Apple & Spotify now fighting over audio books

Apple claimed that Spotify is trying to skirt App Store rules by directing customers to purchase audiobooks outside of the app — although it initially said it was okay.

Over the last month, Apple has rejected Spotify's latest app update three times, claiming that Spotify had violated Apple's rules about how developers can communicate with customers regarding purchases.

Spotify claims that this another example of Apple engaging in anticompetitive behaviors.

Spotify has been urging lawmakers to give developers the right to tell customers alternative ways to purchase services outside Apple's payment system. When developers make a sale through the App store, Apple charges between 15% and 30% commission fee — which many developers aren't keen on paying.

In September 2021, Apple told developers that it would allow "reader" apps to provide an in-app link to set up or manage accounts off-site.

The rule was put in place after the Japan Fair Trade Commission investigated Apple over antitrust concerns.

And, according to The New York Times, Apple designed the feature with Spotify's legal team.

An Apple spokesperson told The New York Times that the company had no issue with Spotify adding audiobooks. However, he noted that Spotify circumvented rules against providing web addresses and language that encourage customers to purchase outside its app.

According to Spotify, Apple has very recently approved a version of the app with the audiobook experience. However, it is still not available in the App Store at time of press.

Apple reached out to provide the following statement:

"The App Store was designed to be a great business opportunity for developers, and we fully support initiatives to introduce new features in apps that provide lasting value for users. We have no issue with reader apps adding audiobook content to their apps, linking users out to websites to sign up for services, or communicating with customers externally about alternative purchase options. The Spotify app was rejected for not following the guidelines regarding including explicit in-app communications to direct users outside the app to make digital purchases. We provided them with clear guidance on how to resolve the issue, and approved their app after they made changes that brought it into compliance."

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

27 Comments

lkrupp 10521 comments · 19 Years

About 2 years ago

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

ITGUYINSD 547 comments · 5 Years

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go. First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground. Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense.

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then. It would be the demise of the App Store.

22july2013 3725 comments · 11 Years

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go. First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground. Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense.

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then. It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

22july2013 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Fine, then Apple should be allowed to charge Spotify and arm and a leg for the privilege of having its app in the App Store.

Here we go. First post and already got a "It's Apple's playground. Don't like it, go play in the Android sandbox" defense.

Apple would have to charge every developer "an arm and a leg" for that privilege then. It would be the demise of the App Store.

Here we go again, with people saying Apple has no right to do what it wants. But ITGUY won't say who has the responsibility to determine what the rules should be for any company's store. The courts? The government? Apple's competitors?

There is so much wrong with forcing consumers to transact purchases made from within apps that Apple has nothing do to with (other than they forced developers to distribute the apps through the Apple App Store to the consumer), through Apple's servers and then charge the app company 30% for the "privilege". Not sure what the basis of Apple getting 30 cents from Spotify because I wanted to buy an $1 audiobook through the Spotify app is? What did Apple do in that transaction to deserve 30%? Give apps the ability to transact and take purchases directly. Make Apple Pay an option in the app itself so Apple can actually do something to deserve a cut.

chelgrian 42 comments · 15 Years

ITGUYINSD said:
actually do something to deserve a cut.

They do you just don't understand what it is they are doing.

In terms of what Apple should do it's very simple:

- if your app is free then Xcode and AppStore distribution is free

- if your app costs money but does not have an out of App Store subscription then Xcode and App Store distribution is free.

- if your app is free but has an outside App Store subscription then Xcode costs $1000 per year per user (roughly what Visual Studio costs enterprises) and you are billed for hosting and data transfer based on number of downloads of your app quarterly in arrears.

- if you want to have a 3rd party App Store then Apple should allow it but turn off all features which require the Secure Enclave to function when a 3rd party store is installed.