Apple Says Meta is Making Unreasonable Interoperability Requests Under Europe's DMA Requirements

[surferfb]

There isn‘t. I prefer Apple‘s phones and iOS over Android‘s for various reasons.
And no consumer chooses their phone or OS for just one reason or functionality.

Well then you have to weigh trade-offs. If the reasons you prefer iOS and iPhones outweigh your desire for an open system, then you have your answer. I don’t go crying to the government that I prefer the design of the PS5 but want to play Xbox exclusive games so Sony and Microsoft should be required to work with each other’s games because they have a “duopoly” in the “high-powered video game console” market.

It‘s a duopoly. And Apple hasn‘t only not „helped“ their competitors - they‘re actively holding.

Apple is absolutely being required to help their competitors. They’re being told by the EU that they have to give features that they spent significant resources to create, that are using to differentiate their product in a very competitive market, and give them to anyone who asks for it immediately.

That’s insane, and I hope either Vestager’s replacement or the incoming US administration has the good sense to do something about it.

They are - or more specifically, their Core Platform Services that have and enable monopoly power - are merely required to allow others to also make their products work well with them.

They don’t have monopoly power over anything no matter how many times you say they do. And with 25% of the EU market, the EU would do well to respect capitalism and let the market work without interference rather than declaring the model favored by the market leader is the only one that’s allowed.

It‘s not when you‘re providing a „can‘t ignore it“ platform service in a duopoly.

You absolutely can ignore it, many do. If you want to make more money by using someone else’s property, then you have to play by that person’s rules. You don’t get the government to come in and take their property rights from them.

There’s nothing crazy about it. If Apple‘s own headset has access to certain data or functionality of your phone, so can a competing headset from Meta. This ensures healthy competition in the market for AR/VR headsets.

No it doesn’t. It ensures the free market is not allowed to work, restricting competition between business models and giving the results of the hard work and billions of dollars invested by one company to its competitors for free.

No one wants every streaming service, AR/VR headset manufacturer or app developer have to „make their own phone“.

No one is asking them to. But if they don’t want to do the hard work that entails, then they should have to play by the rules of those who did the hard work. Good thing for them, the platform with 75% market share allows anyone to do anything! Go show iPhone users what they’re missing! If it’s compelling enough, users will start to switch and Apple will be forced to respond. That’s how the free market works. Not by having the government interfere by coming in and declaring there’s only one way of doing business and that one company’s property belongs to all.

On another note, didn’t see you on the other thread where I said this, so wanted to make sure you saw it in case you missed it. I wish you a very happy holiday season and hope you have quality time with friends and family! I’ve enjoyed our debates this year and look forward to more in 2025. While you haven’t changed my mind, you’ve definitely made me think!

 

[Abazigal]

That’s insane, and I hope either Vestager’s replacement or the incoming US administration has the good sense to do something about it.

It’s an interesting point to note.

The way the document was pushed out felt like it was something rushed out the door by Vestager in a bid to cement her legacy on her way out. It remains to be seen whether her successor necessarily shares her zeal and her ideals.

At the same time, the incoming US administration does seem to share a distaste for the meddling of EU with their tech companies, but I suppose it also depends on how far they are willing to go in terms of applying pressure.

Two new regimes squaring off against each other in the new year. Or it could mean nothing ultimately.

 

[Krizoitz]

Spotify isn’t exempted, they already complying as they don’t gatekeepers anything as they don’t run a store, more do they sell anything.

LOLOLOL

They are 100% exempted and they absolutely gatekeep.

The fact that you claim they don’t sell anything proves you have no clue.

 

[Krizoitz]

No one wants every streaming service, AR/VR headset manufacturer or app developer have to „make their own phone“.

That literally has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

LOLOLOL

They are 100% exempted and they absolutely gatekeep.

The fact that you claim they don’t sell anything proves you have no clue.

Can you please show how Spotify is gate keeping anything.
They aren’t holding any critical access point between users and artists streaming their music. Their APIs are free to use and access. You can’t purchase anything, not even individual songs are sold.
Etc etc.

Same reason Apple, Google and Amazon music isn’t seen as gatekeepers. But the AppStore is one.

 

[surferfb]

The fact that music streaming was excluded when video sharing wasn't is a huge piece of evidence that the EU was intentionally avoiding targeting Spotify. Spotify doesn't sell anything? Ok, sure. What exactly does YouTube sell? And aren't Europeans about the "spirit of the law" anyway? Who cares if music streaming isn't a "core platform service" - the spirit of the law is that big tech companies should have to compete fairly. Shouldn't Spotify have to follow the spirit of the law? I mean - iPad has to follow the law despite not meeting the quantitative thresholds laid out in the law, so why not Spotify despite not meeting the definition for core platform service?

And you're saying that Spotify isn't holding a critical access point between users and artists music streaming? You're really going to argue with a straight face that developers NEED full access to any private API of Apple's, and it's unfair to make developers follow Apple's rules because developers DESERVE to reach Apple's 25% of the mobile OS market? That telling developers "if you don't like our rules, just develop for the platform with 75% market share" is unreasonable, but telling musicians "just ignore Spotify's 56% of the EU streaming market if you don't like Spotify's terms and conditions" is reasonable? That Spotify is not "a critical access point between users and artists"? I have friends who are musicians and they will tell you straight up that if you're not on Spotify your band might as well not exist - and that's in the US where Spotify has a lower market share than the EU.

Spotify also puts up barriers to keep its users from switching. Spotify doesn't make it easy to export your playlists and favorite artists to competitors. Isn't that preventing fair competition and locking in users to Spotify? Maybe Spotify should be required to give their recommendation algorithm to any of their competitors who wants it without compensation. I can't compete if I can't easily get users' playlists over to my app and my recommendation engine isn't as good as what Spotify gives itself. I mean, that's what the EU is recommending happen to Apple's private intellectual property - if Apple invents something everyone gets it. And Spotify has 30% MORE market share in streaming music than Apple has in the mobile OS market. Even if we accept EU defenders' ridiculous arguments that "Well, actually Apple makes half of mobile revenue so that should be what counts for their market share" then Spotify still has more market share in its market than Apple does it its market. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Or do we only care about competition when a European company isn't leading its market?

It's also clear that the revenue thresholds were clearly aimed at making sure Spotify wouldn't get hit as an "online intermediation service". Spotify has over 175 million active users in the EU. That's a lot more than the 45 million laid out in the law, so check - DMA should apply. I've been told it's fair that iPadOS is regulated despite not having 45 million users because it has a high number of "business users". And I'll quote the DMA here:

Having a very high number of business users that depend on a core platform service to reach a very high number of monthly active end users enables the undertaking providing that service to influence the operations of a substantial part of business users to its advantage and indicate, in principle, that that undertaking is an important gateway.

How does that not apply to Spotify in the music market? Almost 4 times the number of active users. Business users depend the revenue they earn by attracting Spotify's customers to listen to their music. What don't they have? The revenue laid out in the DMA. I wonder why the revenue threshold was set where it was? Hmmmmmm. No idea why. It's a mystery.

But you don't have to take my word for that Spotify was intentionally excluded, here is a Senior Fellow in Law and Economics and professor at University Liege Dirk Auer:

The spectre of protectionist intervention is reinforced by the fact that revenue thresholds outlined in the DMA seem designed purposefully to exclude European platforms, notably Spotify.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The fact that music streaming was excluded when video sharing wasn't is a huge piece of evidence that the EU was intentionally avoiding targeting Spotify. Spotify doesn't sell anything? Ok, sure. What exactly does YouTube sell? And aren't Europeans about the "spirit of the law" anyway? Who cares if music streaming isn't a "core platform service" - the spirit of the law is that big tech companies should have to compete fairly. Shouldn't Spotify have to follow the spirit of the law? I mean - iPad has to follow the law despite not meeting the quantitative thresholds laid out in the law, so why not Spotify despite not meeting the definition for core platform service?

First of Spotify and other still needs to follow antitrust rules and refrain from anticompe Practices. And just for fun can you make a guess what kind of obligations YouTube have under the DMA?

Well YouTube sells:
1: Their own videos such as YouTube red.
2: Sell super chats( donations to specific channels)
3: Subscription services for explicit channels.
4: Video streaming without advertisement
5: user generated content with advertising revenue for some users depending on content.

Spotify sells:
1: Music streaming without advertisement
2: audio streaming with advertising revenue for 100%

Now why do you think Netflix, Disney, Amazon prime and HBO max etc isn’t considered as gatekeepers?

And you're saying that Spotify isn't holding a critical access point between users and artists music streaming? You're really going to argue with a straight face that developers NEED full access to any private API of Apple's, and it's unfair to make developers follow Apple's rules because developers DESERVE to reach Apple's 25% of the mobile OS market? That telling developers "if you don't like our rules, just develop for the platform with 75% market share" is unreasonable, but telling musicians "just ignore Spotify's 56% of the EU streaming market if you don't like Spotify's terms and conditions" is reasonable? That Spotify is not "a critical access point between users and artists"? I have friends who are musicians and they will tell you straight up that if you're not on Spotify your band might as well not exist - and that's in the US where Spotify has a lower market share than the EU.

Have I argued that developers need full access to APIs? Did I not further up express that I don’t like such in-depth detailed control?

You should also read what kind of APIs they’re going through.
I don’t see how the market share is of any relevance considering you can access Spotify or YouTube music at zero cost, and also move music at zero costs.

While going from a iOS AppStore to android playstore requires about 1.000~$
And the fact an iOS app can’t run on android.

Spotify also puts up barriers to keep its users from switching. Spotify doesn't make it easy to export your playlists and favorite artists to competitors. Isn't that preventing fair competition and locking in users to Spotify? Maybe Spotify should be required to give their recommendation algorithm to any of their competitors who wants it without compensation. I can't compete if I can't easily get users' playlists over to my app and my recommendation engine isn't as good as what Spotify gives itself. I mean, that's what the EU is recommending happen to Apple's private intellectual property - if Apple invents something everyone gets it. And Spotify has 30% MORE market share in streaming music than Apple has in the mobile OS market. Even if we accept EU defenders' ridiculous arguments that "Well, actually Apple makes half of mobile revenue so that should be what counts for their market share" then Spotify still has more market share in its market than Apple does it its market. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Or do we only care about competition when a European company isn't leading its market?

It’s trivial to export your Spotify playlist at no cost. And nothing forces Apple to give away their intellectual property. Their APIs can’t be copied by other, the are just available for interaction by other developers. And this is already provided for free🤷‍♂️.

But again this instance is Apple being so incompetent and bad faith that they require EU to hold their hand.

P.S if you actually cared for EU gatekeepers you should talk about SAP instead of Spotify.

It's also clear that the revenue thresholds were clearly aimed at making sure Spotify wouldn't get hit as an "online intermediation service". Spotify has over 175 million active users in the EU. That's a lot more than the 45 million laid out in the law, so check - DMA should apply. I've been told it's fair that iPadOS is regulated despite not having 45 million users because it has a high number of "business users". And I'll quote the DMA here:

And well apparently Spotify doesn’t have more than 45 million monthly users inside EU specifically. But they still are obligated to follow the general obligations.

How does that not apply to Spotify in the music market? Almost 4 times the number of active users. Business users depend the revenue they earn by attracting Spotify's customers to listen to their music. What don't they have? The revenue laid out in the DMA. I wonder why the revenue threshold was set where it was? Hmmmmmm. No idea why. It's a mystery.

But you don't have to take my word for that Spotify was intentionally excluded, here is a Senior Fellow in Law and Economics and professor at University Liege Dirk Auer:

Spotify is simply not a digital market, but just a digital service provider.
Bruegel actually have worthwhile analysis compared to the linked opinion piece that lacked substance or useful information

Table 4: Core Platform Services provided by selected companies by Bruegel .org - Infogram

infogram.com

 

[I7guy]

First of Spotify and other still needs to follow antitrust rules and refrain from anticompe Practices. And just for fun can you make a guess what kind of obligations YouTube have under the DMA?

[...]

You keep quoting the DMA as your defense of the DMA. I get it. Bad regulations are better than no regulations.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You keep quoting the DMA as your defense of the DMA. I get it. Bad regulations are better than no regulations.

Well the digital service act and digital market act was originally intended to be one single regulation instead of two different ones. And Spotify does fall under the DSA.

And well sometimes bad regulations is worse than no regulations. It just depends on the circumstances. And yes we are mostly diametrically opposed on this issue.