Apple counsel attacks Spotify complaints as 'rumors and half-truths'
Spotify is "resorting to rumors and half-truths" in order to ask for an exemption from App Store rules, according to a letter to the company by Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell.
"We find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service," Sewell said in the response to Spotify attorney Horacio Gutierrez, seen by BuzzFeed News.
"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple," Sewell continued. "We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor."
The letter in fact suggests that it's Spotify that's asking for "preferential treatment," and vehemently denies any violation of antitrust laws. Sewell moreover claims that Spotify's current iOS app already violates App Store guidelines, never mind the rejected update.
Earlier this week Gutierrez accused Apple of anticompetitiveness and harming both Spotify and its customers by rejecting an app update for unspecified "business model rules." It's not clear what was in the update, but it presumably relates to the complaint that Apple's 30 percent cut of all in-app purchases -- even for outside services -- forces Spotify to sell in-app subscriptions for $12.99 per month instead of its usual $9.99. Apple Music is not only built into iOS, but can offer a $9.99 pricetag since Apple keeps all revenue.
"We find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service," Sewell said in the response to Spotify attorney Horacio Gutierrez, seen by BuzzFeed News.
"Our guidelines apply equally to all app developers, whether they are game developers, e-book sellers, video-streaming services or digital music distributors; and regardless of whether or not they compete against Apple," Sewell continued. "We did not alter our behavior or our rules when we introduced our own music streaming service or when Spotify became a competitor."
The letter in fact suggests that it's Spotify that's asking for "preferential treatment," and vehemently denies any violation of antitrust laws. Sewell moreover claims that Spotify's current iOS app already violates App Store guidelines, never mind the rejected update.
Earlier this week Gutierrez accused Apple of anticompetitiveness and harming both Spotify and its customers by rejecting an app update for unspecified "business model rules." It's not clear what was in the update, but it presumably relates to the complaint that Apple's 30 percent cut of all in-app purchases -- even for outside services -- forces Spotify to sell in-app subscriptions for $12.99 per month instead of its usual $9.99. Apple Music is not only built into iOS, but can offer a $9.99 pricetag since Apple keeps all revenue.
Comments
-Apple.
Never will.
Good luck with that.
I expect, frankly, this cannot continue in the way it is now. I expect the EUropean COmmission to investigate properly and intervene like it did with IE on Windows - it'll take years and may end up a nul and void point, but i think Spotify has a point.
Apple can do whatever the fuck Apple wants to do with its self-created platform and if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere. They are not under any obligation to anyone. This fucking sense of entitlement to everything is pathetic.
a) helping their business, and
b) legal
Apple is not charity. If they would choose to sell even 8GB iPhones so be it. The customer can always vote with their wallet.
Ibwould be be really curious just how profitable Spotify would be without an Apple iPhone, App Store etc. And I think it's a bit too easy to pass on the added cost for the ability to sell in the App Store 100% to the customers and then complain it's all Apple's fault. Spotify chose to sell there and they set their own price.
Jesus, if you wrote a book and want it exposed, you (or the publisher) has to pay to place it in the shops' Windows. Duration and size of exposure is of course directly related to the cash you spend. Is this in the truest sense communist? No. Is it fair? Maybe not. Is it how business works? For sure.
Think of Spotify as a maker of candy and chocolate bars.
It sells its confections to theater chains where movie goers buy it and consume it while watching a movie.
There are two major theater chains,
One that serves low-income geographic areas, where movie goers don't buy much candy, but rather sneak their own in.
Another that serves affluent markets. The patrons can afford to pay movie theater snack prices and do.
One day, the upscale theater chain decides to begin offering its own private-branded candy and chocolates along side the Spotify brand. Of course, the theater chain can make the same profit selling its candy at a lower price versus the Spotify Candy Company, because it owns the venue where the candy is sold. Spotify must pay, by selling its candy to the theater chain at wholesale prices, in order to get its candy in front of consumers.
This seems unfair to the Spotify Candy Co, because the theater chain seems to have an unfair advantage. But Spotify neglects to account for the initial and ongoing costs, and business risks, of establishing and running a chain of theaters. If Spotify Candy Co created their own theaters, then they could sell their candies and chocolates at retail prices direct to consumers. Poor, sad Spotify Candy Company. Life is so unfair.