes, Spotify is definitely worse. If you browse
through a few artists and albums, memory usage quickly soars pst 500MB and can
reach 1GB, which is ridiculous. iTunes doesn’t do this at all and hovers at
200MB in most cases.

Spotify loads _wholly separate copies_ of all JavaScript dependencies for each
major sub component on screen. Efficiency is not even remotely that dev team’s
strong point.

