The Apple press release response is here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/03/the-app-store-spotify...
> Spotify Pays Apple Nothing
This sound like a child not getting their ice-cream. Why does Apple feel entitled to get anything from Spotify? There has never been any precedence that application developers owe the platform they publish their applications on anything.
Also, Spotify never asked for an app store. They have been imposed an app store. And now Apple feel entitled to payment for that service? You have to be a government to set taxes.
Same with Java games when they became popular. The hardest part was getting them onto your phone. You either used a data cable, or had GPRS set up in "internet" mode (as opposed to "wap"), or someone else shared them with you via IR port or Bluetooth.
Yes, there were paid ringtones/images/games, or course. But carriers themselves never sold them. It was third-party companies. A ringtone usually was $1.
Carrier-locked phones never really caught on in my country. It always worked such that you bought a phone for the full price and provided your own sim card. Some carriers tried the US model early on as an option, but people just weren't having it.
There you'll also find another case where Sega lost in court against similar reverse engineering done by Accolade to run their games on the Genesis without a license from Sega: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
E.g. sell games but use no Xbox services on Xbox.
I wonder if the DMA will bring Steam to consoles.
We don't want your landlord to get a cut of every thing you buy in their apartment. We don't want them to get a cut of every service you order. We dont't want them to get a cut of every single thing you buy while living in that apartment.
We don't want those things for digital landlords either just because they deigned to put together some eletronics they were already paid for.
Primary value is created by game developers, app developers and other people building things on top of those platforms.
You might instead choose a open field, or under a bridge, which would require no rent payment.
Regardless, open fields and under bridges in, e.g., San Francisco are lousy places to live. Without the improvements, you do not have a home.
So most people choose to pay for the "places" with improvements.
The primary value of a property is therefore not the place.
Location is sometimes the most significant variable in the value of a property. But that is not the same thing.
The tradition I look into when downloading Spotify is WinAMP, VLC, FileZilla and the like.
There's a Spotify app for both Xbox and Playstation for goodness sake.
Apple has argued they do not sell a piece of hardware, but a platform. It includes hardware, software, and a marketplace (like a video game console like others have said). Apple will also say that they have cultivated the platform to have the most affluent users (like a console again). This shows up in the stats. Even with iOS having a minority marketshare in the EU, all developers want to be on it because that is where the money is. What is access to a market and platform like that worth? Apple thinks 15%-30%.
Yes, it has been symbiotic between Apple and devs, but Apple has done something that differentiated it from Android wrt the type of user. Otherwise, all the devs could have left and Apple would have been forced to change long ago.
Can this even be quantifiably measured? Usually when selling something you describe, itemize and bill for it.
The Apple developer agreement offers the developer tools and access to Apple's App Store and related services. The dev's argument is that Apple is forcing them to enter into that contract to distribute apps to iOS users even when they explicitly wish to opt out of using Apple's developer tools and services.
Apple thinks it's worth 15%-30%. While app developers may complain, most still stay on the platform.
Or are you talking about how much the market is worth?
A new analysis has shown that iPhone users spend seven times more on apps than Android users, far higher than the 4x rule of thumb suggested by purely anecdotal data.
> Apple has argued they do not sell a piece of hardware, but a platform.
This is exactly where the EU goes in and say that responsibilities follow when you sell a platform and you need to act responsibly in the market - Apple just acts up instead of accepting that they did not behave correctly, like a child.
The EU has even specified what it means to act reasonably in the market through DMA.
Their infographic explains it nicely: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/image/conten...
We might see legislation against Spotify someday, but it would have to be drastically different to account for Spotify's own unique damages. Plus, compared to Apple's impact on the market at-large, they're literal magnitudes smaller.
So in summary, in 2021: - Number of Nintendos sold in EU: Over 7.1 million game consoles were sold total, and Nintendo Switch was the best-selling console. - Number of iPhones sold in EU: Around 56 million iPhones.
Another commenter mentioned in another discussion something that is very much applicable here:
I'm under impression that Americans freak out because they tend to go full technical on laws, that is, they don't care much what the governments are trying to achieve with the laws but work within the limits of strict technicality. So a lot of Americans were freaking out here on HN when GDPR was introduced, some shutting down personal projects because were afraid to get in trouble with the EU laws and find themselves in huge and expensive lawsuits.This was merely a commentary on why it might be that we haven't seen any reactions to Nintendo's way of doing business but do see actions on Apple.
The truth is that we might very well see actions towards Nintendo when the dust has settled.
And don't tell me that the US doesn't try laws on some cases in order to copy/paste results to similar cases.
That said, yes. The EU is first and foremost not a country. It is a union that spans several countries with different legal frameworks and traditions. So of cause writing and interpreting laws is different. That should not be too difficult to understand.
Also not difficult to understand Brexit.
Please enlighten me. My own perception is that most brits do regret leaving the EU, which data supports:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-po...
JFC, they really need to fix their PR team here.
> Today, Spotify has a 56 percent share of Europe’s music streaming market — more than double their closest competitor’s — and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognizable brands in the world.
Don't they have to pay the provision of the subscription like other apps?
EDIT: actually read the letter and they indeed don't (thanks for the responses too)
If an app is charging users $1000 a month, what entitles Apple to $300 of that versus the $3 of a $10 subscription? It seems like more of a tax than a fee that allows Apple to profitably operate the store and infrastructure.
Nothing? Not even the developers fees?
C'mon Apple
And they shouldn't have to, users should be able to install whatever software they want on their devices without paying a gatekeeper for it. Spotify exists on the web as well, they don't have to pay Google or Mozilla for delivering the service to their users. They don't have to pay Microsoft when users downloads and installs desktop software for windows. So why should Apple get any money because users install Spotify on their iphones? I'm sure Spotify pays Google for their cloud services that actually helps make them successful.
Spotify has a secret deal with Google:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-...
I think everyone knows how that would go for them in a competitive market.
I'm pretty sure Apple did nothing for that, Spotify's own marketing did. It's not like people discover that Spotify is a thing thanks to the app store.