Spotify calls Apple's DMA compliance plan 'extortion''complete and total farce'

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s plan to comply with the EU’s Digital Markets Act has drawn fire for effectively preserving its control over iOS app distribution through mandatory notarization and a new per-install “Core Technology Fee,” even for apps distributed via alternative stores. Commenters debate whether Spotify is a credible critic given its own treatment of artists, but broadly frame the dispute as a power struggle between dominant platforms, regulators, and smaller businesses that depend on access to mobile ecosystems. Many see Apple’s approach as legalistic “rules lawyering” that could trigger further EU action, while reigniting wider arguments over walled gardens, user freedom, and fair revenue sharing in digital markets.

Spotify, artist compensation, and hypocrisy debate

  • Some argue Spotify is a poor messenger because it “pays artists almost nothing,” with most payouts going to labels, not artists.
  • Others counter that Spotify passes ~70% of revenue to rights holders and offers direct deals to unsigned artists; blame is placed on labels and consumer unwillingness to pay.
  • Long subthread on whether streaming has made it harder or easier for small/mid-tier artists to make a living:
    • One side: much easier to publish and reach global niche audiences; old industry was heavily gatekept.
    • Other side: touring is more costly, live venues fewer, and streaming economics (e.g., needing ~10M streams per album for modest income) push many musicians back into day jobs.

Apple’s DMA response and Core Technology Fee

  • Apple’s new EU model replaces/augments the 30% cut with a €0.50 “Core Technology Fee” per “first annual install” after 1M installs per app. Updates count as installs but don’t add new charges for the same user in a year.
  • Some see this as extortionary and designed to make alternative stores economically unattractive; others note that 30% is similar to Steam and may reflect “fair-market” platform pricing.
  • Concerns about “install bombing” are raised; Apple’s docs say it will limit installs per device and investigate abuse.

Sideloading, notarization, and control

  • “Sideloading” in Apple’s plan still requires Apple notarization and developer accounts, preserving Apple as gatekeeper.
  • Critics say this undermines the DMA’s intent and could violate anti-circumvention clauses by making alternatives “unduly difficult.”
  • Defenders cite DMA language allowing security measures “strictly necessary and proportionate,” claiming notarization falls under that.

Walled gardens vs openness / user choice

  • One camp favors Apple’s controlled ecosystem as safer and easier for non-technical users, seeing demands for openness as a “tyranny of the minority.”
  • Opponents stress device ownership and the right to install any software without Apple’s rent-seeking or moral gatekeeping.
  • Broader analogy drawn to consoles, TVs, and car systems; disagreement over whether walled gardens should effectively be regulated out of existence.

Regulation, capitalism, and power

  • Many frame this as large “gatekeeper” corporations vs citizens and smaller businesses that “need” access to dominant platforms.
  • Some see Apple’s behavior as a natural outcome of capitalism; others argue current rules enable harmful monopolistic rent extraction and call for stronger EU-style intervention.