Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple

Spotify Says Apple Has Rejected Its App Update With Price Information for EU Users 48

Apple has rejected Spotify's new version of its iOS app with in-app pricing information for users in the European Union, the audio streaming firm said on Thursday. Reuters: The Swedish company submitted a new version of its app to Apple with basic pricing and website information, which is a minimum requirement under the European Commission's ruling in its music streaming case, it said in a post on X on Wednesday. Spotify said the Cupertino, California based-Apple rejected its update in a response directly sent to the company.

"Apple has once again defied the European Commission's decision, rejecting our update for attempting to communicate with customers about our prices unless we pay Apple a new tax. Their disregard for consumers and developers is matched only by their disdain for the law," a spokesperson for Spotify said in a statement. In March, Brussels fined Apple with 1.84 billion euros ($1.97 billion) for thwarting competition from music streaming rivals via restrictions on its App Store, marking its first ever EU antitrust penalty, following a 2019 complaint from Spotify.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spotify Says Apple Has Rejected Its App Update With Price Information for EU Users

Comments Filter:
  • Petulance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0xG ( 712423 ) on Thursday April 25, 2024 @09:45AM (#64424072)

    I think we should be able to expect Apple to behave with *some* grace.
    Sadly, not.

    • Never attribute to malice....

      It's more likely someone didn't get the memo and is just following the documented process.

      • The documented process is to never answer the phone.

    • The update is being withheld because Spotify has yet to agree to the terms for a developer entitlement they’re required to obtain with their update. The entitlement allows developers to bypass Apple Pay, but because they’re still benefitting from whatever other services Apple offers, the devs need to agree to terms that basically say they still owe Apple a 27% cut (the same 30% as before, minus 3% for credit card processing) for any out-of-app sales that occur as a result of a referral from with

  • Started commenting to say that the phrase "California based-Apple" is wrong and should be "California-based Apple"... But then I checked the freaking source and I guess Reuters needs to have someone proofread. As a side comment, I pasted the original text into a LLM and it pointed out the same problem

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Thursday April 25, 2024 @10:17AM (#64424154)

    apple needs to do better or the EU may force full side loading that does not have any checks at all and can be hosted on any webpage.

    • I think the EU can push Apple to change their business practices, but I do not think they can force Apple to write new software that would allow that. You would need to write a new installer that was not the App Store, which manages among other things, which apps are in the settings menu and what app can access what system call. You could not say to them: write this piece of software and embed it in your OS by law. That would be against the first amendment (in the US at least), among other government overre
      • by Holi ( 250190 )

        Jesus did you really just reference the 1st amendment when talking about EU law?

      • by Roogna ( 9643 )

        You do know iOS already supports straight side loading from a website. Apple just simply locks it behind behind their "Enterprise" accounts and signing certificates.

        https://support.apple.com/en-m... [apple.com]

        The **only** thing they would have to do to allow side loading is to simply allow any developer account access to those same provisioning profiles. That's it. If the EU wanted to be really forceful they could even just force them to allow any user approved signing certificate. But I think most people would co

      • If they want to do business in the EU, then they have to follow EU law. Also there is no first amendment in the EU.
    • by Roogna ( 9643 )

      One can hope!

    • When you are found guilty of willfully violating a trademark, the next time you apply for a trademark the courts will require extra review with far less benefit of the doubt as to any possible violations than if you had just started from a place of compliance.

      E.g. if you name your search engine Noogle you can't just change it to Noodle and re-apply even though it probably would have been acceptable if you had started with Noodle, because now you have demonstrated that you weren't acting in good faith to com

  • Nasty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Thursday April 25, 2024 @10:23AM (#64424180)

    This Apple has a big, gnarly worm at its core. It's the kind of fruit you polish up and give to someone you don't like.

    Then again, it's really no different from any other major corporation, aside from perhaps having a bigger legion of fanbois and other customers who have suspended their critical thinking in favour of convenience, shininess, and/or hipness.

  • by GregMmm ( 5115215 ) on Thursday April 25, 2024 @10:59AM (#64424330)

    Not saying Apple is on the right side of this, but we've only heard from Spotify and they seem to be saying it's only because they are trying to communicate with customers pricing. Is there something else at play? Is Spotify using this to leverage other changes and blaming it on Apple for not approving it?

    Apple isn't stupid and if they are just doing this only because they want to defy EU regulations, that doesn't make sense. I feel there is more at play here.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      I wouldn't wager much that your last paragraph is correct. Apple is a large corporation, and different pieces of it don't necessarily talk to each other. This may have been a decision that the marketing department made without checking with legal.

    • Even the summary said it was because Spotify is refusing to pay the core tech fee.

      It's not because they are advertising prices, it's because they aren't fulfilling the other side of the contract - which they should be doing until the courts say if that is illegal.

      Apple has no reason (legal or otherwise) to provide a service (approving an app) without compensation. At least as far as I know - even in the EU, you can't be compelled to such a thing, can you?

    • Not saying Apple is on the right side of this, but we've only heard from Spotify

      Well. Not really, we've not just heard from Spotify. We've heard from Spotify, from Epic, and from Apple itself about how it followed the EU ruling along with lots of legal opinions on the legality of the ruling.

      Not all sides carry equal weight. At this point any normal person would be taking Spotify's point at face value given the recent past performance of Apple directly related to the EU's ruling.

      Apple isn't stupid and if they are just doing this only because they want to defy EU regulations, that doesn't make sense.

      But they literally are. The EU actively re-opened an investigation into Apple based on how Apple responded to

  • Spotify forgot to not show the EU pricing outside of the EU. Assuming they didn't do it on purpose.
  • Complain was made by Spotify in 2019.

    Apple was fined this year in March.

    Thats about 5 years. If you are a competitor/developer/partner/whoever who does not have the resources to wait / fight for 5 years, you may as well don't bother to complain about things Apple does in EU.

    And I don't see anything about Apple paying the complainant (Spotify in this case) anything, so you better have alot of resources before you bother with anything since EU gets the fine, and you may eventually get Apple to behave better,

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...