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

[wbeasley]

It worked quite well for some time. But circumstances change. If Smartphones were a niche product like gaming consoles, I would agree. Just let them do their thing. But today Smartphones have become the center of every citizens digital life. It has become essential to function in society an to have access to many services and core to the business model of a very large number of companies. This is not only about Spotify, it's much larger issue than that.

what circumstances have changed?

from the moment the App Store went live, there were apps developed using Apple tools, verified against rule set, while handling payments and updates seamlessly. that still exists today.

Epic tried to cheat the system and behaved against the rules of the store. Apple stood up to them.

It's not just about Spotify but they play a large part of the group complaining to EU lawmakers.

Ask anyone under 30 if game consoles are a niche product
The gaming industry is bigger than the movie industry now.
The hardware is more than capable of doing more than the game OS let them do. As mod chips show.
Yet some on here want to make this only about iPhones.
Why limit the fight for device access?

 

[MilaM]

Charging devices: Can new EU law clear the path to a unified experience?

The EU will require devices to be USB-C compatible by 2024, so DXOMARK recently tested the current state of the cross-charging experience.

www.dxomark.com

even charging is an industry-wide nightmare the EU law changes arent addressing.
the end user may still not see fast charging with all the different (and sometimes proprietary) "standards".

What is your complaint regarding this test? I think it's very positive. Only one third-party charger out of four tested (Amazon Basic) did not perform as expected with the iPhone 13. The others worked exactly as the original chargers.

USB-PD is a standard that works quite well in practice and can provide very high currents up 60W without issues. Even more is possible, but then you need higher speced (5A) cables. If you don't trust your judgment when buying a charger, you can of course just buy it from the manufacturer of your smartphone. Thanks to USB-C it will still be compatible with most of your other gear.

 

[wbeasley]

What is your complaint regarding this test? I think it's very positive. Only one charger out of four tested (Amazon Basic) did not perform as expected with the iPhone 13. The others worked exactly as the original chargers.

USB-PD is a standard that works quite well in practice and can provide very high currents up 100W without issues. Even more is possible, but then you need special calbes. If you don't trust your judgment when buying a charger, you can of course just buy it from the manufacturer of your smartphone. Thanks to USB-C it will still be compatible with most of your other gear.

read the article. there are lots of issues about not using the manufacturer cable/charger.

the EU has standardised a plug. that will charge. at some level. that's it.

 

[MilaM]

read the article. there are lots of issues about not using the manufacturer cable/charger.

the EU has standardised a plug. that will charge. at some level. that's it.

A plug AND a protocol to negotiate higher voltages and currents. A very good protocol I might add, that the whole industry was standardizing on anyway. It's going to stay for a very long time, I'm sure.

It's not clear to me how old this article is. But since they only tested an iPhone 13, it's probably two years old. Things have most likely already improved considerably since then.

"Some level" is between 10 Watts (minimum) up to 60 Watts with the same cable. More Watts, with the 5A cable.

What is your complaint then again? Did you personally have any problem with USB-charging yet?

 

[MilaM]

what circumstances have changed?

Read what I wrote. If you don't at least try to understand the arguments exchanged, then the discussion is useless.

 

[wbeasley]

Read what I wrote. If you don't at least try to understand the arguments exchanged, then the discussion is useless.

the link i posted was a year old by the three comments.

I did read what you wrote. Didnt make things any clearer than the link i posted.
they actually tested and discussed issues they found.

the aim of this law was to reduce landfill.
wonder how much changing over to a new standard contributed to working devices being ditched and disposed of?
like when businesses change letterheads and chuck the old signage.

 

[MilaM]

the aim of this law was to reduce landfill.
wonder how much changing over to a new standard contributed to working devices being ditched and disposed of?

Are you ditching your devices? I didn't.

Besides, cables are a consumable anyways. After 3 to 5 years of intensive usage, the cable jackets usually break at the ends. In my experience original Apple cables are especially prone to this mode of failure.

 

[DaPhox]

If you think so. I guess you’ve never been to Europe, otherwise would see different

Maybe Sweden doesnt belong to europe?

 

[wanha]

Exactly, becuase they act like a modern day robber baron. These practices are hampering innovation and costing consumers money by preventing competition.

Do you think that same principle should be applied to ALL platforms, or are you just out to spite Apple?

If it's the latter, my question is... why are you doing here?

If it's the former, are you aware that such a ruling would mean that game developers would be able to distributing their games on Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, and Steam for free.

As almost all consoles are sold at a loss, that would effectively mean the end of games consoles as we know it.

Is this what you want and if not, what is it?

What is the universal rule you want that should apply to ALL platforms?

 

[wanha]

But of course. This is a prime example of Orwells ”newspeak”.

you did not address his comment at all

 

[I7guy]

Exactly, becuase they act like a modern day robber baron. These practices are hampering innovation and costing consumers money by preventing competition.

I’m not writing the best word that fits this but baloney.

 

[I7guy]

It worked quite well for some time. But circumstances change. If Smartphones were a niche product like gaming consoles, I would agree. Just let them do their thing. But today Smartphones have become the center of every citizens digital life. It has become essential to function in society an to have access to many services and core to the business model of a very large number of companies. This is not only about Spotify, it's much larger issue than that.

If you list your iPhone:
- would you breath, die or not be able to eat
- pay your bills?
- manage your finances
- get to work

Si be before the iPhone I have been able to do all of the above not tethered. I dont deny it’s a convenience, but don’t use a circular argument to prove your point.

 

[MilaM]

If you list your iPhone:
- would you breath, die or not be able to eat
- pay your bills?
- manage your finances
- get to work

Most of my banking apps rely on a smarphone as a second factor. So yes. I would not be able to pay my bills. One of three is indeed smartphone-only (iOS or Android). You could not even get in touch with the customer service without it.
The most budget friendly ticket for public transport is also digital and smartphone-only where I live. There is the possiblitly to get a chip-card based solution. But it's really cumbersome to use.
Many government services also rely on Smartphones, specifically the NFC interface, for authentication.

Si be before the iPhone I have been able to do all of the above not tethered.

Things are changing quickly. And I haven't even mentioned staying in touch with realtives and friends. Of course you might says that that's optional.

It is not a circular argument.

The robber baron part is of course hyperbole, mostly

 

[MilaM]

Do you think that same principle should be applied to ALL platforms, or are you just out to spite Apple?

I don't think it should apply to all platforms. Only the ones which are used as a general computing device and have replaced Mac and PCs for a lot of people. I would be even fine if the EU carved out an exception for games on iOS.

 

[webkit]

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.

Before Spotify stopped allowing premium subscriptions through the App Store, they would charge customers a higher price to subscribe through the App Store. It was cheaper to subscribe through Spotify's website than through the App Store. Therefore, if the App Store commission was lowered or removed Spotify would presumably lower the price (if/when subscriptions are allowed again) but it would likely only bring it down to their lower website price. In that sense, Spotify would be charging customers less.

 

[MilaM]

Before Spotify stopped allowing premium subscriptions through the App Store, they would charge customers a higher price to subscribe through the App Store. It was cheaper to subscribe through Spotify's website than through the App Store. Therefore, if the App Store commission was lowered or removed Spotify would presumably lower the price (if/when subscriptions are allowed again) but it would likely only bring it down to their lower website price. In that sense, Spotify would be charging customers less.

Completely agree. When Apple charges the commission, it's the users who pay the extra fee.

 

[webkit]

what circumstances have changed?

from the moment the App Store went live, there were apps developed using Apple tools, verified against rule set, while handling payments and updates seamlessly. that still exists today.

One change is that the mobile OS market is now dominated by just two players (iOS and Android). In some countries/regions iOS has the larger share and in other countries/regions Android has the larger share.

 

[I7guy]

Most of my banking apps rely on a smarphone as a second factor. So yes. I would not be able to pay my bills. One of three is indeed smartphone-only (iOS or Android). You could not even get in touch with the customer service without it.
The most budget friendly ticket for public transport is also digital and smartphone-only where I live. There is the possiblitly to get a chip-card based solution. But it's really cumbersome to use.
Many government services also rely on Smartphones, specifically the NFC interface, for authentication.



Things are changing quickly. And I haven't even mentioned staying in touch with realtives and friends. Of course you might says that that's optional.

It is not a circular argument.

The robber baron part is of course hyperbole, mostly

Okay our family has multiple authentication methods to ensuring if our devices are lost we can access our important institutions. Lack of proper planning does not constitute a critical requirement; which is why these arguments are circular in nature.

 

[MilaM]

Lack of proper planning does not constitute a critical requirement

To deny reality seems to be a requirement to defend Apple in this case, apparently. Most things in life are optional when your base case is to live like a hermit in the garden of your emperor.

 

[MacFarmer]

I'm pretty sure if someone properly had a look at Spottily's business practices, they would get one too.

 

[StuBeck]

Allowing Spotify to say "you can get this cheaper elsewhere" is the equivalent of Apple collecting 0% on the transaction, which is why Apple won't allow it.

And why they're getting fined.

 

[I7guy]

To deny reality seems to be a requirement to defend Apple in this case, apparently. Most things in life are optional when your base case is to live like a hermit in the garden of your emperor.

Reality is proper planning, which if not done equates to criticising apple? Nobody is stopping anybody from living in the technical supremacy of human existence. But you don’t need an iPhone to do it. It requires basic infrastructure like internet, cell or satellite.

 

[Hails09]

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.

That already happens in uk supermarkets where they say they are cheaper than the competition

 

[Hails09]

So do Google require a payment... Unless they make an under the table, secret deal like they did to that company who underpays artists.

And I am pretty sure every single store I go into, does not have advertising for alternative stores. That includes in person and online. Why should Apple be required to tell someone else to go elsewhere? Would you? < rhetorical, because I know you wouldn't >


Yeah it seems "See the Difference" does not a good point make....

But here's the thing.
You are right. An artist can use multiple "stores'. And they will automatically be available in both Operating Systems by virtue of being in those stores.

There is nothing stopping any music streamer from not being involved in those stores and there is nothing stopping them from using a store that has no Apple Tax or Google Tax. Spotify are doing it already.

So your point either makes no sense or you need to spell it out in bigger phrases than "see the difference". Maybe explain what you mean.


Can you pass on a link to how Google are being brought to the EU over Spotify? I can't find one. Or is it that they aren't going after them because Spotify made a sweetheart deal and have told the EU not to. The EU are simply the 'protection racket for Spotify'

That’s a silly argument to say that the EU is a protection racket for Spotify.
All Spotify did put their case forward to the EU & showed all the stuff that Apple puts in front to say you can’t do this & you can’t do that.

 

[DaPhox]

NeXT victim of EU is tiktok where, if found ”guilty”, EU can collect ~6% of yearly revenue!??

People are completely blind to whats going on…

(That these rules are completely arbitrary & EU needs finances going forward.)