LOL No you haven’t.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They should, at least to a degree. One difference is that Apple currently has greater share and control of the mobile and tablet OS markets with iOS and iPadOS (where App Store resides) than Walmart has control over its markets e.g., the brick-and-mortar store market.
People buy apple products and services in droves. Apple doesn’t pay $1b in legal fees a year to do business in an illegal manner.
Not digging in their heels could cause issues with other companies doing business in a legal manner. It’s not and shouldn’t be up to the government to tell a company they don’t like a perfectly legal business model.
There's no need to force Walmart to carry Norton or General Mills cereal because these products can be purchased from other retailers (Target, Costco, Kroger, Amazon, etc) or directly from Norton and General Mills. This is competition at work.
There is only one way to get Spotify for iOS... from Apple's App Store. This is what happens when there is no competition. Alternative app stores or sideloading would fix this.
It wouldn't necessarily be another grocery store advertising on the cereal box or at the store, it could be the cereal company itself e.g., buy XXXX cereal at XXXXcereal.com. Companies sometimes promote their website on or in packaging as an alternative place to buy their products.
EU actions by topic | European Union
Find out what the EU is doing to achieve its key political and strategic objectives by policy topic.
Or Apple has discovered that anticompetitive practices are not acceptable no matter if you developed the platform or not. Laws still apply.
I don't see widespread developer dissatisfaction.
I have subscriptions to several video streaming services. I've never cared that I have to manage my subscription in a web browser. I've honestly never even given it a thought. I manage Netflix, Disney, Peacock, etc. without any problems whatsoever. And I've never, ever heard anyone complain about that outside of MacRumors and the big companies who want access to what Apple provides without paying for it.
Hardware only sales were not supporting Apple well enough; and that's generally true across all business. It's not like they decided to simply go there to spite customers. I get that you may WANT all services for free, but that ship has sailed.
I consider Apple the company that treats me the best compared to all other companies I deal with. I simply don't share your dissatisfaction. And again, neither do most customers.
That would not end up well for Apple. This fine is just a warning, if Apple continue to not comply more and heftier fines would follow.
Ridiculous comparison as most Walmart comparisons I have seen. Apple doesn’t own the apps on the App Store, it just hosts them. A developer should be free to advertise whatever they want in their own app (within the limits of the law, which is not Apple terms and conditions but what’s dictated by the country). A more sensible comparison is Walmart forbidding manufacturers to insert a discount voucher in the box of the product that can be redeemed by buying online directly from the supplier.
From your responses it’s clear you see very little outside of what Apple tell you to see.
They are still not going to pull out of a market as they are a business
Last edited:
A ridiculous take. Apple is a very greedy company and it doesn’t leave money on the table: they already price their products as high as they possibly can. They pick whatever price maximise their profit: any higher and sales would fall and the profits would be lower despite higher price. So no, Apple can’t raise prices in response to this fine. It probably wouldn’t do it selectively in the eu but would do it worldwide instead, but either way that would lower sales and profits. What they will more likely do is to just take the hit and accept the small erosion in profits represented by this fine as the lesser evil.
This isn't about the cereal maker wanting to advertise inside Walmart (Spotify wanting to advertise on Apple's App Store) that the item is less at Safeway (that a Spotify subscription is less somewhere else).
This is the equivalent of preventing the cereal maker from advertsing on or inside the cereal box (preventing Spotify from advertising within the Spotify app) that you can get it for less elsewhere or offer a discount/coupon.
Spotify being able to advertise a discount or lower subscription price on their app (not on Apple's App Store) is equivalent to a cereal maker offering a coupon on or inside a box of their cereal.... something cereal makers have long done.
This ^ would be against Apple's App Store policy. Crazy!
Last edited:
My understanding is that Spotify passes the extra charge to the customer, and the issue is Apple not allowing Spotify to say "you can get it cheaper somewhere else"
Exactly. This can be easily deduced by how Apple gear becomes cheaper the longer it is on the market. Day one buyers pay a high premium, while customers who buy later in the product cycle pay less, for the same product. Apple's marketing department is likely one of the best in playing the pricing game. They don't leave one cent off the table.
So have you tried to research the topic of how artists are paid by the streaming services? I just provided one link because you asked for it.
Yes, in the past and the article I saw seemed to say Apple Pay’s better. But right now I dont feel like getting into a war of links, hence the comment.
Another thread of sooooo many people licking Apple’s boots.
So what then? Ask for link, diss the given link as rubbish and articles can say anything, then argue that you cant be bothered with links? Is that what it was?
That is incorrect. While the only way to get the Spotify App is through the App Store - a Spotify subscription can be purchase through many other methods. Yes it would be different if Apple only allowed Spotify users who paid through the subscription model in iOS to use Spotify - BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
What's weird is how EU never goes after Google, who have been doing the same thing, or other in the same space as Apple who will pull the same stunts Apple does. It's almost like the EU is using Apple as their cash cow and turning a blind eye to others in the same space.
If I were Apple I'd just pull a Trump and not pay it. What are they going to do, try to divest Apple from itself or themselves from Apple? Fat chance.
If I were Apple I'd just pull a Trump and not pay it. What are they going to do, try to divest Apple from itself or themselves from Apple? Fat chance.
It's a very complicated topic. I think the article I linked to explains quite well why that is so, even if does not give a definitve answer. I looked into it for about an hour and still wasn't satisfied with the answer. Anyways, it does not really matter with regard to the topic of this thread.
What is also weird, is that you did not even try to check if the EU ever went after Google.
You should read something other than Apple centric sites. The eu have been fining Google for years