Spotify to Apple: Time to Play Fair - <AUTHOR> https://www.timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ <comment> 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.

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> 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)

<comment><USER5> > 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?

<comment><USER6> I believe there's an exception for physical goods, so Amazon is ok but not Kindle, audible etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 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).

<comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER9> 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.

<comment><USER10> I've never actually owned one, but did the iphone ever allow users to install arbitrary apps (without jailbreaking, of course)?

<comment><USER11> No it did not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 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.

<comment><USER13> > 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.

<comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER15> If I remember correctly the app wasn't on the app store (presumably because it couldn't get approved)

<comment><USER16> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 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.

<comment><USER18> 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...

<comment><USER19> 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!).

<comment><USER20> 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.

<comment><USER9> 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.

<comment><USER21> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 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?

<comment><USER23> 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.

<comment><USER24> 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.

<comment><USER25> Also that was the 90s. Way more corporate money runs in the govt now so things like this are unlikely to ever happen.

<comment><USER26> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 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.

<comment><USER28> >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.

<comment><USER29> > 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..

<comment><USER30> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> 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.

</comment><comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER33> 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.

<comment><USER32> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> 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.

<comment><USER35> Didn't Elizabeth Warren say Apple shouldn't distribute its own apps in the App Store? Apple Music isn't in the App Store…

<comment><USER36> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> 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.

<comment><USER38> 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?

<comment><USER39> 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.

<comment><USER40> 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!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 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.

<comment><USER42> Sometimes I think so too. And then I look at the alternative ecosystems. Google? Amazon? Microsoft? Not even tempted...

<comment><USER43> 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.

<comment><USER42> I support friends & family with mixed ecosystems. Nothing ever works right. Maybe they just made unlucky choices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> 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.

<comment><USER45> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER36> > _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.

<comment><USER47> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> 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.

<comment><USER22> 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.

<comment><USER49> > 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.

<comment><USER22> Can you elaborate on why I am mistaken?

<comment><USER49> 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.

<comment><USER22> 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

<comment><USER50> You can just look at the case history.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> 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.

<comment><AUTHOR> > 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.

<comment><USER52> 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.

<comment><USER53> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> 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).

<comment><USER55> 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.

<comment><USER54> I'd say 40% of my iPad Pro use is for reading (Kindle/Google Books) or using Comixcology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> 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.

</comment><comment><USER57> 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/)

<comment><USER58> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> 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).

<comment><USER60> 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).

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> 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?

<comment><USER62> 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.

<comment><USER61> > 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.)

<comment><USER62> > 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.

<comment><USER63> > 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.

<comment><USER64> Apple is not dominant in the hardware market in the same way IE was. Nowhere near.

<comment><USER65> 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.

<comment><USER64> 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.

<comment><USER61> 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…

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> 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.

<comment><USER67> Which streaming service plays the most fair?

<comment><USER68> 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/)

<comment><USER67> 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?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Pretty annoying as an Apple Watch user to find out only Apple Music is allowed to store music on the device itself.

<comment><USER70> 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?

<comment><USER31> See [https://marco.org/2017/09/24/what-watch-podcast-apps- need](https://marco.org/2017/09/24/what-watch-podcast-apps-need).

<comment><USER71> 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).

<comment><USER31> 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.

<comment><USER71> > 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/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> 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.

<comment><USER73> I would totally buy this fear if iOS was anywhere close to the marketshare that Windows was back in the 90s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> 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.

<comment><USER75> > 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.

<comment><USER74> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> 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% - <USER2> 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.

<comment><USER77> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> 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.

</comment><comment><USER78> 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".

</comment><comment><USER79> 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

<comment><USER80> 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)

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> 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.

</comment><comment><USER82> 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.

<comment><USER83> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> 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.

</comment><comment><USER85> 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.

</comment><comment><USER86> Slightly off-topic: I find it intriguing that Spotify keeps on calling their users as 'fans' instead of users or customers!

<comment><USER87> Slimy and disingenuous corporate PR speak is everywhere. They probably have something equally repulsive for their employees.

<comment><USER88> Why the hate? Many communities have nicknames for the users. HNers, redditors, slashdotters, imgurians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER89> > 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.

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER89> 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.

<comment><USER3> 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)

<comment><USER89> 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.

<comment><USER3> >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.

<comment><USER89> > 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'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> 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_\(antitrust_law\))

</comment><comment><USER91> 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.

</comment><comment><USER92> 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)

</comment><comment><USER93> 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..

</comment><comment><USER36> 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.

</comment><comment><USER94> 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.

<comment><USER95> 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

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> 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.

<comment><USER97> 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)

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> 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.

</comment><comment><USER99> 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.

</comment><comment><USER100> 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.

<comment><USER95> 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

<comment><USER100> > 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.

<comment><USER95> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> 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.

</comment><comment><USER102> 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.

</comment><comment><USER103> 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.

</comment><comment><USER104> 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.

</comment><comment><USER105> 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.

</comment><comment><USER106> 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.

</comment><comment><USER107> 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.

</comment><comment><USER108> > 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.

</comment><comment><USER109> 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.

<comment><USER110> 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?

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> That's actually the reason why I don't by a HomePod

<comment><USER112> 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.

<comment><USER36> 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.

<comment><USER112> As a speaker you can't connect to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> 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.

</comment><comment><USER114> 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.

</comment><comment><USER115> As Apple hardware sales decline they are desperately trying to build other services to make up for that lost revenue.

</comment><comment><USER116> > 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?

</comment><comment><USER117> 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.

</comment><comment><USER118> 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)

</comment><comment><USER119> 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.

<comment><USER54> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> 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.

</comment><comment><USER121> 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.

</comment><comment><USER122> 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)

</comment><comment><USER123> [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.

</comment><comment><USER124> Funny that Spotify fails to mention that, for app subscriptions, after a year Apple's cut drops to 15%.

</comment><comment><USER125> 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.

</comment><comment><USER126> 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)

</comment><comment><USER127> 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.

</comment><comment><USER128> > 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 ...

</comment><comment><USER129> 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.

</comment><comment><USER130> 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]

</comment><comment><USER131> 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.

</comment><comment><USER132> Not sure why Apple didn't get hit with an anti-trust lawsuit yet. Spotify is correct.

</comment><comment><USER133> 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.

</comment><comment><USER134> What if Spotify takes your phone number and sends you a text link to sign up to pay?

<comment><USER135> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> 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.

<comment><USER135> 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)

</comment></comment><comment><USER137> 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.

</comment><comment><USER138> 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.

<comment><USER139> >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.

<comment><USER138> Is this in their ToS or is this just hearsay?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER140> They also posted a Video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=&v=l8SShgWqJvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=&v=l8SShgWqJvg)

</comment><comment><USER141> 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.

</comment><comment><USER142> 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.

</comment><comment><USER143> 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.

</comment><comment><USER144> 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.

</comment><comment><USER145> 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...

</comment><comment><USER146> 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.

</comment><comment><USER147> 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.

</comment><comment><USER148> 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.

</comment><comment><USER149> Meanwhile, Spotify is still a rip-off for artists [http://www.timetoplayfair.art](http://www.timetoplayfair.art)

</comment><comment><USER150> 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.

</comment><comment><USER151> Asking the European commission to impose regulations is morally worse than taking advantage of your market position and consumers' ignorance.

<comment><USER152> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER153> 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...

</comment><comment><USER154> 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?

</comment><comment><USER155> Apple seem completely unreasonable behind the scenes. As an iPhone fan boy it really puts me off. Do google do similar things I wonder?

</comment><comment><USER156> 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?

</comment><comment><USER157> This will keep happening until Apple does what it should have done all along: give users control by allowing them to sideload apps.

</comment><comment><USER158> 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.

</comment><comment><USER128> 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.

</comment><comment><USER159> 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.

</comment><comment><USER160> Nice title given Apple's FairPlay DRM.

</comment><comment><USER161> 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.

</comment><comment><USER162> Side note but talking about their users/customers as "our fans" is super strange.

</comment><comment><USER163> Unpopular opinion: I will never go back to the Apple ecosystem. I like my freedom way too much.

<comment><USER43> Why unpopular? It's a rational decision. Diversity vs centralization.

<comment><USER164> diversity vs privacy. iOS is still much more secure and has much more protection for the typical user than android.

<comment><USER43> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER165> ...unfair as Apple's rates may or may not be, it's a bit rich coming from Spotify.

</comment><comment><USER166> Imagine if the entire web were subject to the arbitrary will of an individual corporation.

</comment><comment><USER167> Artists to Spotify: _cough_

</comment><comment><USER168> Upvote the fuck out of this.

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

<comment><USER8> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER169> _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.

</comment><comment><USER169> I like how Spotify uses the word _fans_ in place of _customers_.

Nice marketing.

</comment><comment><USER170> I forgot my Apple Music membership was active, I just canceled it.

</comment><comment><USER171> You had me, until the point where you turned off libspotify.

</comment><comment><USER172> Is Netflix next? March 25th is right around the corner...

<comment><USER173> 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/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER174> 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.

</comment><comment><USER175> A more honest title would be - Spotify to Regulator: Please force Apple to be fair™

</comment><comment><USER176> Apple needs to be broken up. Warren go it right.

</comment><comment><USER177> About time.

</comment><comment><USER178> 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.

</comment><comment><USER108> 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".

</comment><comment><USER179> 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)

<comment><USER180> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER181> 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.

</comment><comment><USER182> 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.

</comment><comment><USER182> 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.

<comment><USER183> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER184> Knowing how crap Spotify app is (an Electron monstrocity on the desktop) that's for the best.

<comment><USER185> except its not electron and it doesnt hog half as much as itunes

<comment><USER186> 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.</comment></comment></comment>