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

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 109
    hey spotify, if you don't like it, spend the next 40 years building your own OS and innovating/reiterating on hardware.  otherwise, shut the fuck up and enjoy life until the venture capital dries up.
    londorbaconstangjbdragonbrucemccali
  • Reply 22 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. 
    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. 
    I just read your GM/Ford comment after making my own GM/Ford comment, that's funny.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 23 of 109
    Spotify is just doing this for PR. They have no expectation that Apple will back down. They just want more articles where they're seen as a significant competitor to Apple. When they really aren't. They compete with Apple in one market, and Apple makes money hand over fist, whereas Spotify last I heard was still losing money.
    radarthekatlondorbaconstangjbdragonbrucemccali
  • Reply 24 of 109
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    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. 
    The Commission has no business here. Apple is not even the market leader in any EU country, and certainly miles away from a monopoly or a market leading position. MS still has 90%+ of the desktop market – iOS market share isn't even 20% in Europe.

    Before they target Apple, they have to target Google (which owns the market and finances it through another monopoly in online ads), they have to target Amazon (they don't even sell you competing products and certainly do not advertise anything else but Prime on their site, despite being the only relevant online retailer). As long as nothing happens to them, nothing will happen to Apple.
    radarthekatlondorbaconstanghlee1169jbdragonbrucemccali
  • Reply 25 of 109
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    This worked for Amazon.
    dasanman69
  • Reply 26 of 109
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    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. 
    And maybe Coca Cola should start advertising Pepsi to give them a fair advantage.

    ....are you stupid?

    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.
    Strange. Spotify comes up 5th but it may be because I have downloaded it previously.

    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.
    And McDonalds should place their drive-thru across the street(next to Butger King) to make it harder for customers to use their services.


    radarthekatlondor
  • Reply 27 of 109
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,369member
    One thing that Spotify is forgetting...

    Apple was already a major player in the music selling business.  They entered that market to compete against Apple and Amazon, etc.  They entered on the tools and rules of the company they were competing against.  Now that there's more direct competition, they are getting cranky.

    It's dumb for Spotify to not have seen this coming. Apple was selling content on iTunes. They obviously would head towards streaming if and when the market moved in that direction. So Spotify chose to compete with Apple, not the other way around.  They tried to go cheap through a subscription model and they (and others) changed the business.  They made Apple a direct competitor and are now crying foul.

    Really?

    Sounds like Apple legal is saying "shut up or we will kick you off the App Store altogether".  Good!  I never understood how they could charge $13 to use in-app subscription and $10 outside of the app.  That's against the app guidelines too.  Seems like Apple was being nice, but now that they are disparaging Apple, the gloves are about to come off.  Should be fun to watch.
    edited July 2016 londorTurboPGTbaconstangradarthekatpscooter63jbdragonbrucemcicoco3
  • Reply 28 of 109
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    cali said:
    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. 
    And maybe Coca Cola should start advertising Pepsi to give them a fair advantage.

    ....are you stupid?

    Strange. Spotify comes up 5th but it may be because I have downloaded it previously.

    And McDonalds should place their drive-thru across the street(next to Butger King) to make it harder for customers to use their services.


    Well I know a number of people who wish Apple had left the Music app alone rather than turning it into a subscription music app. And of course one could argue that all these pre-installed unremoveacle apps are just bloatware (except of course those who believe bloatware can only be on Android).
    dasanman69singularity
  • Reply 29 of 109
    supadav03supadav03 Posts: 503member
    cali said:
    And maybe Coca Cola should start advertising Pepsi to give them a fair advantage.

    ....are you stupid?

    Strange. Spotify comes up 5th but it may be because I have downloaded it previously.

    And McDonalds should place their drive-thru across the street(next to Butger King) to make it harder for customers to use their services.


    Well I know a number of people who wish Apple had left the Music app alone rather than turning it into a subscription music app. And of course one could argue that all these pre-installed unremoveacle apps are just bloatware (except of course those who believe bloatware can only be on Android).
    Bloatware...all 150 Mbs if it?
    londorai46radarthekatdasanman69jbdragonbrucemcicoco3Rayz2016
  • Reply 30 of 109
    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?
    For an ongoing subscription (one year +), 15% sounds about right, 30% sounds high. A one time fee of $1.50 (at the new upcoming 15% rate) is rather low when a long time customer might be spending hundreds of dollars. And at the same time, if a customer should establish an account directly with Spotifys site, and just use the app downloaded at the AppStore to log in to that account, Apple would get bupkis.
    londordasanman69brucemc
  • Reply 31 of 109


     .... 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. 
    And if Spotify Candy Company can differentiate its candy, make it somehow more awesome, then some of the clientele of this particular chain, who apparently likes all manner of candy, will probably be quite interested. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 32 of 109
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,485member
    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.

    Chuck Norris does that. And he gets one.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Good on Apple for calling out Spotify. By not telling anyone why their App was rejected (and mentioning competition with Apple Music) they were trying to deceive people to make it look like Apple was treating Spotify unfairly to help Apple Music. In reality Spotify KNOWINGLY submitted an App that went against App Store rules. And tried to shift the blame to Apple when it was rejected (as they full well knew it would be).
    londorbaconstangradarthekatjbdragonbrucemcicoco3
  • Reply 33 of 109
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,069member
    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. 
    You're delusional. 
    baconstanglondortallest skilradarthekatjbdragonbrucemc
  • Reply 34 of 109
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    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?
    For an ongoing subscription (one year +), 15% sounds about right, 30% sounds high. A one time fee of $1.50 (at the new upcoming 15% rate) is rather low when a long time customer might be spending hundreds of dollars. And at the same time, if a customer should establish an account directly with Spotifys site, and just use the app downloaded at the AppStore to log in to that account, Apple would get bupkis.
    Companies like Netflix, Spotify, etc don't need Apple to facilitate subscription payments. Apple should make it easy for customers to pay what the services actually cost, by making it easy to sign up with the actual providers of the services. This should be the default, because an iOS device is no different than a TV, BD player, or other device on which the apps are installed. These other manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge a ridiculous tax.

    Now, for customers who actually want to manage their subscriptions through Apple, a small fee would be appropriate. I'd put it somewhere between Apply Pay levels and 1% at the very most for companies that have their own payment processing. Something higher would be appropriate for a developer who doesn't want to process his own payments.

    dasanman69
  • Reply 35 of 109
    creek0512creek0512 Posts: 111member
    jonl said:
    For an ongoing subscription (one year +), 15% sounds about right, 30% sounds high. A one time fee of $1.50 (at the new upcoming 15% rate) is rather low when a long time customer might be spending hundreds of dollars. And at the same time, if a customer should establish an account directly with Spotifys site, and just use the app downloaded at the AppStore to log in to that account, Apple would get bupkis.
    Companies like Netflix, Spotify, etc don't need Apple to facilitate subscription payments. Apple should make it easy for customers to pay what the services actually cost, by making it easy to sign up with the actual providers of the services. This should be the default, because an iOS device is no different than a TV, BD player, or other device on which the apps are installed. These other manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge a ridiculous tax.

    Now, for customers who actually want to manage their subscriptions through Apple, a small fee would be appropriate. I'd put it somewhere between Apply Pay levels and 1% at the very most for companies that have their own payment processing. Something higher would be appropriate for a developer who doesn't want to process his own payments.

    It is easy to sign up with Netflix, Spotify, whatever outside of their iOS app.  Apple's argument is that if a customer discovers that app and service through the App Store then Apple has helped facilitate that sale, and they get a cut.  What Apple doesn't allow, is a company to put a product on it's shelves with a label telling the customer to buy the product somewhere else, "Don't but it here, buy it direct from us."  No store in the world allows that.
    londorbb-15baconstangradarthekathlee1169jkichlinedasanman69jbdragonbrucemcfoad
  • Reply 36 of 109
    VisualSeedVisualSeed Posts: 217member
    jonl said:
    For an ongoing subscription (one year +), 15% sounds about right, 30% sounds high. A one time fee of $1.50 (at the new upcoming 15% rate) is rather low when a long time customer might be spending hundreds of dollars. And at the same time, if a customer should establish an account directly with Spotifys site, and just use the app downloaded at the AppStore to log in to that account, Apple would get bupkis.
    Companies like Netflix, Spotify, etc don't need Apple to facilitate subscription payments. Apple should make it easy for customers to pay what the services actually cost, by making it easy to sign up with the actual providers of the services. This should be the default, because an iOS device is no different than a TV, BD player, or other device on which the apps are installed. These other manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge a ridiculous tax.

    Now, for customers who actually want to manage their subscriptions through Apple, a small fee would be appropriate. I'd put it somewhere between Apply Pay levels and 1% at the very most for companies that have their own payment processing. Something higher would be appropriate for a developer who doesn't want to process his own payments.

    Try telling your cable provider that you want to pay HBO or Showtime directly for your subscription and see how that works for you. You can put any app or content on your iPhone that you wish (just like your TV) but you have to figure out how. If you want it to come from the Apple Store you have to play by Apple's rules. 
    baconstangradarthekathlee1169jbdragonbrucemc
  • Reply 37 of 109
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 283member
    sflocal said:
    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.
    I pretty much stopped reading MacRummors months ago because of the large number of Apple haters who troll that site.
    Trying to find reasonable comments in a sea of nonsense was no longer worth my time.
    So, Apple Insider has become my main web source for Apple news.

    As for the issue in the article; there is a 30% charge for App Store transactions. That has been a well known rule for a long time.
    Don't like it? Try your luck with Android or Windows.
    edited July 2016 baconstangtallest skilradarthekatjbdragonstompybrucemcpscooter63
  • Reply 38 of 109
    jonljonl Posts: 210member
    creek0512 said:
    jonl said:
    Companies like Netflix, Spotify, etc don't need Apple to facilitate subscription payments. Apple should make it easy for customers to pay what the services actually cost, by making it easy to sign up with the actual providers of the services. This should be the default, because an iOS device is no different than a TV, BD player, or other device on which the apps are installed. These other manufacturers don't have the gall to try to charge a ridiculous tax.

    Now, for customers who actually want to manage their subscriptions through Apple, a small fee would be appropriate. I'd put it somewhere between Apply Pay levels and 1% at the very most for companies that have their own payment processing. Something higher would be appropriate for a developer who doesn't want to process his own payments.

    It is easy to sign up with Netflix, Spotify, whatever outside of their iOS app.  Apple's argument is that if a customer discovers that app and service through the App Store then Apple has helped facilitate that sale, and they get a cut.  What Apple doesn't allow, is a company to put a product on it's shelves with a label telling the customer to buy the product somewhere else, "Don't but it here, buy it direct from us."  No store in the world allows that.
    If that's Apple's argument, it deserves exactly the respect Spotify has shown it. Spotify has put out a sort of PSA, and I hope it educated a lot of people who Apple might otherwise have tricked into paying an exorbitant recurring tax to Apple. In fact, it did educate CNBC anchor Brian Sullivan, who stated at 2:44 EDT today that "he was one of the idiots who subscribed to Spotify through iTunes, and he's got to go back and fix that." Good for him!
    lordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 39 of 109
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    That's odd.  I'd have thought you'd love them as they're Drumpf Orange.
    I genuinely fear that some people will commit suicide on Election Day. I won’t say why.
    baconstangdasanman69
  • Reply 40 of 109
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Please don't.
    dasanman69
Sign In or Register to comment.