Mr Gutierrez has publicly accused Apple of using the approval process for its App Store as a ‘weapon to harm competitors’ after the company twice declined to approve Spotify’s attempts to update its own iOS app. According to an opinion made public at the end of last week by Mr Gutierrez, Apple’s failure to pass on the updates ‘diminishes the competitiveness of Spotify on iOS and as a rival to Apple Music’, potentially raising ‘serious concerns’ under US and EU competition laws. A third-party service on the iPhone and iPad devices, Spotify currently boasts around twice as many subscribers as homegrown music service Apple Music.
Sidestepping Apple’s cut
The update in question asks users to provide an email address to receive direct communications from Spotify, making it easier for users to subscribe to Spotify’s premium service through the company’s own website rather than through Apple’s in-app subscription function, which carries a fee for Apple. Previously, a $12.99 subscription to Spotify Premium through the in-app function cost $3.00 more than signing up through Spotify’s website in order to cover Apple’s cut of the subscription cost. Mr Gutierrez’s allegations of anticompetitive behaviour by Apple were amplified in a speech given last week by Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren: ‘There’s something wrong when Apple makes more money off a Spotify subscription than it does off an Apple Music subscription, and doesn’t share that with the music industry,’ she said. ‘They want to have their cake and eat everyone else’s too.’
‘Our guidelines help competition, not hurt it’
However, Apple’s own general counsel Bruce Sewell has maintained that the company’s decision to reject Spotify’s proposed update is entirely above board. The proposed update (and a later amendment) both allegedly violate rule 3.1.1 of Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines, which prohibits apps from including links or text that invite users to subscribe to services through sites other than Apple’s own in-app platform. Spotify’s proposed update, Apple argues, is ‘clearly intended to circumvent Apple’s in-app purchase rules.’ Mr Sewell’s reply to Mr Gutierrez expresses ‘disappointment’ that Spotify has chosen to thrust its complaint into the public arena: ‘We find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers and are publicly resorting to rumours and half-truths about our service,’ he wrote. ‘To imply that Spotify should not have to pay to avail itself of the benefits of Apple’s hard work, just as every other developer does, would give you a tremendous advantage over other developers.’
Sources: Corporate Counsel; Ars Technica
Email your news and story ideas to: [email protected]
