Same its not surprising seeing apple users/europeans BEGGING totalitarian authorities for MORE supervision & control. Letting them control EVERYTHING for a ”good” cause…
Que?
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
Que?
This is about business in the EU and helping EU companies thrive. This is about protecting a Swedish company (Spotify) from a Non-EU company.
It’s a form of corruption where Spotify lobbied members of the EU to help them gain a stronger margin. Anyone who thinks otherwise, doesn’t really understand how the EU works.
Anti Competitive Laws are about interpretation and it’s very very clear what they have done here.
But Amazon are not an EU company, so they won’t be protected like Spotify.
Apple won‘t be leaving out if Europe because 💶💶💶
They aren‘t getting out of China because 💶💶💶. They’ve „just followed the law“ by removing VPN apps there, are letting iCloud be operated by a Chinese company and even (just said Gruber) implemented RCS just to sell in China: (quote: „last year, the Chinese government began the process of codifying into law that to achieve certification, new 5G devices will be required to support RCS.).
And they didn‘t leave Russia - where they just paid antitrust fines „to Russia‘s federal budget“.
👉🏻 When there’s money to be made, Apple may fight local regulation tooth and nail - but will ultimately, when push comes to shove, give in to continue making money.
👉🏻 Regulation ultimately works
It’s about protecting fair competition.
In this case, the company having filed the complaint happens to be European - and the alleged violator happens to be American.
Countries could be the other way around next time.
We have reached the "the EU is a totalitarian state" stage of the discussion, which usually means that all sensible arguments have already been exchanged, and that it's time to move on to the comment section of the next article
.What is not fair about letting Spotify have a free app in the ecosystem and giving them TOP billing in the Apple store when you search for Music Apps, just next to Apples own App. And Spotify can advertise and gain premium users in any way they see fit in which ever way they choose.
Spotify have chosen not to allow purchases through the app, which is their choice.
So to bring you up on your point, this is not about protecting fair competition, it’s about protecting EU Companies and giving them every advantage they can over a Non EU company.
As if consumers just search for „Music App“ and then just download the top-billing app - rather than actively seeking out the world‘s leading music streaming service name.
Not on their app.
Well, not so easily anymore, considering Apple will be legally required to provide „fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory general conditions of access to app stores“ in the EU. 😄
👉 You can rest assured that - if Apple would kick out Spotify entirely "just because" - a $500 million fine would just be the tame beginning.
Last edited:
They even differentiate between smaller companies and larger businesses on their competition rules website.
If your company has a large market share, it holds a dominant position and must take particular care not to:
As if they don’t. There is a reason why Apple list apps in a particular order, and they gain market share as a result.
Spotify can’t have in App purchases?
Certainly a lot of other things but we are on macrumors so u will not find a news like "EU fined a petrol/electric/car/etc company for...". Didn't u think about it?
I just tried that. You have to scroll down three screens to get to the Spotify app. First result is a paid ad (Amazon), second result Apple Music (oh wonder).
Nowadays the app store is not really used for discovery. No app will 'sell itself' just because it's in the catalogue.
You mean just like every single company that's ever existed?
It’s region specific. It worked for me. Plus I often check the top Apps.
Attachments
If only Spotify paid musicians as much as Apple Music does. I should maybe re-look at Tidal though.
www.tomsguide.com
Spotify vs Apple Music vs Tidal — Who pays artists more?
We asked an independent musician how well Spotify pays
"Market share". Literally what it says there. Not "smaller companies" or "larger businesses".
A company can be relatively small (compared to Apple anyway) and still have a monopoly.
They don't.
If customers were as ignorant, they'd straight up subscribe to Apple Music. They don't even need to open up the App Store once, given how Apple is shoving their "Music" service into customers' faces when setting up their hardware device or updating it. Let alone the fact that devices come with a "Music" app preinstalled - which again shoves Apple Music into consumers' faces.
Apple's obnoxious in-your-face monetisation was the first and only reason why I downloaded an alternative music player app onto my devices.
Spotify couldn't and can't "advertise and gain premium users in any way they see fit in which ever way they choose" as you claimed.
I’m still confused as to why the eu thinks it's entitled to the worldwide earnings of a foreign company
Now you’re just being pedantic. Thats no differentiator between the 2 giants.
A claim based on your personal anecdotal experience. It doesn’t reflect mine. We can agree to disagree on this one. We could Talk more about Obnoxious 'screwing over artists'. And then of course Spotify will ONLY pay artists who have more than 1000 streams in a year. Go the little people, huh?
So they can’t have in App Subscriptions? Really? Okay, let’s play this word game. I agree, they can’t have subscriptions in the App Store where they choose how much they ask for and get 100% of that money and Apple not get a cut. Which of course is the same as every other app in the world. But whatever.
I'm going to draw a line under this. All I am hearing is a Pro EU, Anti-Apple vibe, and not a reasonable discussion. If you can’t see there is a bias in this decision, then I am sorry.
Last edited:
Honestly, I thought you were about to make a point from that (e.g. "EU just cares about the most successful, i.e. "biggest" companies", as others have previously made that on the forum).
We can agree to disagree.
Still standing by my point though that Spotify isn't "discovered" through Apple's app store by the majority of music streaming users - neither is Netflix, Disney or Amazon Prime Video.
Maybe we can even agree that there are apps that have hugely benefitted from advertising on iOS/through Apple or being featured on Apple's App Store - but there are probably better examples (apps that can attribute a much higher share of revenue or users to Apple) than the biggest streaming services. I'd suspect especially in games or "PDF" tools, for example.
"No artist is screwed over. Because no artist is forced to be available on Spotify. If they don't like the terms they voluntarily signed up to with Spotify, they're free to leave for any other streaming service that pays better. Or just develop their own streaming service"
👉 That's how the argument goes, doesn't it? (I'd be kind of curious to read your take on that)
They can - but at a considerable cost disadvantage to particularly Apple's competing "Music" service (that's the "anticompetitive" part of the issue). And they can't advertise offers or promotions either - unless they commit to Apple's commission.
I'm definitely not pro-EU - quite the contrary.
I just support their on their regulation of fair markets for apps.
I believe Apple make (relatively) good and attractive hardware products and an operating system. I believe they played a critical role in convincing music companies to get rid of (at least the most abusive) anti-consumer DRM schemes and I commend them for that. But Apple been a greedy, and often anti-consumer bunch for many years. Given the trillions they've made, they need no sympathy - quite the contrary.
I was uneasy fifteen years ago, when Apple introduced their "single store" distribution model for iOS apps - and the fears back then have become true: iOS has become the totalitarian "1984" in many ways that they promised us the Macintosh wouldn't be. It's about time for some backlash!
When Volkswagen was fined in the US, many Germans thought that the decision had a pro US, anti Volkswagen bias. In my opinion VW did deserve the fine, but that was not the predominant sentiment in Germany. Now many Americans see bias in this decision 🤷♂️.
SEPs are usually licensed under FRAND. You could call that "unfriendly regulation" as the compaines can no longer charge whatever they want.
IMHO I look at this in a similar fashion as the biased political wedge that California utilized which leads the states for automotive environmental standards as a means to nudge out fossil fuel car usage for the benefit of the political backed EV car industry. But consumers in the USA look at this post history wise as inadequate alternative power facilities/reserves planning to supply that capability. In other words doomed to fail as the population grows with housing and increased EV car usage. Germany didn't agree with this thinking and supported cleaner alternative fuel so any conversion could occur more responsibly.
Now the one thing that is bothering Spotify as well as other large EU developers is this new addition 50 cent tax on over a million subscriptions that really doesn't have any oversight. This is what Apple decided would make it fair to them in place of the traditional 30 cent income. It doesn't take into any account that a user is not an actual subscriber just a statistic that is collected during the year. For smaller developers it is highly advantage to make more profits, but if your over million sales who knows how this will fare over the long term if Apple decided to change the tax rate? The debate here on that is how Apple looks at that as a necessary exchange against the creation of alternative stores?
For more read the verge article.
Here’s the new Apple tax every developer is going to hate
50 cents is the new 30 percent.
www.theverge.com
Last edited:
Don’t know, I’m not in America. VW wasn’t anti competitive, it was faking emissions results.
Spotify aren’t forced to be on iOS either. So what’s good for the goose…. Your same argument applies. Which was my point I guess. That there is a rule forcing Apple to allow 'equality on the app store' yet don’t apply the same value to the smaller artists.
Based on your (correct) notation earlier about having a large market share (and Spotify allegedly has a higher one than Apple Music) Spotify will not pay an artist who has less than 1,000 streams. How is that consistent? Seems like this is directed at Apple and the same rules do not apply to Spotify. If they are allowing Apple to have a market in the EU, they need to let them compete on the same playing field. Or not… and they choose not to.
I maintain that this is directed, or at the very least perceived as an EU v Non EU company. If the EU are going to penalise then they need to do the right thing for all companies trading in the EU, and particularly 'the little guys' trying to compete in the same market.
So my take on this is that your wish is to break Apples eco system. It’s kind of funny that they want to 'break down the walls of the walled garden' yet they have a very locked economic system within its own walls. Ah the irony…
I accept that to trade in the EU, you must automatically be held to an economic disadvantage by doing so, because they have a rule for EU Companies and a rule for those who want to compete with them. If they want to discriminate, then they should just admit it. I lost the ideal of 'fairness' many years ago. Spotify are much less fair on the smaller people than Apple are to Spotify, but the EU will let that slide. Hypocrites.
As have been said before: noone forces artists to be on Spotify. Don’t like the rates? Go elsewhere then (as many do).