Apple to Be Fined Over $500 Million in EU Music Streaming Probe

[AppliedMicro]

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.

Apple could negotiate to pay less to artists, couldn't they?
I'm quite sure I read about smaller streaming services that paid less.

So my take on this is that your wish is to break Apples eco system

Just their single-handed stranglehold on it.
I've got no problem with having a Mac App Store on macOS - as long as there's alternative (and competitive!) distribution channels. Sometimes I buy through Apple, sometimes I buy elsewhere.

because they have a rule for EU Companies and a rule for those who want to compete with them

No, it's not between EU companies and foreign ones.

Spotify are much less fair on the smaller people than Apple are to Spotify, but the EU will let that slide

There's one crucial difference where the EU is absolutely correct in their justification to regulate Apple and Google (Alphabet) more than Spotify:

Spotify operates under competition in a competitive market - as evidenced by the market share distribution in the music streaming market. Including Apple Music itself, having reached a no. 2 position in the market, despite only being about half as old as Spotify.

That's inconceivable in the mobile OS market for smartphones, which has considerably decreased in competitiveness over time. Having lost large and important competitors (Microsoft, Blackberry, Symbian) and basically converged into a duopoly (in developed markets).

 

[steve09090]

As have been said before: noone forces artists to be on Spotify. Don’t like the rates? Go elsewhere then (as many do).

No one forces Spotify to be on the iOS store either. Unless you’re the EU and you can change the rules.

Apple could negotiate to pay less to artists, couldn't they?
I'm quite sure I read about smaller streaming services that paid less.

Yet they are consistent and choose to be better than that. We'll leave the ripping off artists to Spotify

No, it's not between EU companies and foreign ones.

There's one crucial difference where the EU is absolutely correct in their justification to regulate Apple and Google (Alphabet) more than Spotify:

You do know that these views are contrary don’t you? Spotify is an EU company. Look, I get that Apple must pay the piper to have a market in the EU. It is a rule that to compete in the EU, you just work on different set of conditions (aka Brexit). I get it, I understand, but please don’t pretend that this is nothing short of a way to benefit Spotify in a loaded market.

Anyway. I think we are going in circles. You agree with their decision and I don’t. I’m going off to use my Apple Fitness+ subscription that provides me all the Apple Music I want.

 

[AppliedMicro]

because they have a rule for EU Companies and a rule for those who want to compete with them.

You do know that these views are contrary don’t you?

There is an objective difference in market competition between mobile OS and music streaming markets that has got nothing to do where the companies originate from (European vs. US American)

The EU regulated a market that decreased in competitiveness (mobile OS and app stores) and remained stagnant.
And not a one that increased in competition (music streaming).

 

[steve09090]

There is an objective difference in market competition between mobile OS and music streaming markets that has got nothing to do where the companies originate from (European vs. US American)

The EU regulated market that decreased in competitiveness (mobile OS and app stores).
And not a one that increased in competition (music streaming).

That’s just cherry picking a point of view where you have decided which is more important. "It just so happens that Spotify are EU and Apple are not". Right…. Either way, like I said, I’m done. We can disagree and call it a day. 🏃🎶

But I have enjoyed the Banter and different points of view.

 

[wbeasley]

EU needs to start protecting people ... at supermarkets.

Force shops to put stickers on items saying "you can buy this cheaper down the road at..."

Honestly, if a consumer is too lazy to shop outside the Apple OS, do they need to be told?

I can buy software on the AppStore that is called the same thing but offers different features.
Try SnagIt or Camtasia.
Buy it outside and you get the next update free.
Buy it in the AppAtore and you get current version only but cheaper.

The EU should focus on a little war going on and fund it better.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

EU needs to start protecting people ... at supermarkets.

Force shops to put stickers on items saying "you can buy this cheaper down the road at..."

Honestly, if a consumer is too lazy to shop outside the Apple OS, do they need to be told?

I can buy software on the AppStore that is called the same thing but offers different features.
Try SnagIt or Camtasia.
Buy it outside and you get the next update free.
Buy it in the AppAtore and you get current version only but cheaper.

The EU should focus on a little war going on and fund it better.

Odd comment. Not remotely close to what is happening here.

 

[rukia]

No, that they should be allowed to list lower price availability in their own app. This is something Apple said they could not do. The whole point of capitalism is allowing competition to lower prices.

Do you think people listing their properties on AirBnb should be allowed to list their contact info for booking directly so they can bypass any payment to AirBnb ? Of course you can undercut Airbnb prices because you are using their platform for free and when it comes time to book you pay them nothing. What about being allowed to advertise a link or contact info on eBay, Uber, dating apps, etc. where people can just buy from you directly and bypass the fees ? You are using their platform but when it comes time to pay, as agreed upon when you signed up, you bypass payment. The business model basically collapses.

Online stores have already decimated bricks and mortar for obviously reasons. Still there are despicable people who will go to Best Buy to check out a product with every intention of buying online instead. Basically Best Buy pays the expense to operate the store as a free showroom for them. The analogy to the current EU law is even worse. Not only can you use Best Buy as a free showroom but they are required to allow signs to be posted in their store on where to get a better price.

 

[AppliedMicro]

EU needs to start protecting people ... at supermarkets.

If and when they‘re forming a monopoly or duopoly, they definitely should definitely ban supermarkets’ contract clauses that prohibit suppliers from selling directly to consumers (unless a 15 or 30% commission is paid to supermarket, even though they’re not part of the sale).

 

[MilaM]

I get it, I understand, but please don’t pretend that this is nothing short of a way to benefit Spotify in a loaded market.

This won't probably sway your opinion. But let me add one more thing. One of the main tasks of the EU in general and the Commission specifically is to enforce antitrust law inside the common market. Digital goods and services are just one of many markets the EU institutions are monitoring. Other areas are financial services, utilities, telecoms, travel, and vehicle manufacturing. This case only came to your attention, because it happens to affect a company that you follow closely. But the proceedings are nothing special or extraordinary. This is just one case of many over the decades. You may say the case has no merit. But the decision has not been made in a vacuum and is based on laws. Apple can appeal it, and then a court will have to decide.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No one has still answered how these fines benefit EU costumers? & where the $500 million is distributed after verdict for that matter?

So how do EU consumers benefit from those $500 million? Except for increased ”taxing” & pricing?

The EU have just made it more expensive for Apple to be in the EU, which being a business, Apple will have to recoup that money from consumers.

The EU have just fined consumers.

Easy, it’s a fine to discourage their illegal behavior. Consumer’s benefit from businesses following the law.

Fines monetary punishment aren’t an expense for doing business, apple can easily be fined higher than the profit they make from the AppStore.

And Apple will just keep paying the fine rather than comply here. Just like the Dutch dating app thing.

They should be fining Spotify for their anti competitive behavior especially to artists.

The Dutch case isn’t over, apple apple have lost their appeal for the fines

The ACM vs. Apple AppStore – A Second Chance To Get It Right - Lexxion

The Dutch case concerning the Apple App Store appears to make a (welcome) comeback. The case that started in 2019 came to a rather disappointing end in the

www.lexxion.eu

Ummm....you think these fees and taxes are free to you? Apple will earn the money it needs to earn in order to stay healthy in the EU market. Which means consumers will pay in a different way.

You speak of this marketshare as though it can be mined in an unlimited way, as though the EU can keep looking for new ways to extract money from Apple and there will be no cost.

Go ask businesses in the EU why they aren't competing on the global stage in these markets. You may be surprised by their answer.

Or they just follow the laws and regulations as everyone else and they won’t be Punished for breaking said law.

these fines are irrelevant to the consumer. If Apple wants to increase the prices above what the market is willing to pay then that’s their prerogative

The EU also won't do anything against the monopoly of ASML. They simply mad that Nokia got destroyed by Apple.

I read somewhere about an European country that believes the growth of their economy is based on Tech. So, by nerfing US tech, this fits right into the picture.

What is there to do? ASML isn’t a monopoly in EU.

Letter: Europe has an unrivalled record on antitrust -

​

“EU antitrust has actually long been criticised for not relying on a narrow consumer welfare standard, unlike in the US.​

​

Our competition enforcement focuses on the efficiencies of, and harm to, the competitive process. Anyone reading our recent decisions with even some cursory attention would have noticed that.”​

​

Olivier Guersent
Director-General, Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission

The Financial Times

 

[gregmancuso]

There's just one problem with it:

The company that has spent years, millions of man hours, and billions of dollars to create a platform that everyone else gets to profit from for free without compensating the creator for it in any way.

In a world like that, why would anyone bother creating and investing in a platform in the future?

So, putting the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog law into practice. Ayn Rand would be proud.

 

[Naraxus]

If and when they‘re forming a monopoly or duopoly, they definitely should definitely ban supermarkets’ contract clauses that prohibit suppliers from selling directly to consumers (unless a 15 or 30% commission is paid to supermarket, even though they’re not part of the sale).

Technically it's not illegal to be a monopoly

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Or they just follow the laws and regulations as everyone else and they won’t be Punished for breaking said law.

You parrot this silly idea that "the law" is some immutable fact. When in fact, these are special laws that only apply to a select few companies. So when you say "they just follow the laws and regulations as everyone else" you're being disingenuous. As you, specifically, understand, these laws and regulations are narrowly crafted; they don't apply to "everyone else."

This idea that so many of you seem to have of moral righteousness is unfounded. I concede no moral ground to the actions of the EU here. The EU is not doing their best to "benefit consumers." This is a fully emotional political decision that's wholly based in protectionism after a grave failure to innovate in tech in the EU.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

...but the good news is that Apple has signaled they aren't just going to roll over to what many of you think is "the spirit of the law." That's a silly notion to begin with. Laws are about specifics, not spirits.

So, I'll leave this to Apple. They've got it and they'll make the best decisions for "the consumers."

 

[steve09090]

...but the good news is that Apple has signaled they aren't just going to roll over to what many of you think is "the spirit of the law." That's a silly notion to begin with. Laws are about specifics, not spirits.

So, I'll leave this to Apple. They've got it and they'll make the best decisions for "the consumers."

I agree with your comments about protectionism etc. I will say though that laws must be attempted to be enforced in the 'spirit' on which it was enacted. It must be read with the intention of the government that made the law at the time. Thats why laws are so complicated at times; because they are trying to word it to take out other interpretations. I used to teach this stuff btw.

 

[gund1234]

Apple faces the music

It's telling Apple has such in-built competitive advantages (pre-installed on the iPhone), pricing advantages, and Spotify still outperforms it. Spotify is just better software, both in terms of UI and its algorithms. I'm sure Apple will catch up in paid users eventually but it's not from having a better product.

how is it ?
if people are signing up for Apple musinc then Apple is loosing 30% cut from it's subscribers.

 

[gund1234]

i can guarantee Spotify will not charge less for it's customers if Apple doesn't take 30% cut.
this is not about customers, this is about who gets to keep more money, Apple or Spotify.
if people think that customers benefit from this fight you have been duped.

 

[gund1234]

Or....................they need to play by the rules?

politicians should not be deciding what kind of port Apple should use in a phone, because they don't know ****.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I agree with your comments about protectionism etc. I will say though that laws must be attempted to be enforced in the 'spirit' on which it was enacted. It must be read with the intention of the government that made the law at the time. Thats why laws are so complicated at times; because they are trying to word it to take out other interpretations. I used to teach this stuff btw.

I appreciate your comments. I actually spent a career crafting and passing legislation. I've written law that worked and laws that needed to be reworked. In the end, the courts aren't going to decide on "intent" but rather on the letter of the law contained therein. Where it was difficult, we often included a more subjective introductory "intent" section in the law. But in the end, all human endeavors are subjective in nature, and there's no language that can capture objectivity perfectly. Those who have to follow the law can only read and implement the law as it is written.

 

[vicviper789]

Apple needs to brexit

 

[wbeasley]

Odd comment. Not remotely close to what is happening here.

but EU want Apple to tell purchasers they could buy an app cheaper outside the app store...

it's exactly relervant

 

[wbeasley]

If and when they‘re forming a monopoly or duopoly, they definitely should definitely ban supermarkets’ contract clauses that prohibit suppliers from selling directly to consumers (unless a 15 or 30% commission is paid to supermarket, even though they’re not part of the sale).

why?

if another supermarket sells something cheaper, why not enforce the same rule?
it's exactly the same. informed purchasing.
just because it is tech doesnt make it different.

if a game can be purchased online cheaper, should the physical store also tell you that?

it's called shopping around.
if you cant be bothered to know what things cost from research then it falls onto you not the seller...

 

[bollman]

No one forces Spotify to be on the iOS store either. Unless you’re the EU and you can change the rules.

Ah, but you see, here comes the big difference:
How many streaming music services can you list?
Spotify
Apple Music
Youtube music
Amazon music
Tidal
Deezer
…and more

Now list available mobile platforms:
Google
Apple

See the difference?

 

[wbeasley]

perhaps i might change how i pay for Spotify.

currently i do it direct...
might upset them more if i do it thru Apple app payment system

 

[wbeasley]

Ah, but you see, here comes the big difference:
How many streaming music services can you list?
Spotify
Apple Music
Youtube music
Amazon music
Tidal
Deezer
…and more

Now list available mobile platforms:
Google
Apple

See the difference?

no streaming app needs to have in app purchasing.

they can have a link to their website. explain there how to upgrade your account to ad free

but they might lose the casual purchaser... trade offs