APPLE TRIED TO CONTROL HOW SPOTIFY COULD TELL IPHONE USERS ITS PRICES
Spotify had millions of iPhone users. But for years, there was something it couldn't freely tell them inside the app: how much its subscription cost elsewhere.
Imagine opening Spotify on an iPhone.
You want Premium.
But instead of seeing:
"Premium costs €X on our website."
you might have to leave the app and figure it out yourself.
That wasn't an accident.
It was part of Apple's App Store rules.
THE PROBLEM STARTED WITH THE PRICE
Spotify sells subscriptions directly through its website.
That matters because Apple can charge commissions on purchases made through its own payment system.
Spotify therefore had an incentive to send customers to its website instead.
But Apple had rules restricting what Spotify could say inside the app.
For years, music-streaming apps were restricted from:
Telling users the prices of subscriptions available outside the app
Explaining the difference between Apple's in-app price and another price
Including links directing users to outside purchasing options
Giving instructions about how to subscribe elsewhere
The European Commission called these anti-steering provisions.
WHY WOULD APPLE CARE ABOUT ONE SENTENCE?
Because one sentence can change where a customer buys.
Imagine Spotify could display:
Premium on our website: €10.99
↓
Premium through Apple's system: €12.99
A customer might immediately choose the cheaper option.
Apple's problem isn't necessarily the subscription itself.
It's losing control of the transaction.
And potentially losing the commission associated with it.
SPOTIFY DIDN'T EVEN NEED APPLE'S PAYMENT SYSTEM
This is what made the dispute particularly interesting.
Spotify had already disabled Apple's in-app purchase system for its subscriptions on iOS in 2016.
Customers could subscribe through Spotify's website.
But Spotify still needed Apple's App Store to reach iPhone users.
So the conflict became:
Apple owns the distribution channel
while
Spotify owns the subscription relationship.
That created a battle over what Spotify could communicate to the customer.
THEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION GOT INVOLVED
The European Commission investigated Apple's App Store rules for music-streaming services.
In March 2024, it concluded that Apple's anti-steering restrictions were illegal under EU antitrust rules.
The Commission said Apple had restricted developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper subscription options outside Apple's ecosystem.
Apple was fined more than €1.8 billion.
APPLE DISAGREED WITH THE STORY
Apple argued that Spotify benefited enormously from the App Store while paying Apple nothing for the distribution and services Apple provided.
Apple also argued that Spotify wanted to use Apple's ecosystem without contributing to the costs associated with it.
So the dispute wasn't simply:
Apple vs. Spotify.
It was really about:
Who controls the customer?
THEN THE RULES STARTED CHANGING
The European Union's Digital Markets Act introduced an explicit requirement that gatekeepers such as Apple allow developers to communicate with users about alternative purchasing channels and steer them toward those offers.
In August 2024, Spotify said Apple had approved an update allowing Spotify to display pricing information to EU users.
But there was still a strange restriction.
Spotify said it could refer users to its website, but Apple wouldn't allow it to display the actual "spotify.com" domain as a link without triggering Apple's commission rules.
So even after the rules changed, the fight over one website address continued.
THEN AMERICA MOVED TOO
In 2025, a U.S. court ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case changed Apple's ability to restrict developers from communicating purchase information.
Spotify subsequently submitted an update that Apple approved, allowing U.S. users to see pricing information and links to purchase certain products outside Apple's payment system.
So what began as a fight involving Spotify became part of a much larger question about the economics of app stores.
THE REAL BUSINESS MODEL
Think about Apple's position.
Apple controls:
The device
↓
The operating system
↓
The App Store
↓
The payment infrastructure
↓
The rules developers must follow
That creates enormous negotiating power.
Spotify, meanwhile, has:
The customers
↓
The subscription
↓
The music catalogue
↓
The relationship with the user
Both companies control something the other wants.
THAT'S WHY THE PRICE WAS SO IMPORTANT
A price isn't just information.
It's a sales tool.
If a customer knows:
"You can get this cheaper somewhere else."
the platform may lose the transaction.
If the customer doesn't know:
They may simply pay through the available channel.
So controlling price information can indirectly influence where money flows.
That's what made Apple's anti-steering rules so important.
THE €1.8 BILLION FINE WASN'T REALLY ABOUT A PRICE TAG
The European Commission said the harm extended beyond money.
It argued that Apple's restrictions could make it harder for users to discover alternative offers and could lead to users paying more or failing to subscribe because the alternative wasn't clearly presented.
In other words:
Information itself had become part of the competition.
THE STRANGE PART
Spotify didn't need Apple to create Spotify.
It didn't need Apple to set Spotify's subscription price.
It didn't even need Apple's payment system for its website subscriptions.
But it did need access to:
Apple's users.
And that gave Apple enormous leverage.
MAACAT PERSPECTIVE
The Spotify–Apple fight reveals something much bigger about modern business.
Sometimes the most valuable thing a platform controls isn't the product.
It's the path between the customer and the product.
Apple controlled the path.
Spotify controlled the service.
And for years, the battle was partly over something incredibly small:
What Spotify was allowed to tell you when you opened the app.
A sentence about price.
A link to a website.
A few extra words.
But those tiny pieces of information could determine where billions of dollars of transactions happened.
