Apple counsel attacks Spotify complaints as 'rumors and half-truths'

Posted:
in iPhone
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.
TurboPGT
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 109
    TurboPGTTurboPGT Posts: 355member
    You're lucky we don't just remove your App, assholes.

    -Apple.
    baconstangtallest skillondorcalimagman1979pscooter63lolliverlatifbpjony0
  • Reply 2 of 109
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    TurboPGT said:
    You're lucky we don't just remove your App, assholes.

    -Apple.
    Because Apple would have a shitload of irate customers. 
    dasanman69waverboy
  • Reply 3 of 109
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,728member
    It's amazing the f*****g idiots criticizing Apple over at MacRumors where I first read the article.  I see nothing wrong with what Apple is doing.  To think that there is no cost to maintaining the app store after an initial download is downright stupid and ignorant.  Spotify has benefitted greatly in the App store, and now believes it deserves special treatment.  Idiots.  This will backfire on them greatly.  Apple's response was elegant, to the point, and courteous.  If anything, it really comes across as to how Spotify is just behaving like a whiny little bitch.

    What's really going on is that Spotify is not making any money off the Android users.  Of course, we're always reminded by the know-it-all Phandroids and trolls infesting this forum about the HUGE marketshare Android has... yet nobody makes any money off of them, and Android users don't spend money.  So what's Spotify to do than to just chew out Apple for wanting to control - and maintain - their iOS environment.

    Whiners.  Any respect I had for Spotify just got flushed down the toilet.
    londorTurboPGTbaconstangwonkothesanefotoformatlostkiwicalimagman1979jbdragonksec
  • Reply 4 of 109
    irelandireland Posts: 17,751member
    Spotify's investors are bricking it.
  • Reply 5 of 109
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    Never used Spotify.
    Never will.
    Good luck with that.
    baconstangcalimagman1979jbdragonjay-tpscooter63lolliverbrucemclatifbploquitur
  • Reply 6 of 109
    wdowellwdowell Posts: 213member
    Apple could have done things differently - shown variety of streaming services (including its own) within the pop up on the Music App, so it was on an equal footing. Instead it only advertises Apple Music. Apple has an inbuilt advantage and actively exploiting it in a way which undermines competition.

    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. 
    jonllordjohnwhorfindasanman69
  • Reply 7 of 109
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    So let's say Apple can successfully argue that Spotify has paying customers in large part because of access to the iOS install base. Is that something Apple should get a fee for (outside of cc processing) for the life that someone is a Spotify customer? Or should it be a one time fee they get for every new customer?
    dasanman69
  • Reply 8 of 109
    2old4fun2old4fun Posts: 236member
    I opened the AppStore on my iPad and searched for "music". First listed app was Apple Music, the second listed app was Spotify. I fail to see the problem. Apple built and maintains the AppStore and can run it as they see fit. If you do not like the terms of service just don't participate.
    londorstevehlostkiwirhinotuffmagman1979jbdragonai46jay-tpscooter63lolliver
  • Reply 9 of 109
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,273member
    wdowell said:
    Apple could have done things differently - shown variety of streaming services (including its own) within the pop up on the Music App, so it was on an equal footing. Instead it only advertises Apple Music. Apple has an inbuilt advantage and actively exploiting it in a way which undermines competition.

    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. 
    Why would Apple advertise competition on it's own app? That doesn't make any sense. Apple has every right to advertise its own services on their own apps. There is nothing unfair about that. What is there to investigate? What you are saying is basically like saying Ford should be advertising GM vehicles on Ford's own website. 
    edited July 2016 londorTurboPGTbaconstangstevehfotoformatlostkiwirhinotuffcalimagman1979jay-t
  • Reply 10 of 109
    TurboPGTTurboPGT Posts: 355member
    wdowell said:
    Apple could have done things differently - shown variety of streaming services (including its own) within the pop up on the Music App, so it was on an equal footing. Instead it only advertises Apple Music. Apple has an inbuilt advantage and actively exploiting it in a way which undermines competition.

    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. 
    Oh for fucks sake, this kind of nonsense has to stop. Spotify does not have a point. The EU can go piss up a rope.

    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.
    edited July 2016 tallest skilsmaceslinstevehjbishop1039fotoformatlondorrhinotuffcalimagman1979radarthekat
  • Reply 11 of 109
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 780member
    2old4fun said:
    I opened the AppStore on my iPad and searched for "music". First listed app was Apple Music, the second listed app was Spotify. I fail to see the problem. Apple built and maintains the AppStore and can run it as they see fit. If you do not like the terms of service just don't participate.
    I know.   Go into a McDonald's and order a Whopper, see how that works.
    tallest skilstevehlondorlostkiwicalimagman1979radarthekatslprescottlolliverbrucemc
  • Reply 12 of 109
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    wdowell said:
    Apple could have done things differently - shown variety of streaming services (including its own) within the pop up on the Music App, so it was on an equal footing. Instead it only advertises Apple Music. Apple has an inbuilt advantage and actively exploiting it in a way which undermines competition.

    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. 
    Why would Apple advertise competition on it's own app? That doesn't make any sense. Apple has every right to advertise its own services on their own apps. There is nothing unfair about that. What is there to investigate? What you are saying is basically like saying Ford should be advertising GM vehicles on Ford's own website. 
    Well Apple could have made a separate Music app that you download from the App Store vs. updating the stock music app that is installed on everyone's device.
    dasanman69
  • Reply 13 of 109
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,866member
    wdowell said:
    Apple could have done things differently - shown variety of streaming services (including its own) within the pop up on the Music App, so it was on an equal footing. Instead it only advertises Apple Music. Apple has an inbuilt advantage and actively exploiting it in a way which undermines competition.

    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. 
    Hogwash. Spotify can easy buy ads in multiple apps. Buy ads on the websites, etc. users do have to download Apple Music. I haven't. 
    londorstompycalimagman1979ai46brucemclatifbpentropys
  • Reply 14 of 109
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    I know. Go into a McDonald's and order a Whopper, see how that works.
    As far as Whoppers go, I’d rather have one made by even McDonald’s than by the company that greenlit this abomination...


    dasanman69icoco3realjustinlong
  • Reply 15 of 109
    smaceslinsmaceslin Posts: 81member
    Enough.  Apple made the sandbox.  If you don't like their rules -- don't bring your toys to play.  Better yet, make your own sandbox and your own rules.
    londorbaconstanglostkiwicalijbdragonjkichlinemagman1979TurboPGTai46tallest skil
  • Reply 16 of 109
    wonkothesanewonkothesane Posts: 1,549member
    Why would Apple advertise competition on it's own app? That doesn't make any sense. Apple has every right to advertise its own services on their own apps. There is nothing unfair about that. What is there to investigate? What you are saying is basically like saying Ford should be advertising GM vehicles on Ford's own website. 
    Well Apple could have made a separate Music app that you download from the App Store vs. updating the stock music app that is installed on everyone's device.
    OTOH my shop, my rules. Yes, they could. They could actually do a lot of things. However foremost they should do what is 
    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. 
    londorbaconstangcalijbdragonbrucemc
  • Reply 17 of 109
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,394moderator
    Here's the gist of Spotify's argument, as I see it.

    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. 
    edited July 2016 baconstangrhinotuffcalijbishop1039pscooter63hlee1169lolliverlatifbpfoadicoco3
  • Reply 18 of 109
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 654member
    sockrolid said:
    Never used Spotify.
    Never will.
    Good luck with that.
    When the Spotify CEO came out and said that those who didn't like the fact that their app was basically going to collect as much info on me, my contacts etc. they should quit, I did. I do think their app is easier to use than Apple Music and makes it easier to find music I like but it sounds like this may be fixed in the next iOS update. 
    calilostkiwilolliverloquitur
  • Reply 19 of 109
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 780member
    I know. Go into a McDonald's and order a Whopper, see how that works.
    As far as Whoppers go, I’d rather have one made by even McDonald’s than by the company that greenlit this abomination...


    That's odd.  I'd have thought you'd love them as they're Drumpf Orange.
    dsdroundaboutnowwaverboy
  • Reply 20 of 109
    rhinotuffrhinotuff Posts: 65member
    wdowell said:
    Apple could have done things differently - shown variety of streaming services (including its own) within the pop up on the Music App, so it was on an equal footing. Instead it only advertises Apple Music. Apple has an inbuilt advantage and actively exploiting it in a way which undermines competition.

    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. 
    Windows and IE is a completely different thing. Microsoft was a software supplier to computer manufacturers, Apple builds and maintains the entire ecosystem. If you don't like Apple Music or the fact that the Spotify subscription costs more through the app on an iOS device, go get an Android device. When MS had their death grip on the computer industry, they dwindled the competitiveness of the market down to very few options. Apple had a very small market share, and linux wasn't nearly as refined as it's been in the last 10-15 years. I can't sue GM because my GM car won't accept a Ford radio, same way that Apple doesn't need to offer a Spotify option in their own Music app
    londorlolliverbrucemc
Sign In or Register to comment.