EU to Investigate Apple Over Spotify's Antitrust Complaint

Spotify is definitely sounding greedy here, how dare they be held to the same standard as other app makers.

May be because other app makers don’t face a first party competition from Apple

I hope Spotify win! The lengths Apple goes to, to avoid Spotify collecting 100% of their profits is disgusting. I’m glad 100% of my money goes to them, instead of just 70%.

I hope Spotify win! The lengths Apple goes to, to avoid Spotify collecting 100% of their profits is disgusting. I’m glad 100% of my money goes to them, instead of just 70%.

I think you have been out in the Aussie sun a little too long my friend! Do you think, when you walk into a supermarket and see "brand name" products there, that the brands get 100% of the price charged? Of course not, the "retailer" makes a profit because they have invested heavily in infrastructure and building up a customer base which the brand benefits from in exchange for giving the retailer a profit...basic economics...

Now, in terms of Spotify (the "brand name") not being able to compete with Apple (the supermarket "own brand" products) on price...again this is nothing new! Here in the UK you often see a supermarket's "own brand" versions of "brand name" products on sale right alongside, and usually significantly cheaper as well. Those that by the "brand name" do so because they feel it is a better product or because of customer loyalty.

In the Spotify/Apple scenario, Spotify wants to not pay anything to the "retailer" (Apple/iOS App Store) for all of the infrastructure they have developed and the inherent costs (however small they may be) of hosting and fulfilling the downloads, let alone the costs associated with actual payment processing if the monthly subscription is billed through the App Store. They then cite it as anti-competitive behaviour which is just ludicrous! So if Apple decides to price Apple Music at $4.99 per month will Spotify then demand $5 per month per user from Apple because it's "uncompetitive" for Apple to offer a similar product at a cheaper price? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But how is that different from exactly what they are proposing now?

Spotify are completely at liberty to price their product/service however they choose, and equally Apple, as a retailer, is completely at liberty to set their own "mark up" on third-party products that they sell on their own store. I would understand the anti-competitive narrative if Apple routinely charged 10% but were charging direct competitors 30%...but that's not what is happening. All apps on the App Store are subject to the same T&C's. Basically, Spotify want all of the benefits of the App Store and the Apple platform but don't want to pay for the privilege of being "stocked" at the App Store.

Not being on the App Store doesn't mean that they can't sell subscriptions. They routinely sell them on their website in fact. But it seems like they want access to all of the Apple customers but don't want to pay for it! Apple has invested billions of dollars in R&D and marketing over the last decade to build its iOS platform into what it is today with the huge user-base that it has. Spotify seems to feel entitled to have access to those customers for free just because Apple creates a competing product. Spotify could just leave the price at $9.99 in the App Store and accept that 30% as a cost of doing business in the same way that most B2C companies have "cost of sale" considerations.

Look at it this way, if they didn't have their app on the App Store and no way for iPhone users to use Spotify on their phone then some percentage of those iPhone users would still subscribe to Spotify (for laptop/browser use) but a good number wouldn't. Let's then say that they put their app on the App Store (at $9.99 per month) and they then pick up an additional 10 million subscribers that they didn't have before. Their revenue will now be $70 million per month more versus not having a presence on the App Store. I would consider that worthwhile but no, they won't be happy with $70 million...they want the whole $100 million because it's "unfair" that Apple can make more money than they do...even though Apple invested huge amounts of money in the tech and the platform...

Do you know what Spotify does? Can you even imagine the amount of data that goes through their servers? Hosting the app is really the least service they'd need.
Their position is that they shouldn't be forced to pay $36/year per subscription when their competitor pays $0 because it controls the platform.

Apple should just allow Spotify to put in the "Subscribe" button that linked out to Spotify.com page so consumers can choose whether they want to pay Spotify directly or not.

No need for bloodshed like this. No need for the 30% cut since the purchase system is handled directly by Spotify.

This is fair and square since Apple Music also put in the giant "Try It Free" button inside the Music app that redirects to AppStore subscription page.

Three post and no "It's their store then can do what they want" yet, may be there's hope...

Spotify is definitely sounding greedy here, how dare they be held to the same standard as other app makers.

Right, not paying 30% for nothing is now considered greedy. Are you a greedy person? I'll be glad to send you my bank details so you can put your money where your mouth is.

Maybe Spotify should just take their business elsewhere.

Apple should just allow Spotify to put in the "Subscribe" button that linked out to Spotify.com page so consumers can choose whether they want to pay Spotify directly or not.

No need for bloodshed like this. No need for the 30% cut since the purchase system is handled directly by Spotify.

This is fair and square since Apple Music also put in the giant "Try It Free" button inside the Music app that redirects to AppStore subscription page.

Finally someone who understands the ACTUAL problem. The problem isn’t Apple charging some fees for their service (in app purchases), the problem is that Apple FORCES DEVELOPERS TO USE IN APP PURCHASES. Their guidelines forbid developers from even LINKING to an webpage that has payment in it. Me as a developer can’t put a button linking to an online subscription page. Netflix can’t put a link, Spotify can’t put a link, no developer can put a link.

More than half of Spotify’s users are unpaid—100 million paid vs 117 million unpaid. Apple hosts all of the iOS downloads from the free users as well as all the users who pay Spotify direct for free. I haven’t really been following that closely; is it Spotify’s position that even the subscribers being billed through the App Store should be free as well?

Do you know what Spotify does? Can you even imagine the amount of data that goes through their servers? Hosting the app is really the least service they'd need.
Their position is that they shouldn't be forced to pay $36/year per subscription when their competitor pays $0 because it controls the platform.

Are you saying sales on the App Store should be free? Apple deserves nothing? Would that apply to all vendors, or just Spotify?

Apple already earns $100 each year from developers, I think that's more than enough to keep their cloud running looking at how many developers there are.