EU Pricing Information in Spotify App
Jess Weatherbed (MacRumors, Slashdot):
Spotify will begin showing in-app pricing information for iPhone users in the European Union starting today, following a yearslong legal battle against Apple. In an update to an old blog post, Spotify says that EU iPhone users will now see things like promotional offers and pricing information for each subscription tier — including how much a plan costs once a promotion ends.
One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement” that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2 billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week.
After being fined $2 billion by the EU for preventing Spotify from telling people they can subscribe on its website, it still took Apple four months to approve their app with those changes and they still can’t link to their website.
Apple has elevated rent seeking to a high art.
For anyone who isn’t paying close attention to these arguments over Apple’s draconian anti-steering terms for apps, it is surely very surprising that it took years of legal wrangling and a $2 billion fine (which, it should be noted, Apple hasn’t yet paid, and which quite possibly will be reduced or thrown out upon appeal) just to allow Spotify to present this information to users. Just to tell them the price and tell them they need to go to Spotify’s website to sign up.
These anti-steering provisions are indefensible. They make Apple look bad in the court of public opinion, and they look even worse in actual courts of law.
Previously:
- Wrong About the App Store
- DMA Compliance: Initial Acquisition and Store Services Fees
- Spotify Anti-Steering Stonewalling
- EU Fines Apple $2 Billion Over Anti-Steering Rules
6 Comments RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
Nice little niche I have here. I don’t pay anything to get access to millions of listeners, don’t pay anything to distribute my software to those millions, I also don’t pay much for my music because I’m the worst payer of the streaming bunch (and I can game the hours-listened via podcasts so I pay even less) I don’t have hi-bitrate music, and now I can advertise and point people to my website to pay me. Not a bad life. I’m still gonna complain though.
"access to millions" == I provide a service to millions
"don't pay anything to distribute" == I'm not allowed to distribute my own stuff, I do foot the much larger servervbills for the music streams though.
"I'm the worst player" == Pot kettle black
"Now I can advertise and point" == if you see that as something bad... there is no hope
> I don’t pay anything to get access to millions of listeners, don’t pay anything to distribute my software to those millions
Couldn't you say the same about apps that provide physical goods or services (e.g. Amazon, AirBnB, Uber)? They are allowed to have in-app billing but don't pay Apple a 30% cut.
I understand the difficulties that woud come with Apple charging a cut there (refunds/support/etc), just for me it ruins the argument that the 30% cut is for access+distribution if they can give this away for free for some businesses but not others.
Apple defenders in this argument love to hate on Spotify. They emphasize how (allegedly) bad Spotify's business practices are. The subtle difference is, that as a consumer, you have a choice among many streaming services. There is no way a user can opt out of Apple's and Googles rules.
"I don’t pay anything to get access to millions of listeners"
You can't possibly be serious. Apple doesn't provide access to anyone, they PREVENT access.
> I don’t pay anything to get access to millions of listeners, don’t pay anything to distribute my software to those millions. [...] , and now I can advertise and point people to my website to pay me. Not a bad life. I’m still gonna complain though.
Apple wasn't getting paid for Spotify subscriptions anyway...BUT they prevent them from telling users to subscribe on the web. You don't think that's just anti-competitive and spiteful? Is there anything Apple can do that warrants criticism, ever?
@Stu
> Couldn't you say the same about apps that provide physical goods or services (e.g. Amazon, AirBnB, Uber)? They are allowed to have in-app billing but don't pay Apple a 30% cut.
> I understand the difficulties that woud come with Apple charging a cut there (refunds/support/etc), just for me it ruins the argument that the 30% cut is for access+distribution if they can give this away for free for some businesses but not others.
They would if they could but they can't. If Amazon was required to pay 30% on all sales they would not have an iOS app (or it would drive the cost of goods up so much nobody would use it). Same with Uber. There is no room for profit at that point. Plus Apple doesn't compete with Amazon.com, Ebay and Uber directly. People would not be happy if these apps weren't on iOS. Millions of people would leave for Android and Apple knows this.
