These last few legal responses from Apple are really damaging their "cool" factor. Apple has, for some time now, succeeded by staying quiet and just shipping high quality stuff.<p>Their PR / legal team acting like children when they don't get what they want is a genuine harm to their brand. It's amazing to me that these press releases are approved.
>and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognizable brands in the world.<p>It says a lot that the €100 developer fee (I'd imagine Spotify pay for multiple licences in multiple countries) that Apple consider it nothing. It probably is 'negligible' given the size of Spotify but also don't even consider highly popular apps like Spotify 'contributing' to App Store ecosystem that has also helped Apple.<p>Their press statements are starting to become more and more snarky. They would do better to keep their chin up and keep going. This sort of snark is more befitting of Ryanair than Apple.
Entire press release sounds like Spotify is some biggest company and Apple is a startup being crushed by Spotify.<p>Apple's attitude towards developers complaining about App Store was largely "Deal with it" but seems like they themselves can't deal with it.
Apple fights hard to not allow users to install from other sources on devices they own, so they can charge rent from developers, then complains when some apps that are too big for them to control are installed from the sole app store.<p>The solution is pretty simple, let people use the devices they own as they want; allow multiple app stores; allow people to download binaries and install on their devices.
If Apple wanted to destroy Spotify they would simply drop prices by 30%, and Spotify would be unable to compete with that pricing because of the Apple tax.<p>Why should Apple have that much leverage? They didn't even "build the platform", they took an Open Source platform, put the Apple logo to it, and then proceeded to EEE like good old Microsoft.<p>Apple is in the wrong here, or they charge the Apple tax to music apps, or they have Apple music. They can't have both.<p>OTOH, I don't see Apple paying 30% of their revenue to the Open Source maintainers that made "the platform" possible.
The press release somehow forgot to touch the core of the fine: apple customers paid higher subscription fee for apple music than they would for Spotify because it's against app store policy to inform that Spotify has a cheaper subscription if they don't want to pay apple 30% cut...
There's not a single mention of Apple Music. There goes the credibility of this statement.<p>It's rather obvious that problems started when Apple decided to build a services business the size of a F100 company by directly and unfairly competing with said developers, unchained from all the constraints and costs they impose on them.
> If a developer sells physical goods, serves ads in their app, or just shares an app for free, they don’t pay Apple anything.<p>If so, don't ask me to pay $99 every year for installing my own app on a device I bought.<p>Apps signed with a free developer account are severely limited with a short validity period and Apple enforces a limit on the number of apps that could be installed this way on a device.
> Today, developers compete on a level playing field on the App Store.<p>> We’ve even flown our engineers to Stockholm to help Spotify’s teams in person.<p>Some level playing field. Apple certainly hasn't flown any engineers to my town.
Cool. Now explain why my iPhone has FLAC codecs built in, but the Apple Music app refuses to play it (the file manager can play it natively, no extra software like VLC needed). I'm sure it has nothing to do with ALAC.<p>No Apple, you deliberately cripple the competition all the time — especially with music — and you're getting what you deserve.
Related submission on the frontpage:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39589483">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39589483</a>