Apple & Spotify now fighting over audio books

AppleInsider

Apple claimed that Spotify is trying to skirt App Store rules by directing customers to purchase audiobooks outside of the app -- although it initially said it was okay.

Credit: Spotify

Over the last month, Apple has rejected Spotify's latest app update three times, claiming that Spotify had violated Apple's rules about how developers can communicate with customers regarding purchases.

Spotify claims that this another example of Apple engaging in anticompetitive behaviors.

Spotify has been urging lawmakers to give developers the right to tell customers alternative ways to purchase services outside Apple's payment system. When developers make a sale through the App store, Apple charges between 15% and 30% commission fee -- which many developers aren't keen on paying.

In September 2021, Apple told developers that it would allow "reader" apps to provide an in-app link to set up or manage accounts off-site.

The rule was put in place after the Japan Fair Trade Commission investigated Apple over antitrust concerns.

And, according to The New York Times, Apple designed the feature with Spotify's legal team.

An Apple spokesperson told The New York Times that the company had no issue with Spotify adding audiobooks. However, he noted that Spotify circumvented rules against providing web addresses and language that encourage customers to purchase outside its app.

According to Spotify, Apple has very recently approved a version of the app with the audiobook experience. However, it is still not available in the App Store at time of press.

Apple reached out to provide the following statement:

"The App Store was designed to be a great business opportunity for developers, and we fully support initiatives to introduce new features in apps that provide lasting value for users. We have no issue with reader apps adding audiobook content to their apps, linking users out to websites to sign up for services, or communicating with customers externally about alternative purchase options. The Spotify app was rejected for not following the guidelines regarding including explicit in-app communications to direct users outside the app to make digital purchases. We provided them with clear guidance on how to resolve the issue, and approved their app after they made changes that brought it into compliance."

Read on AppleInsider

lkrupp

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

ITGUYINSD

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

22july2013

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

ITGUYINSD

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege".  Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%?  Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly.  Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

chelgrian

ITGUYINSD said:

 actually do something to deserve a cut.

They do you just don't understand what it is they are doing.

In terms of what Apple should do it's very simple:

- if your app is free then Xcode and AppStore distribution is free

- if your app costs money but does not have an out of App Store subscription then Xcode and App Store distribution is free.

- if your app is free but has an outside App Store subscription then Xcode costs $1000 per year per user (roughly what Visual Studio costs enterprises) and you are billed for hosting and data transfer based on number of downloads of your app quarterly in arrears.

- if you want to have a 3rd party App Store then Apple should allow it but turn off all features which require the Secure Enclave to function when a 3rd party store is installed.

22july2013

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege".  Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%?  Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly.  Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

I asked you a simple question and you completely avoided it. Are you just saying that Apple should voluntarily change its model, or are you saying the government should pass laws to stop Apple from conducting business the way it wants? As I correctly predicted, you refused to answer that very question.

Apple doesn't have to let Spotify in the App Store at all, does it? This is not a rhetorical question, I want you to answer it. But again, you probably won't.

RudeBoyRudy

ITGUYINSD said:

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege".  Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%?  Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly.  Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

"(other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App" LOLOLOL seriously put the vodka bottle down. take a seat. 

davidw

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege".  Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%?  Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly.  Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

If you wrote a book and sold a hardcover of it in a retail bookstore, the bookstore will take about 50% of your cover price, on each sale. That is the standard practice. You think the 50% the bookstore charges is only to cover their cost of processing the payment? If you want to sell your book to the customers that the bookstore draws into their store (ecosystem), you have to pay the bookstore for that "privilege" of having your book for sale on their shelves.

You think you should be allowed to set up a kiosk inside the bookstore to handle the payment process for bookstore customers that buys your book? Or put a barcode on the cover of your book, that links to your website where the payment can be processed? And once paid for, the bookstore customer is allowed walk out of the store with your book by showing the receipt?  And this would allow you to avoid paying the bookstore their 50% because they did nothing to deserve that 50%?

The fact that the bookstore had nothing to do with the payment process of the sale of your book doesn't means that you are entitled to have your book on their shelves, in order to sell to the customers the bookstore attracts to their store and then pay the bookstore nothing for that "privilege" when a sale in made.  

Get a clue. Apple 15/30% commission is not only for processing the payment. 

davidw

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

No, Apple wouldn't. Apple only need to charge developers an "arm and leg" if they don't want to pay Apple a commission on each sale made with their app. Those developers that are willing to pay Apple a commission can still have their app in the Apple App Store for free. And maybe it doesn't have to be an "arm and leg", if the developer only wants a year worth of sales that is commission free. Then it might only cost them an "arm".  

cropr

davidw said:

If you wrote a book and sold a hardcover of it in a retail bookstore, the bookstore will take about 50% of your cover price, on each sale. That is the standard practice. You think the 50% the bookstore charges is only to cover their cost of processing the payment? If you want to sell your book to the customers that the bookstore draws into their store (ecosystem), you have to pay the bookstore for that "privilege" of having your book for sale on their shelves.

You think you should be allowed to set up a kiosk inside the bookstore to handle the payment process for bookstore customers that buys your book? Or put a barcode on the cover of your book, that links to your website where the payment can be processed? And once paid for, the bookstore customer is allowed walk out of the store with your book by showing the receipt?  And this would allow you to avoid paying the bookstore their 50% because they did nothing to deserve that 50%?

The fact that the bookstore had nothing to do with the payment process of the sale of your book doesn't means that you are entitled to have your book on their shelves, in order to sell to the customers the bookstore attracts to their store and then pay the bookstore nothing for that "privilege" when a sale in made.  

Get a clue. Apple 15/30% commission is not only for processing the payment. 

The issue with your bookstore story is that it is in incomplete.  You forgot the most important part:  the Apple bookstore is the only one allowed to distribute books for iOS.  So when Spotify wrote its book for iOS, it is forced to the sell it via the Apple iOS bookstore.  It cannot choose another, more competitive, more secure bookstore which better markets the Spotify book (there are rumors that the Apple bookstore marketing  is only good for games and its own books).   Spotify is not even allowed to run its own bookstore.  In other words this  bookstore business leaves a bad smell in the mouth.

BTW the standard commission of a bookstore is between 25% and 35%, not around 50%.

crowley

Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases.  No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.

Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now?  Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.

AppleZulu

crowley said:

Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases.  No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.

Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now?  Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.

Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked. 

Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot. 

Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers. 

Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform. 

22july2013

cropr said:

davidw said:

If you wrote a book and sold a hardcover of it in a retail bookstore, the bookstore will take about 50% of your cover price, on each sale. That is the standard practice. You think the 50% the bookstore charges is only to cover their cost of processing the payment? If you want to sell your book to the customers that the bookstore draws into their store (ecosystem), you have to pay the bookstore for that "privilege" of having your book for sale on their shelves.

You think you should be allowed to set up a kiosk inside the bookstore to handle the payment process for bookstore customers that buys your book? Or put a barcode on the cover of your book, that links to your website where the payment can be processed? And once paid for, the bookstore customer is allowed walk out of the store with your book by showing the receipt?  And this would allow you to avoid paying the bookstore their 50% because they did nothing to deserve that 50%?

The fact that the bookstore had nothing to do with the payment process of the sale of your book doesn't means that you are entitled to have your book on their shelves, in order to sell to the customers the bookstore attracts to their store and then pay the bookstore nothing for that "privilege" when a sale in made.  

Get a clue. Apple 15/30% commission is not only for processing the payment. 

You forgot the most important part:  the Apple bookstore is the only one allowed to distribute books for iOS.  So when Spotify wrote its book for iOS, it is forced to the sell it via the Apple iOS bookstore.  It cannot choose another, more competitive, more secure bookstore which better markets the Spotify book (there are rumors that the Apple bookstore marketing  is only good for games and its own books).   Spotify is not even allowed to run its own bookstore.  In other words this  bookstore business leaves a bad smell in the mouth.

BTW the standard commission of a bookstore is between 25% and 35%, not around 50%.

Your mistake is in assuming that iOS is a monopoly. That's like saying Honda has a monopoly on the dashboard of their own vehicles. If you don't like how Honda builds their dashboards, you buy another vehicle. If the government decreed that Honda was the only car consumers could buy, or that Apple was the only mobile phone maker that you could buy from, maybe I'd agree with you then. Why don't you answer my question from earlier - is Apple legally required to even allow Spotify or any other company on their App Store? Also, Apple doesn't even have to offer an App Store, right? Right? Right?

crowley

AppleZulu said:

crowley said:

Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases.  No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.

Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now?  Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.

Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked. 

Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot. 

Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers. 

Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform. 

Apple invented the modern platform restricted app store paradigm.  App stores existed before, most notably, and influentially, Steam.

ITGUYINSD

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege".  Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%?  Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly.  Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

I asked you a simple question and you completely avoided it. Are you just saying that Apple should voluntarily change its model, or are you saying the government should pass laws to stop Apple from conducting business the way it wants? As I correctly predicted, you refused to answer that very question.

Apple doesn't have to let Spotify in the App Store at all, does it? This is not a rhetorical question, I want you to answer it. But again, you probably won't.

I have no idea what the terms of the App Store are so I cannot answer your question.  I would think that with the huge base of Spotify users, that if Apple made their app unavailable for use on the iPhone, that might hurt iPhone sales and piss off millions of people.

Governments around the world are looking at Apple's App Store practices so I guess the answer to your first question is Governments and courts.

You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not about to change yours.  

22july2013

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege".  Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%?  Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly.  Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

I asked you a simple question and you completely avoided it. Are you just saying that Apple should voluntarily change its model, or are you saying the government should pass laws to stop Apple from conducting business the way it wants? As I correctly predicted, you refused to answer that very question.

Apple doesn't have to let Spotify in the App Store at all, does it? This is not a rhetorical question, I want you to answer it. But again, you probably won't.

I have no idea what the terms of the App Store are so I cannot answer your question.  I would think that with the huge base of Spotify users, that if Apple made their app unavailable for use on the iPhone, that might hurt iPhone sales and piss off millions of people.

Governments around the world are looking at Apple's App Store practices so I guess the answer to your first question is Governments and courts.

You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not about to change yours.  

I agree, we won't change each other's minds. So we can discuss this politely, like decent people.

Whether or not Apple has the right to refuse to let Spotify on their App Store does not depend on what the current terms are for the App Store, as you claimed. We are simply talking about Apple's rights not to do business with other companies. There's no reason you should continue to avoid that question - does Apple have the right to refuse to offer Spotify? Your response was "Apple would anger millions of people." Well, that implies that you agree with me - Apple has the right to refuse to let Spotify on their App Store. Just come out and admit it, clearly. 

davidw

cropr said:

davidw said:

If you wrote a book and sold a hardcover of it in a retail bookstore, the bookstore will take about 50% of your cover price, on each sale. That is the standard practice. You think the 50% the bookstore charges is only to cover their cost of processing the payment? If you want to sell your book to the customers that the bookstore draws into their store (ecosystem), you have to pay the bookstore for that "privilege" of having your book for sale on their shelves.

You think you should be allowed to set up a kiosk inside the bookstore to handle the payment process for bookstore customers that buys your book? Or put a barcode on the cover of your book, that links to your website where the payment can be processed? And once paid for, the bookstore customer is allowed walk out of the store with your book by showing the receipt?  And this would allow you to avoid paying the bookstore their 50% because they did nothing to deserve that 50%?

The fact that the bookstore had nothing to do with the payment process of the sale of your book doesn't means that you are entitled to have your book on their shelves, in order to sell to the customers the bookstore attracts to their store and then pay the bookstore nothing for that "privilege" when a sale in made.  

Get a clue. Apple 15/30% commission is not only for processing the payment. 

The issue with your bookstore story is that it is in incomplete.  You forgot the most important part:  the Apple bookstore is the only one allowed to distribute books for iOS.  So when Spotify wrote its book for iOS, it is forced to the sell it via the Apple iOS bookstore.  It cannot choose another, more competitive, more secure bookstore which better markets the Spotify book (there are rumors that the Apple bookstore marketing  is only good for games and its own books).   Spotify is not even allowed to run its own bookstore.  In other words this  bookstore business leaves a bad smell in the mouth.

BTW the standard commission of a bookstore is between 25% and 35%, not around 50%.

Nope. eBooks can be purchase on Amazon and read on iOS (or Android) with the free Kindle App in the Apple App Store (Google Play). The Apple Bookstore is not the only place to buy eBooks that can be read on iOS. You can use Safari on your iPhone or iPad to buy an eBook for Kindle from Amazon and read it on iOS using the Kindle App.

https://www.imore.com/how-to-purchase-download-kindle-books-iphone-ipad

The Apple Bookstore is the only source to buy iBooks. iBooks are eBooks.

As far as Spotify audible books goes, those are streamed like music. So once you buy an audible book on Spotify from any platform, it's in your Spotify account (much like how a Kindle Book is in your Amazon Kindle account.) and can be listened to using the free Spotify App on iOS.

danox

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

And here you are Spotify/Meta on cue, Spotify and Meta can be website only no app, just like Flash, Torrent’s and Porn….

danox

crowley said:

AppleZulu said:

crowley said:

Not a fan of Apple's rent seeking, but this is the exact same situation with Audible, who therefore ask users to go through the website to make purchases.  No idea why Spotify gets the spotlight or expects any difference in treatment.

Aren't Apple allowing links to website stores now?  Or are they just doing that just in some select jurisdictions? I've lost track of it all.

Apple literally invented the modern App Store paradigm, requiring developers to meet quality, stability and security standards, along with consistent UI standards. They also provide a stable, secure platform on which to run applications. This creates a market of consumers who are ready and willing to download and pay for apps without hesitation, because they don’t have to worry that a new app will crash their device or have compatibility problems, or will surreptitiously load spyware and bloatware onto their device. They also know how to easily and completely delete an app if they don’t want it any longer, and the App Store provides an easy way to cancel any subscriptions, no questions asked. 

Prior to the iOS App Store, online (and offline) app stores were a Wild West that provided none of those benefits. Particularly online, buying apps was a crapshoot. 

Apple literally built an entire new market for software developers that did not exist before and continues to provide a stable, reliable continually improving platform and market that brings paying consumers to those software developers. 

Apple is not “rent seeking.” “Rent seeking” is collecting a cut from a market while providing no added value. Apple is charging rent from developers who are building their wealth on top of Apple’s platform. 

Apple invented the modern platform restricted app store paradigm.  App stores existed before, most notably, and influentially, Steam.

Didn’t Palm, Blackberry, and Nokia have a store? And weren’t they restricted pay up or else?

danox

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go.  First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground.  Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense. 

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then.  It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege".  Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%?  Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly.  Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

I asked you a simple question and you completely avoided it. Are you just saying that Apple should voluntarily change its model, or are you saying the government should pass laws to stop Apple from conducting business the way it wants? As I correctly predicted, you refused to answer that very question.

Apple doesn't have to let Spotify in the App Store at all, does it? This is not a rhetorical question, I want you to answer it. But again, you probably won't.

I have no idea what the terms of the App Store are so I cannot answer your question.  I would think that with the huge base of Spotify users, that if Apple made their app unavailable for use on the iPhone, that might hurt iPhone sales and piss off millions of people.

Governments around the world are looking at Apple's App Store practices so I guess the answer to your first question is Governments and courts.

You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not about to change yours.  

I agree, we won't change each other's minds. So we can discuss this politely, like decent people.

Whether or not Apple has the right to refuse to let Spotify on their App Store does not depend on what the current terms are for the App Store, as you claimed. We are simply talking about Apple's rights not to do business with other companies. There's no reason you should continue to avoid that question - does Apple have the right to refuse to offer Spotify? Your response was "Apple would anger millions of people." Well, that implies that you agree with me - Apple has the right to refuse to let Spotify on their App Store. Just come out and admit it, clearly. 

Adobe Flash was refused and so are Torrent programs along with Porn apps.