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

[Sophisticatednut]

It's about as silly as yours is naive. Do you really think Spotify didn't lobby individuals in the EU Commission to get the result they wanted for this EU company against the most valuable company in the world? Not a single complaint from Spotify about Google because Spotify made a sweetheart deal with them. This is a direct attack against Apple from Spotify, because Apple refused to give them special treatment. You can't see that?

The EU Commission are hypocrites and are doing it solely based on EU companies, they are not interested in anyone else and especially not customers. This is business driven and has very little (or no) impact on customers.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for this? Especially considering you have no clue how law is passed and written in EU. Or the fact that the EU commission is the legislative branch separate from the judicial branch of the court of justice.

1. Parliament appoint the leader of the commission
2. The commission writes laws/regulations
3. The parliament votes on it(705 MEPs) or additional changes.
4. The council votes on it (27 head of state) or additional changes
5. The parliament and council enact in trilateral negotiations
6. The law/regulation pass, is changes or voted down.

However, your link, whilst referring to business practices relating to Google Search Engine only, does not relate to the EU view on protecting their EU companies based on payments in the App Store. HOWEVER, the article does provide a link to the Reuters story on just that. This story relates to Questionnaires sent to EU companies to help determine whether Googles payment systems have negatively impacted on their business.

The EU are protecting EU companies against Google and Apple, thus are not providing an open market. Which is my point all along. They are making their own walled garden within the EU, something they are apparently against when it done by Apple, or in this example, Google.

Hypocrites.

Do you have evidence the questionnaires was sent to only EU companies, and not all companies operating in EU?

A lot of accusations with little substance

 

[Sophisticatednut]

everyone has a phone BY CHOICE. and what phone they buy.

hardware specs on games consoles are up there with phones. they are very comparable and the games market is worth billions. it's not niche.

of course the smart phone market was small at the start. like everything. a new product... few buyers. iPads created the tablet market. IBM famously said way back there would only be a need for about 7 computers (or something similar). And then questioned who would want one at home... your calculator has more brain power than the lunar lander had.

when the app store was introduced it created a whole environment of app devs who didnt need big companies to make apps available. Apple gave them tools and training materials and a store with payments handled and marketing. the positives of this has generated billions. it's a model that has worked and keeps gaining momentum. it isnt broken.

That’s the issue. EU don’t care about the consumer and the legislativ intention isn’t for consumers and EU has routinely been criticised for not relying on a narrow consumer welfare standard, unlike in the US obsession with consumer welfare and harms to it.

EU competition enforcement focuses on the efficiencies of, and harm to, the competitive process. Anyone reading the last 30 years of judicial decisions with even some cursory attention would know that.

EU haven’t ever been convinced the consumer welfare have any important relevance compared to competition of the market.

 

[steve09090]

Do you have a single shred of evidence for this? Especially considering you have no clue how law is passed and written in EU. Or the fact that the EU commission is the legislative branch separate from the judicial branch of the court of justice.

1. Parliament appoint the leader of the commission
2. The commission writes laws/regulations
3. The parliament votes on it(705 MEPs) or additional changes.
4. The council votes on it (27 head of state) or additional changes
5. The parliament and council enact in trilateral negotiations
6. The law/regulation pass, is changes or voted down.

Do you have evidence the questionnaires was sent to only EU companies, and not all companies operating in EU?

A lot of accusations with little substance

Ho hum. Instead of attacking me.

Are you telling me there is no lobbying going on for these decisions and that Spotify have not been protected by the EU in favour over Apple/Google because they are not an EU Company? Do you have absolutely no clue on how politics is played in the EU?

Like I said. A lot of heavy breathing and no actual substance to what you are saying other than trying to push your own opinion as fact.

As I said. The EU, by the nature of their purpose, are protecting companies within the EU, and have by definition, created a walled garden of (allegedly) open business model as long as they are doing so within the EU. They are trying to break down this exact concept of Apples Walled Garden by doing it themselves. Hypocrites. In my opinion.

 

[steve09090]

that's not the same as putting a sticker saying "you can buy this item cheaper at..." in your own store.

As an aside, We actually have a major appliance store in Australia called "The Good Guys". The first thing they do when you are enquiring on a purchase is check the internet on their phone for cheaper prices elsewhere and immediately match or better it.

A much better environment than interpreting legislation to buddy up to Spotify.

 

[steve09090]

That’s the issue. EU don’t care about the consumer and the legislativ intention isn’t for consumers and EU has routinely been criticised for not relying on a narrow consumer welfare standard, unlike in the US obsession with consumer welfare and harms to it.

EU competition enforcement focuses on the efficiencies of, and harm to, the competitive process. Anyone reading the last 30 years of judicial decisions with even some cursory attention would know that.

EU haven’t ever been convinced the consumer welfare have any important relevance compared to competition of the market.

Isn’t that the point of the forcing a stupid system of requiring a USB C connection on a single device, yet ignoring every other device? For consumers? Wasn’ that the EU? I thought it was.

Whilst I'm not in the EU, I like the convenience of USB C on my 15Pro, but the connection is flaky compared to the lightning cable. They have made the system worse because I now have to replace my cables more often because they get loose too easily. They need to stop trying to justify their existence and trying to run businesses. Let the market drive it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Ho hum. Instead of attacking me.

Are you telling me there is no lobbying going on for these decisions and that Spotify have not been protected by the EU in favour over Apple/Google because they are not an EU Company? Do you have absolutely no clue on how politics is played in the EU?

I'm asking you for evidence supporting your statement, there currently nothing that shows EU care for Spotify, especially when this fine is based on pre existing anti competitive laws that was written before Spotify was thought of.

Like I said. A lot of heavy breathing and no actual substance to what you are saying other than trying to push your own opinion as fact.

It’s context. You are implying Spotify successfully lobbied half the commission, half the parliament consistent of 27 different governments as well as half the heads of states…to make favorable laws towards a Swedish music streaming company, and without Spotify lobbying it wouldn’t have happened….

I would say that’s a very strong claim you need to support with more than words.

and at least my “opinion” are supported by evidence I linked to.

As I said. The EU, by the nature of their purpose, are protecting companies within the EU, and have by definition, created a walled garden of (allegedly) open business model as long as they are doing so within the EU. They are trying to break down this exact concept of Apples Walled Garden by doing it themselves. Hypocrites. In my opinion.

Do you even know the purpose of EU or its foundational charters that dictate how the institutions operate? EU don’t have jurisdiction outside its territory, if apple doesn’t like the rule of law in EU, then they are free to to business elsewhere.

You just don’t like that EU don’t use the same criteria for antitrust. Apple is just another company.

Isn’t that the point of the forcing a stupid system of requiring a USB C connection on a single device, yet ignoring every other device? For consumers? Wasn’ that the EU? I thought it was.

Whilst I'm not in the EU, I like the convenience of USB C on my 15Pro, but the connection is flaky compared to the lightning cable. They have made the system worse because I now have to replace my cables more often because they get loose too easily. They need to stop trying to justify their existence and trying to run businesses. Let the market drive it.

Ignoring every other device? It’s applied to every other device as well… any device that uses micro usb or mini USB will be forced to use USB C and support USB-PD.

And it was mandated for the same reason all electrical outlets are compatible with each other in EU, there’s more benefit if the market have a common denominator for charging than being fragmented.

Nothing stops the USB-If consortium ( that Apple is a member of) to develop a lightning like port.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

What do you think the law being fact means? It’s not up to Apple or lawyers to interpret the text of the law according to its contextual guidelines , that’s the sole discretion of the court of justice.

And the law isn’t going anywhere unless the commission repeals it

There’s numerous cases where the ECJ completely disregard the literal text of the law,
additional use of comparative, systematic or teleological interpretation (this is also most favored by the ECJ)

To hear you tell it, the EU is right up there with The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.

What could possibly go wrong! You guys win.

 

[steve09090]

You are implying Spotify successfully lobbied half the commission, half the parliament consistent of 27 different governments as well as half the heads of states…to make favorable laws towards a Swedish music streaming company, and without Spotify lobbying it wouldn’t have happened….

Where did I imply that? You just made that up. Please don’t say I said or implied something when I didn’t.

and at least my “opinion” are supported by evidence I linked to.

There was no link in your post.

Do you even know the purpose of EU or its foundational charters that dictate how the institutions operate? EU don’t have jurisdiction outside its territory, if apple doesn’t like the rule of law in EU, then they are free to to business elsewhere.

You just don’t like that EU don’t use the same criteria for antitrust. Apple is just another company.

Pretty sure you don’t know me.

However, all I said was the it wasn’t an even playing field. I also said that the EU worked for its own region and rightly so. That is exactly the pupose of it. You’re the one who said they work for businesses and don’t work to make life better for consumers, whilst my point was that was exactly the reason they introduced the USB C cable. So they work for both, which is different to your claim. Or at least, they love the power and just do both.

Apple is definitely just another company. One which has to work within the bias created by the EU. How many times do I have to say it? In this situation they are trying to break the walls of the garden to create their own.

Ignoring every other device? It’s applied to every other device as well… any device that uses micro usb or mini USB will be forced to use USB C and support USB-PD.

And it was mandated for the same reason all electrical outlets are compatible with each other in EU, there’s more benefit if the market have a common denominator for charging than being fragmented.

Nothing stops the USB-If consortium ( that Apple is a member of) to develop a lightning like port.

Okay, my point was exaggerated, and I understand it’s mobile devices with an external cable only. Not just every other device with micro or mini usb. I accept your apology on your exaggeration. It also doesn’t include devices with wireless charging only (yet), but may after 2026. There is a list available. Why call me out for an exaggeration and do the same thing yourself?

Again instead of arguing about semantics, my point was that the EU are trying to control way more than they should be. I get they should be creating a strengthened market within the 27 countries (and in some cases the 3 EEA states), but not trying to dictate market forces coming into the EU. Sure, they can have Custom duties, taxes and excises, but please don’t tell a company how to make their products. Thats what consumers will decide.

If a walled garden is Apples approach, and the EU Commission intend on breaking it, then it’s hypocritical to create the same environment themselves.

If Google wants to cower to Spotify and only charge them 4% to stay in the store, then that’s up to them. Let market forces dictate these things. Apple shouldn’t be forced to do the same. But clearly they have been. The EU isn’t about fair markets, it’s about bias and in my opinion, corruption. And you continually ask for evidence and unlike you I am providing a link to show the EU has corruption such as Qatargate full of lobbyists, bribes and blackmail. To suggest lobbyists not to be involved is naive.

 

[wbeasley]

give up your smart phone completely for a month or 2 and by that I mean you are limited to only a dumb phone with th 12 keypad and tell me how that goes.

It is not the same thing it was in 2010. It is a very different world were you can assume for the most part everyone has a smart phone. That was not the case in when the app store went live. Back then not having a smart phone was the norm. Now an adult no smart phone is different. The world has change a lot in in the last 10-15 years.
20 years ago it was not expect everyone had a cell phone. By 2010 you just assumed everyone has a cell phone. Now we assume everyone has a smart phone.
You still can not assume everyone as a game concol and more important can not guess which one. I can guess your phone OS in 2 guess and be right 99% of the time. Different world.

Rules change as that choice is not the same as it used to be. Now you more or less need a smart phone in today's world. Hell we are seeing kids younger and younger getting smart phones. I dont agree with it but I can fully expect by the time my daughter in jr she most likely will have a smart phone.

well you might be able to guess a Smart Phone is one of two choices... so buy the Android one if you want all the openness. You know what each OS does before you buy the phone. Choose based on YOUR needs not YOUR DEMANDS for them to change it.

You have the choice. Already.

I still have older friends who dont have a phone or a smart phone. they live quite happily.
you might think you would die without one but the truth is you would survive.

 

[bollman]

Clearly, this discussion is going nowhere.
EU and its politics works quite differently from US government and politics.
As shown in this discussion, too many assume otherwise.

 

[wbeasley]

Simply having a choice does not negate antitrust laws nor mean dominant or duopoly players should be allowed to engage in antircompetitive behavior. Because iOS and Android have significant power, control, influence, etc. in the mobile OS market they face additional antitrust scrutiny.

if people were so unhappy with the "choice" they have, someone by now would have filled that hole.
The fact the other alternatives died off says they didnt meet the needs of users.

if Microsoft and it's business clout cant deliver a viabble third option it says people are happy with two choices. The masses aren't clamouring for a third

 

[Sophisticatednut]

To hear you tell it, the EU is right up there with The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.

What could possibly go wrong! You guys win.

Not really, just a difference in legal function. A judge can’t make or break secondary laws unless they break primary law.

Where did I imply that? You just made that up. Please don’t say I said or implied something when I didn’t. It’s dishonest and does you no service. Frankly it’s embarrassing.

That’s the impression you gave, because that’s what would be needed for Spotify to lobby so hard as described by you.

There was no link in your post.

Pretty sure you don’t know me.

However, all I said was the it wasn’t an even playing field. I also said that the EU worked for its own region and rightly so. That is exactly the pupose of it. You’re the one who said they work for businesses and don’t work to make life better for consumers, whilst my point was that was exactly the reason they introduced the USB C cable. So they work for both, which is different to your claim. Or at least, they love the power and just do both.

Look at the previous comment in response to Timo_Existencia.

And no I have never stated EU works for businesses, they work for the principal of competition of the market as declared in the founding treaties of EU. All parties are of relevance,and consumers are just one of many relevant parties.

And yes you are CLAIMING the playing field is slanted against non European countries. EU have 27 different countries

Apple is definitely just another company. One which has to work within the bias created by the EU. How many times do I have to say it? In this situation they are trying to break the walls of the garden to create their own.

Bias of? And what garden is EU trying to make? Apples garden is anti competitive to the market place

Okay, my point was exaggerated, and I understand it’s mobile devices with an external cable only. Not just every other device with micro or mini usb. I accept your apology on your exaggeration. It also doesn’t include devices with wireless charging only (yet), but may after 2026. There is a list available. Why call me out for an exaggeration and do the same thing yourself?

Again instead of arguing about semantics, my point was that the EU are trying to control way more than they should be. I get they should be creating a strengthened market within the 27 countries (and in some cases the 3 EEA states), but not trying to dictate market forces coming into the EU. Sure, they can have Custom duties, taxes and excises, but please don’t tell a company how to make their products. Thats what consumers will decide.

I’m sorry but that’s precisely within the prerogative of EU to regulate the market as stipulated in its founding treaty. Market forces coming from outside EU have to follow the exisame rules as market forces within EU.

Exactly how the US government dictates how EU companies make their products to be allowed to be sold in the US market, the EU have the same duties. It’s not consumers who decide anything, but customers( b2b and b2c) and the government

If a walled garden is Apples approach, and the EU Commission intend on breaking it, then it’s hypocritical to create the same environment themselves.

If Google wants to cower to Spotify and only charge them 4% to stay in the store, then that’s up to them. Let market forces dictate these things. Apple shouldn’t be forced to do the same. But clearly they have been. The EU isn’t about fair markets, it’s about bias and in my opinion, corruption. And you continually ask for evidence and unlike you I am providing a link to show the EU has corruption such as Qatargate full of lobbyists, bribes and blackmail. To suggest lobbyists not to be involved is naive.

Qatargate is interesting, but MEPs can’t make laws. I didn’t claim EU don’t have lobbyists, you’re the one who said Spotify did something.

eu isn’t Laissez-faire nor does it care for common law and American principles for the market.
EU is very much Ordoliberal in their principles

Ordoliberal theory holds that the state must create a proper legal environment for the economy and maintain a healthy level of competition through measures that adhere to market principles. This is the foundation of its legitimacy. The concern is that, if the state does not take active measures to foster competition, firms with strong market power will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine good government, since strong economic power can be transformed into political power.

 

[wbeasley]

Clearly, this discussion is going nowhere.
EU and its politics works quite differently from US government and politics.
As shown in this discussion, too many assume otherwise.

If Apple put the middle finger up and pulled out of Europe, how do you think EU citizens would react?

Would they buy things outside? Would they revolt against the EU or would they happily take the limited options given to them? It would be interesting to see.

Can Apple let the phone user select a different country (store) in Settings and choose to remain outside the EU changes to iOS?

 

[wbeasley]

As an aside, We actually have a major appliance store in Australia called "The Good Guys". The first thing they do when you are enquiring on a purchase is check the internet on their phone for cheaper prices elsewhere and immediately match or better it.

A much better environment than interpreting legislation to buddy up to Spotify.

I live in Oz too.
I've shopped at The Good Guys - I usually search for a better price before walking into a store.

But I've never seen them pull up a search at our local stores when you buy and give you a cheaper price.

Anyway, even doing that is different from putting a sticker on the shelf saying you can buy this cheaper elsewhere...

 

[steve09090]

I live in Oz too.
I've shopped at The Good Guys - I usually search for a better price before walking into a store.

But I've never seen them pull up a search at our local stores when you buy and give you a cheaper price.

Anyway, even doing that is different from putting a sticker on the shelf saying you can buy this cheaper elsewhere...

Totally agree. And yeah it’s the first thing they do. At least here in Launnie.

 

[AppliedMicro]

you still have a choice. no one is forcing you to buy either phone OS or a phone at all.
you want a phone. you dont need a phone.

I need a phone.

everyone has a phone BY CHOICE.

About as much as people have a car „by choice“.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Do you really think Spotify didn't lobby individuals in the EU Commission to get the result they wanted for this EU company against the most valuable company in the world?

Do you really think Apple, one of the largest companies in the world did not lobby the EU commission?

The EU Commission are hypocrites and are doing it solely based on EU companies

No - that‘s evidently wrong, since the DMA also covers European conpanies.
It also benefits U.S. companies like Match.com, Netflix, Microsoft.

The EU are protecting EU companies against Google and Apple, thus are not providing an open market. Which is my point all along

Google and especially Apple are the gatekeepers that don‘t provide open markets.

And the EU clearly targeted these gatekeepers that control the markets for some digital products/services. That isn’t economic protectionism - it just happens to be that they‘re (mostly) American companies. Why? There are far more - and more convincing reasons - than your lobbying accusation.

They are making their own walled garden within the EU

Couldn’t be further from the truth, given how companies in the EU (that may be from outside of it) now have more choice and face less restrictions in distributing products services within the EU.

Are you telling me there is no lobbying going on for these decisions and that Spotify have not been protected by the EU in favour over Apple/Google because they are not an EU Company? Do you have absolutely no clue on how politics is played in the EU?

Do you really believe Apple did not lobby the EU as much as Spotify did?

 

[AppliedMicro]

The EU, by the nature of their purpose, are protecting companies within the EU, and have by definition, created a walled garden of (allegedly) open business model as long as they are doing so within the EU

If a walled garden is Apples approach, and the EU Commission intend on breaking it, then it’s hypocritical to create the same environment themselves.

The characterisation of it as a „walled garden“ is absurd.

The concept of operating systems (for, yes, general-purpose computing devices, not game consoles) that allow free installation of third-party apps without OS developers charging commissions on everything or restricting third-party developers from what they can communicate in their apps has been tried and tested for decades. And deemed beneficial for innovation and welfare in society.

That’s the antithesis of a walled garden - and the EU is trying to reinstate the model for mobile operating systems.

 

[Hails09]

It's about as silly as yours is naive. Do you really think Spotify didn't lobby individuals in the EU Commission to get the result they wanted for this EU company against the most valuable company in the world? Not a single complaint from Spotify about Google because Spotify made a sweetheart deal with them. This is a direct attack against Apple from Spotify, because Apple refused to give them special treatment. You can't see that?

The EU Commission are hypocrites and are doing it solely based on EU companies, they are not interested in anyone else and especially not customers. This is business driven and has very little (or no) impact on customers.


Whilst I did not say it was just physical stores (I just included them), you have just used a physical store example, which you explicitly said is not very useful to support your view. Is it useful or not? Again, you are missing the point.

However, your link, whilst referring to business practices relating to Google Search Engine only, does not relate to the EU view on protecting their EU companies based on payments in the App Store. HOWEVER, the article does provide a link to the Reuters story on just that. This story relates to Questionnaires sent to EU companies to help determine whether Googles payment systems have negatively impacted on their business.

The EU are protecting EU companies against Google and Apple, thus are not providing an open market. Which is my point all along. They are making their own walled garden within the EU, something they are apparently against when it done by Apple, or in this example, Google.

Hypocrites.

If the EU as you say are protecting European companies then how do you explain epic about to get their own store on iOS in European Union.
This whole thing is about Apple Music that’s all Spotify have already said they had no issue until Apple launched Apple Music & then it all changed

 

[wbeasley]

If the EU as you say are protecting European companies then how do you explain epic about to get their own store on iOS in European Union.
This whole thing is about Apple Music that’s all Spotify have already said they had no issue until Apple launched Apple Music & then it all changed

Spotify did have an issue. They didnt want to accept payment through the AppStore because they lost 30% for using it.

Apple Music existed as iTunes selling music just like a lot of other stores sold music. After convincing the music industry that selling digital files was better than piracy (like Napster). Eventually they even convinced them to take locks off files.

Spotify's issue is paying. They pay artists badly for playing songs.
Apple and Amazon use mostly the same music libraries for streaming because consumers stopped wanting to own music. Streaming wasn't Apple's first choice. But it was consumer behaviour.

Spotify didnt like that Apple Music was already installed by default. Spotify needed to be installed.
Music has no free tier or ad supported option. You might get a few months free with a hardware purchase but after that it's for a monthly fee. Apple also delivered higher quality music for the same price. Spotify talk about high res but have delivered nothing in two years. Apple pay artists more for Spatial Audio mixes.

Let's see how that Epic Store works out
The fee structure, the signing apps, the new payment options (and handing off refunds)... this may be the benchmark of "be careful what you wish for" money pit...

 

[Hails09]

Spotify did have an issue. They didnt want to accept payment through the AppStore because they lost 30% for using it.

Apple Music existed as iTunes selling music just like a lot of other stores sold music. After convincing the music industry that selling digital files was better than piracy (like Napster). Eventually they even convinced them to take locks off files.

Spotify's issue is paying. They pay artists badly for playing songs.
Apple and Amazon use mostly the same music libraries for streaming because consumers stopped wanting to own music. Streaming wasn't Apple's first choice. But it was consumer behaviour.

Spotify didnt like that Apple Music was already installed by default. Spotify needed to be installed.
Music has no free tier or ad supported option. You might get a few months free with a hardware purchase but after that it's for a monthly fee. Apple also delivered higher quality music for the same price. Spotify talk about high res but have delivered nothing in two years. Apple pay artists more for Spatial Audio mixes.

Let's see how that Epic Store works out
The fee structure, the signing apps, the new payment options (and handing off refunds)... this may be the benchmark of "be careful what you wish for" money pit...

When Apple started a streaming service that’s when the problem started.
Spotify already said they had no issues paying the charge just when Apple started its streaming service it’s all there

 

[wbeasley]

When Apple started a streaming service that’s when the problem started.
Spotify already said they had no issues paying the charge just when Apple started its streaming service it’s all there

Apple started a streaming service because that's what customers wanted.
Other apps were available to do the same.

Spotify stopped payments through the app so they obviously DID have an issue with paying.

Perhaps read this: https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/02/will-spotify-ever-turn-a-profit/

Discusses and compares Spotify growth and profitability (or lack of) to Netflix and how it has too many employees even after layoffs.

 

[Hails09]

Apple started a streaming service because that's what customers wanted.
Other apps were available to do the same.

Spotify stopped payments through the app so they obviously DID have an issue with paying.

Perhaps read this: https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/02/will-spotify-ever-turn-a-profit/

Discusses and compares Spotify growth and profitability (or lack of) to Netflix and how it has too many employees even after layoffs.

It’s really simple Spotify had in app purchases in their app from the start
Until Apple Music streaming launched now why is that?
This is all to do with Apple Music price point & how they deliberately under cut Spotify’s price.

 

[wbeasley]

It’s really simple Spotify had in app purchases in their app from the start
Until Apple Music streaming launched now why is that?
This is all to do with Apple Music price point & how they deliberately under cut Spotify’s price.

ah but the EU is all about competition and the consumer... seems Apple is offering more (to win market share) than Spotify.
Suddenly its not fair to compete on how deep your pockets are and what you are willing to do for customers?

We have phone companies who offer incentives like 6 months Netflix for free if you buy a phone plan through them.
Would this be good for consumers or anticompetitive?

 

[wbeasley]

It’s really simple Spotify had in app purchases in their app from the start
Until Apple Music streaming launched now why is that?
This is all to do with Apple Music price point & how they deliberately under cut Spotify’s price.

Apple Music started 30 June 2015: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=when+did+apple+start+streaming+music

Spotify stopped taking App payments 2016: https://www.makeuseof.com/spotify-stopped-apple-app-store-payments-what-to-know/

"Spotify and Apple have been feuding for years due to Apple's unjust commission on in-app purchases and subscriptions. In 2016, Spotify stopped allowing new accounts to pay through Apple's billing system to avoid the excessive fees. However, existing subscribers who already used Apple's App Store to pay were unaffected by this change...."

So it not about Apple having a streaming service (which existed for at least six months in parallel) but the 30% fee being charged.

The fact that Amazon cut them a deal (4%?) and also had a competing streaming service shows they dont care about the music just the fees

And if you look at Apple fees, subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year...