Apple’s Alleged Conspiracy with Music Industry Over Musi App
Introduction
The ongoing legal battle between Musi and Apple over the removal of the popular music streaming app from the App Store has escalated significantly. Recent court filings reveal claims of backchannel communications between Apple and major music labels, suggesting a coordinated effort to suppress the app. This article expands on the technical, legal, and regulatory implications of this dispute, incorporating expert insights and the latest developments.
Musi vs Apple: Background of the Dispute
Musi, an iOS application that enables ad-supported streaming of YouTube-hosted music, was delisted from the App Store in September 2024 following a YouTube complaint. Unlike Spotify or Apple Music, Musi relies on parsing YouTube’s web endpoints and streaming HLS segments directly, bypassing official APIs to provide uninterrupted playback with ads only on startup.
- Initial removal triggered by a 2023 DMCA notice from YouTube
- Musi’s user base exceeded 5 million monthly active users prior to delisting
- App Store policy allows removal for any reason, but parties typically reach out-of-court settlements
Deep Dive: Evidence of Industry Backchannels
In sworn depositions and newly produced internal emails, Apple senior legal director Elizabeth Miles corresponded with executives from Sony Music Entertainment and the National Music Publishers Association. These communications, obtained under court order, outline requests to ‘identify a path forward’ to remove Musi, circumventing Apple’s standard app review process.
We need to have the Musi app removed from the Apple App Store as soon as possible, said a Sony executive in an email to Apple on April 15, 2024.
Subsequent exchanges show Apple lawyers scheduling calls with YouTube representatives within days of music industry outreach, indicating a fast-tracked escalation.
Technical Architecture of the Musi App
Musi’s core functionality is built on a hybrid architecture that leverages a lightweight WKWebView wrapper for playback and a custom proxy server to refine YouTube stream URLs. This proxy strips out client identification headers, allowing seamless HLS playback in iOS’s AVFoundation framework while hiding the source endpoint from Apple’s review team.
- Use of classic YouTube endpoints like get_video_info and player_config to retrieve stream manifests
- HLS segment streaming optimized through HTTP/2 multiplexing
- Ad injection handled locally on device startup using a paid ad SDK interfacing with MoPub
Regulatory Implications Under Digital Markets Act
With Apple designated as a gatekeeper under the EU Digital Markets Act, regulators in Brussels are closely monitoring any favoritism shown to large content holders. If evidence confirms collusion with music labels, the EU’s antitrust unit may impose fines up to 10% of global turnover and require Apple to change its App Store rules to allow side-loading and third-party stores.
Expert Perspectives on App Store Governance
iOS security expert Dr. Samantha Klein from Stanford University commented: ‘Apple’s vertical integration gives it significant leverage over app distribution. The Musi case exposes how policy can be influenced by stakeholders to the detriment of competition and user choice.’
Antitrust scholar Prof. Leonard Hughes from Harvard Law School added: ‘If Apple repurposed a nominal YouTube complaint to satisfy label demands, this could be a textbook antitrust violation under US Sherman Act Section 2.’
Potential Impact on Developers and Users
The Musi dispute highlights risks faced by independent developers who build innovative features on third-party platforms. iOS developers must navigate strict code signing requirements, the inability to self-host enterprise certificates for consumer apps, and opaque review criteria. Users, meanwhile, lose access to alternative services when platform gatekeepers yield to large stakeholders.
Next Steps and Court Timeline
A hearing on the parties’ motions for sanctions is set for July 30, 2025. Apple seeks to strike Musi’s conspiracy claims as ‘frivolous,’ while Musi demands sanctions against Apple for alleged intimidation tactics. If the court allows Musi’s case to proceed, a jury trial is tentatively scheduled for January 2026.
Conclusion
The Musi vs Apple battle is more than a dispute over one app; it touches on broader issues of platform control, regulatory oversight, and the future of digital competition. As the case unfolds, developers and users alike will be watching closely for indications of how much influence major content holders can wield over app ecosystems.