Apple Allows Spotify to Show Pricing Info to EU Users in iPhone App

[Abazigal]

They are (have been) been a monopoly on iOS.
They are a duopoly with Google in mobile operating systems.
They are estimated to account for more than half (a majority) of mobile app spend, yet…

Apple has a monopoly on iOS regardless of whether it has sold 1 billion iPhones or just 1 iPhone, by virtue of it not licensing its OS to other companies. This in itself doesn't really prove anything, IMO.

And even if I agree that Apple and Google currently form a duopoly (though no fault of their own really; the EU could always choose to bankroll their own tech giant if they wish to see a third competitor in the market that they control), I can't really agree that the solution to this is to force Apple to become more like Google (ie: open up access to side loading and third party app stores), rather than allow Apple to remain as a sufficiently differentiated alternative to Android (eg: tight integration vs modularity).

Finally, it's the last part that never fails to tickle me. Once upon a time, "conventional wisdom" was that Apple was doomed. Android's modular approach would result in more innovation at lower prices and the iPhone's market share would rapidly dwindle to the point where even developers would give up on the market (or so they said). As it turned out, Apple's focus on integration would result in a superior user experience for which a small but not insignificant number of people are willing to pay a premium for. This lucrative customer base allowed the iOS App Store to generate more sales for developers compared to the android App Store despite having just a fraction of users.

Let it also be clear that I am an iPhone user first and foremost. Not a Spotify user, nor a Netflix user, or a Fortnite user.

Now, the people who said that Apple's closed approach would be its downfall, are now arguing that it is this same closed approach that has made Apple too powerful and too successful, and that is why it needs to be reined in. You all just can't admit that Apple was right, and had always been right.

At the same time, Apple has managed to counteract slower device sales (due to longer device upgrade cycles) by pivoting from selling iPhones to selling to people with iPhones (eg: apps, services, accessories, higher prices), which I feel is both commendable and impressive from a business management viewpoint. Yet again, when Apple does well financially, it gets criticised for being greedy. And yet if Apple ever chooses to make less money (say by reducing its App Store cut), I am sure there will be no lack of criticism of how its lower earning reports are proof that it is doomed.

Apple just can't win.

Did Apple become as successful as it did despite these supposedly onerous App Store policies, or because of them? Is Apple guilty of inserting itself between cosnsumers and businesses, or do iOS users legitimately prefer it that way (which is why they bought iPhones and iPads in the first place, rather than flock to android with the ability to sideload (aka pirate) apps and all?) Every argument made so far has been from the perspective of developers (and most notably, a small number of very vocal developers who clearly have an axe to grind with Apple). We have not really heard anything from consumers regarding what they think of this, or whether it's even something the majority want.

I remain of the opinion that sometimes, the priorities of consumers and developers / suppliers are just simply diametrically opposed (ie: what is good for the developer may be bad for the end user, and vice versa), and there is really no shame in admitting this. One of the chief reasons for the success of the iPhone is because Apple used its power over developers to rein them in (one of the chief factors that create a better experience for the end user).

That's what rubs me the wrong way. I can agree with you in principle that perhaps it is in society's interests to allow innovation on essential infrastructure, but the entities crafting said legislation need to be honest in the very least and admit that yes, they are undeniably violating Apple's property rights in this regard, but Apple will still get compensated at the end of the day (somehow), this tradeoff is being measured as a society, and it feels like the EU can't even be 100% honest about what they are doing (because any admission would open a whole can of worms).

Which is why I ultimately support Apple pushing back until the EU can be honest about what is truly being asked here. And maybe that's really all I am asking for at the end of the day.

 

[chmania]

iOS is a component of the iPhone. It is not a product that is sold to other manufacturers. It is not a commodity. It is not a service. It is not a product category. It is a part of the iPhone product, a proprietary technology.

As far as I own an iPhone, the iOS in it is mine...in the EU.

No one can go out and buy iOS for their Samsung or Xiaomi phones.

Who would do such a foolish thing? 😏

 

[AppliedMicro]

It stretches credulity to say “[Apple] are […] a monopoly on iOS”. iOS is a component of the iPhone

The App Store and In-app-purchasing system aren't.

It is not a product that is sold to other manufacturers. It is not a commodity. It is not a service. It is not a product category.

It's a platform - on which others, consumers and businesses depend on.

Apple competes with Google, Huawei, Samsung, Nokia, and others.

Samsung and Nokia don't make operating systems (they only slightly customise them) - they compete with Apple on hardware devices.

But hardware devices aren't regulated. Apple can tie their iOS operating system to their own hardware or sell it to Samsung and Nokia licensing - the EU and its DMA do not care.

Rather than make up new laws to penalize the innovators

Apple isn't innovating. Quite the contrary - they are fighting tooth and nail for app commissions cause they know they aren't innovating and haven't for many years. They aren't innovating in how iOS works and not on how the App Store works. And neither on music streaming.

If anything, they're innovating on (in) bundled apps and services - and customers deserve a level playing field and competition for those.

 

[AppliedMicro]

he entities crafting said legislation need to be honest in the very least and admit that yes, they are undeniably violating Apple's property rights in this regard, but Apple will still get compensated at the end of the day (somehow)

Apple may get compensated less - and the EU has been very honest about it.

Regulating monopolists and/or companies that leverage their dominance in markets inevitably means that they may get compensated less.

 

[vantelimus]

It's a platform - on which others, consumers and businesses depend on.

Consumers and businesses depend on it because Apple has made it secure, privacy protecting, and reliable, and because they choose the value proposition that Apple provides with its walled garden and integrated ecosystem approach over the ubiquitous variations of Android. They chose the iPhone knowing full well there was only the Apple App Store.

Samsung and Nokia don't make operating systems (they only slightly customise them) - they compete with Apple on hardware devices.

The smartphone hardware is unusable without the operating system. A general consumer cannot (and does not want) to buy a smartphone devoid of an operating system. You can say the companies only compete on hardware, but that isn’t true and you know it.

But hardware devices aren't regulated. Apple can tie their iOS operating system to their own hardware or sell it to Samsung and Nokia licensing - the EU and its DMA do not care.

Apple doesn’t do that because the operating system is an integral component of its product. In fact, you have the idea backwards. Apple has, from its very beginning, followed the maxim of pioneering computer scientist Alan Kay: “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” The software is more the product than the hardware.

Apple isn't innovating. Quite the contrary - they are fighting tooth and nail for app commissions cause they know they aren't innovating and haven't for many years. They aren't innovating in how iOS works and not on how the App Store works. And neither on music streaming.

It is easy to say that Apple isn’t innovating when you are trying to destroy one of their past innovations.

Let’s see, here’s a list of new features iOS has added in recent years:
* SharePlay
* Car Keys — use of NFC to use iPhone as a car key, including the sharing and temporary sharing of keys
* Application tracking transparency
* Too numerous to mention ARKit enhancements, including to LiDar information
* Way too numerous to list features in the Camera App to take advantage of advances in hardware and AI, including most recently 3D photos and video.
* Numerous features in FaceTime, including:
- picture in a picture
- video messaging for missed calls
- gesture recognition
* Many enhancements to maps including:
- Cycling routes
- EV routes
- Walking routes in augmented reality
* Many enhancements to phone:
- Send a call to voicemail and see a live transcript of the message
* Many enhancements to messages, including:
- faster access to media
- swipe to reply
- location sharing
- audio message transcription
- stickers
- automatic check-in
- shared with you
* Spatial audio
* Off-line Siri request processing
* Live Text — AI-based recognition and OCR in images.
* System-wide language translation in all apps.
* Integration of numerous types of data and trend analysis in Health App
* Safari tab group sharing
* Many enhancements to Wallet, including:
- Lock and unlock HomeKit-enabled smart locks.
- ID cards, such as drivers licenses
- Vaccination records
* Many enhancements to security and privacy, including:
- App privacy reports
- Hide IP address in Mail and Safari
- iCloud Private relay
- CSAM detection to identify child sexual abuse in photos stored in iCloud
- FaceID
- WiFi MAC address randomization to limit tracking
- Sandboxing of untrusted data in Messages
- Lockdown mode
* Standby mode
* Covid exposure tracking and alerts
* Use of the phone as camera for your Apple TV (more of that integration that requires the operating system to be part of the product to create value in the integrated set of products)
* Name Drop — enhanced airdrop between iPhones or between an iPhone and an Apple Watch
* Air Drop completion over the internet if BlueTooth or WiFi P2P connection is lost.
* Focus mode

Obviously, this is an abridged list of some of the more visible and useful features. All of these require changes to the software.

If anything, they're innovating on (in) bundled apps and services - and customers deserve a level playing field and competition for those.

They are innovating across hardware, security, OS features, apps, and services because they need to and they have the capability to do so. Isolated changes to single components rarely create significant value on their own—this isn't the 1970s anymore. Creating real value for users today usually requires innovation across hardware, software layers, and distributed services. Apple excels at this by creating elegant solutions integrated across a family of products, which is a major reason people choose Apple. They value what you're aiming to dismantle.

Regarding bundled apps, these are seen as part of the OS from the perspective of non-technical users. Trying to draw a strict line between apps and the OS is not a productive argument—and certainly not one that should be left to technologically uninformed politicians. No one would be able to sell a modern OS, whether for desktop or mobile, without a full set of productivity apps. Likewise, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to sell a desktop or mobile phone to the average consumer without providing an operating system that makes the device functional.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Consumers and businesses depend on it because Apple has made it secure, privacy protecting, and reliable, and because they choose the value proposition that Apple provides with its walled garden and integrated ecosystem approach over the ubiquitous variations of Android.

Maybe. It doesn't really matter why. It's a platform that especially businesses can't ignore. You aren't going to develop a successful dating app that exists on only one platform, and businesses can't ignore iOS for your music streaming service, banking app etc. and do without that potential customer base.

They chose the iPhone knowing full well there was only the Apple App Store.

They may have done so, yes. But there's a lack of alternative choice in operating systems - which is why EU law mandates that Apple open theirs up, to increase choice for businesses and ultimately consumers.

You can say the companies only compete on hardware, but that isn’t true and you know it.

I get what you're saying, so let me try to put it more clearly: Google, Samsung and Nokia can (despite their relatively minor modifications) be lumped together as "Android phones" - that compete with iOS phones. That's the duopoly in the market, and the one the EU is concerned with. They aren't concerned with - and they aren't regulating (with the DMA) - the competition between Nokia phones, Pixel phones and Samsung phones. They've concluded that there's an entrenched duopoly of operating systems and to regulate their market power. Going back to what you said earlier:

Apple competes with Google, Huawei, Samsung, Nokia, and others

Apple and their iOS-running phones compete against "the whole bunch of" Android phones.

That's the way to look at it.

No one would be able to sell a modern OS, whether for desktop or mobile, without a full set of productivity apps

And no one would develop a full set of productivity apps without an established (OS) user base to sell to.

Creating real value for users today usually requires innovation across hardware, software layers, and distributed services. Apple excels at this by creating elegant solutions integrated across a family of products, which is a major reason people choose Apple.

Fully agree.

Regarding bundled apps, these are seen as part of the OS from the perspective of non-technical users

I don't think so at all.

The Safari browser app icon and opens just like the Google Chrome app. I mean... they don't literally look the same of course - but the concept of both being an "app" is the same.And the same is true for Spotify and Apple Music.

They value what you're aiming to dismantle.

No, it's not at all about dismantling them.

👉 It's about other companies getting and having a chance to do the same: To create "innovation across hardware, software layers, and distributed services" and "creating elegant solutions integrated across a family of products". That's what the DMA is about.

For instance: enabling competitors to create a music streaming service that's well-integrated and with different hardware devices and software platforms (cross-platform) and is more innovative than Apple's.

And yes, that also includes fair marketability of their products.

 

[vantelimus]

Maybe. It doesn't really matter why. It's a platform that especially businesses can't ignore. You aren't going to develop a successful dating app that exists on only one platform, and businesses can't ignore iOS for your music streaming service, banking app etc. and do without that potential customer base.

They may have done so, yes. But there's a lack of alternative choice in operating systems - which is why EU law mandates that Apple open theirs up, to increase choice for businesses and ultimately consumers.


I get what you're saying, so let me try to put it more clearly: Google, Samsung and Nokia can (despite their relatively minor modifications) be lumped together as "Android phones" - that compete with iOS phones. That's the duopoly in the market, and the one the EU is concerned with. They aren't concerned with - and they aren't regulating (with the DMA) - the competition between Nokia phones, Pixel phones and Samsung phones. They've concluded that there's an entrenched duopoly of operating systems and to regulate their market power. Going back to what you said earlier:


Apple and their iOS-running phones compete against "the whole bunch of" Android phones.

That's the way to look at it.

Actually, that’s not the way to look at it. Not all alternatives are android based, and not all android forks are alike. There are de-googled versions of android made for safety, like Graphene OS, CalyxOS, and /e/OS. There is Huawei’s HarmonyOS, a branch off of Open Source Android with sideloading of its own app format, along with support for Android apps. There is SailFish OS, a non-android system which will run android apps in a compatibility layer. Then there are mobile-phone OSes that are developed from Linux without using the Android base and won’t run android apps, like Ubuntu Touch, KaiOS, and Mobian.

And no one would develop a full set of productivity apps without an established (OS) user base to sell to.

Not true. Apple did it with the iPhone and the iPad. They had no user base when they came out. They’ve also done it with the Apple Vision Pro. And, coincidentally, most of the non-android mobile phone OSes do have browsers and productivity apps, even though they haven’t been adopted by phone manufacturers.

No, it's not at all about dismantling them.

Maybe not dismantling them, just turning them into android.

All the things you want from Apple are already available with android, the OS which actually could be argued a monopoly due to is 70%+ market dominance.

👉 It's about other companies getting and having a chance to do the same: To create "innovation across hardware, software layers, and distributed services" and "creating elegant solutions integrated across a family of products". That's what the DMA is about.

No one is stopping anyone from doing that. Huawei is in the process of creating an ecosystem which will rival Apple for level of integration and breadth. The market actually works.

For instance: enabling competitors to create a music streaming service that's well-integrated and with different hardware devices and software platforms (cross-platform) and is more innovative than Apple's.

Spotify already has that on the Apple platform and across Windows Desktops, Mac, Android, and tablets. No one stopped them. The DMA won’t change it or make it any better.

And yes, that also includes fair marketability of their products.

They can market their products all they want. They could do it before the DMA. No one is stopping them. Their problem is that they want to freeload on Apple’s platform instead of paying for the value they get from it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There is SailFish OS, a non-android system which will run android apps in a compatibility layer. Then there are mobile-phone OSes that are developed from Linux without using the Android base and won’t run android apps, like Ubuntu Touch, KaiOS, and Mobian.

That's running a gamut from obscure to the irrelevant.
You know that these other OS play no meaningful role in European markets.

Take the most popular messenger, banking apps, ride sharing or public transport apps, video or music streaming apps - and they're all only available for iOS and Android.

Not true. Apple did it with the iPhone and the iPad.

They populated the concept, along with Android.
Although apps for mobile phones did exist prior to iOS an Android, there was no relevant mass market for consumers.

just turning them into android.

Nonsense. iOS is much more than just "not being able to sideload" and "must install all apps from the App Store".

Spotify already has that on the Apple platform and across Windows Desktops, Mac, Android, and tablets. No one stopped them.

Apple is denying them fair competition with their own Music service - which, as a result, has grown immensely to become Spotify's biggest competitor.

They can market their products all they want. They could do it before the DMA

No - Apple prohibited them from displaying and communicating basic marketing information to consumers without paying them - their largest competitor on iOS nowadays - a commission. That's not how fair competition in music streaming works.

Their problem is that they want to freeload on Apple’s platform instead of paying for the value they get from it

The problem is that Apple doesn't fairly recognise the value they're getting from the ecosystem of third-party apps that makes them sell iOS devices.